MORAL LEADERSHIP AMONG HEADS OF DEPARTMENTS AT SELECTED PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS IN KLANG VALLEY | Binti Abu Bakar | Educational Administration Review 7463 14849 1 PB
MORAL LEADERSHIP AMONG HEADS OF
DEPARTMENTS AT SELECTED PRIVATE
INSTITUTIONS IN KLANG VALLEY
Nurul Qistina Binti Abu Bakar
Department of Educational Management,
Planning and Policy Faculty of Education, University
Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, MALAYSIA
Abstract— This research is to study the moral leadership
among heads of department at selected private institution in
Klang Valley. The first objectives of this study are to determine
the level of effectiveness of moral leadership; the second objective
is to identify the domain attribute of moral leadership among
heads of department at selected pri vate institutions in Klang
Valley. To answer the research objectives, questionnaires were
distributed to 260 academic and administrative staff at two
selected pri vate institutions in Klang Valley. The data were
analyzed using the S tatistical Package for the Social S cience
(S PSS) version 21. The descriptive statistical methods, such as
percentage, mean and standard deviation, were used to identify
the effectiveness and to find the dominant attributes of moral
leadership among heads of department. The findings showed that
the effectiveness and the dominant attribute of moral leadership
among heads of department are high level for trustworthiness
and communication dominants with the mean for both
dominants are more than 3.50, while for criticism and dissent,
fairness, employee’s development, empowerment and employee’s
job performance in average level when the mean is below than
3.00. This research implication indicates that, it is importance for
heads of department to practice and implemented moral
leadership in their leadership styles to achieve the goals of the
institutions.
Keywords— Moral Leadership, Head of Department, Private
Institutions
I. INT RODUCT ION
Leadership is a general term that is difficult to describe and
define. However, most experts in the leadership field believe
that leadership is an important aspect for institutional
excellence. Leadership can be seen in a person who
encourages, persuades and influences people to work diligently
to achieve a common vision and mission. According to [1],
many studies have discussed the differences between the roles
of “manager” and “leader” and there is a lot of literature on the
differences between managers and leaders in leadership
management. In this study, we will focus on leaders for
institutions. Effective leaders in institutions are crucial in
leading emp loyees. [2] stated that the role of leaders in
institutions includes that of being motivators, trainers, teachers,
counselors and in particular situations, as parents to employees
in guiding them to achieve the goals of the institution. The
effectiveness of that role depends on the leadership style
adopted by the leader.
EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION REVIEW VOL. I NO. 1 JUNE 2017
Muhammad Faizal Bin A. Ghani
Department of Educational Management
Planning and Policy Faculty of Education, University
Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, MALAYSIA
[email protected]
According to [3], while leadership is an essential topic that
needs to be discussed, at times, it appears to be a controversial
topic in institutional research studies. [4] added that the
common argument in leadership studies revolves around the
definition of the main characteristics or factors that produces
leadership. [5] emphasized that “an acceptable definition of
leadership needs to be sound both in theory and in practice,
able to withstand changing times and circumstances, and be
comprehensive and integrative rather than atomistic and
narrow focus”. [6] stated that leadership is commonly known
as the process of an individual creating influence on any
individual towards working together in achieving co mmon
goals. This is supported by [7] who described leadership as
“the process of influencing others to understand and agree
about what needs to be done and how it can be done
effectively, and the process of facilitating individual and
collective efforts to accomplish shared objectives”.
Moral leadership refers to a leadership style that involves
the process of understanding employees’ feeling and needs.
Leadership refers to those who have the exact characteristics
that can lead a group of people. Leaders should reflect morality
in their leadership styles. This is because a leader is a person
who has the power to control, give instructions and influence
his followers. Most of the time, followers’ attitudes are a
reflection of their leader’s attitude. This is supported by [8];
who highlighted that most institutions implement the ethical
leadership concept in their institutional structures. Leaders who
practice moral leadership not only have to shoulder
responsibilit ies by giving instructions but they must also be
able to meet needs, give aspirations and impart values to their
employees. Furthermore, most people assume leadership only
applies to top management. However, leadership is applicable
to everyone irrespective of qualification, t itle, background or
position. Besides that, one of the hardest challenges a leader
must face is being able to prove that he can lead followers and
give instructions in the right track.
[9] concurred that leadership is about guiding and imparting
knowledge to followers and towards this end, a leader must
have the strong ability to influence and gain the trust of their
followers. On ly by being able to gain followers’ trust, can
specific targeted goals can be accomplished.
19
II. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
A. Research Design
The study was conducted using descriptive research to
analyze Moral Leadership among Heads of Depart ment at
Selected Private Institutions in Klang Valley. [10],[11] and
[12] pointed out that descriptive studies will produce results
that are more accurate and clear because these studies are
usually done in detail. This research study was conducted using
social survey research and the method used was quantitative
research. Quantitative method emphasizes on structured and
predetermined ways of collecting data.[13] Th is type of
research describes aspects in numbers and measures instead of
words as it focuses more on statistical summary and analysis.
Moreover, social survey research also helps us to find out more
about employees’ opinions on their leaders’ style of leaderships
in workplaces.
In addition, this method was used because the researcher
wanted to explore if there are any significant relationship
between the effectiveness of moral leadership and employee’s
performance and to identify whether there are any significant
differences between gender and moral leadership among heads
at selected private higher institutions in Klang Valley. A
quantitative method is suitable for this study because this study
involves many respondents. Through quantitative methods, the
information obtained could help to explain some aspects that
are required as the number of respondents is large and their
view and feedback are suitable in this research study.
The data was collected through questionnaires that have
been created and administered by the researcher. According to
[14], questionnaire is the most effective way of obtaining
information fro m respondents. Each question outlined in the
questionnaire was created to get feedback related to the
objectives of the study. The questionnaires were distributed at
two selected private institutions in Klang Valley. Nominal
scale was also used in this research, as it is the most suitable
level of measurement especially in answering questions.
B. Population and Sampling
Population in the context of this study is defined as
employees in institutions, a community and as a group of
people that has been chosen by the researcher to conduct a
research study on them. For this research study, the researcher
selected two private institutions to distribute the questionnaires.
The two private institutions are Taylor’s University, and
Sunway University. At both universities, the respondents were
selected randomly without biases and consisted of officers,
executives, senior executives, assistant managers and academic
staff. Respondents included employees who have been working
less than five years, five years and above, ten years and above,
fifteen years and above and twenty years and above. A total of
300 academic and admin istrative employees from both
universities were targeted as respondents for this study.
According to [15], the appropriate sample size is 269
respondents.
regarding the essential characteristics of the study. The
selection of sampling units in the form of purposive sampling
is subjective because the researcher relies on experience and
judgment. Purposive sampling is the common form of
sampling used by researchers in social sciences research
studies. In purposive sampling, the researcher who understands
the nature of the study population can help determine in
advance the distribution and basis for selection of sample.
C. Instrumentation
The study used questionnaire as the instrument.
Questionnaires from [17] and [18] were co mbined and used in
this study to create the questionnaire for moral leadership.
Questionnaires were used for this study because questionnaires
can measure the level of effectiveness of moral leadership
among heads of department in six dimensions, which are
trustworthiness, communication, c riticism and dissent, fairness,
employee development and empowerment. The questionnaire
can also be used to determine if there any significant
relationships between the effectiveness of moral leadership and
employee’s job performance. The questionnaires were
distributed to two different private institutions in Klang Valley.
III. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
A. Effectiveness of Moral Leadership
In this section, the researcher discussed on the seven
dimensions that contribute to the moral leadership based on the
trustworthiness, communication, criticism and dissent, fairness,
employee’s development, empowerment and employees job
performance among heads of department at private higher
institutions. The first research objectives are to determine the
level of the effectiveness of moral leadership among heads of
department at selected higher institutions in Klang Valley. The
second research objectives are to identify dominant attribute of
moral leadership among heads of department at selected private
institutions based on ranking in Klang Valley. In this section,
the researcher has analyzed this study using the descriptive
statistic which consists of mean, standard deviation, frequency
and percentage which involved 260 respondens.
B. Dominant Attribute of Moral Leadership
In second research objective, is to identify the dominant
attribute of moral leadership among heads of department at
selected private institutions in Klang Valley. The do minant
attribute has been discussed as in the table below:
The sampling technique used in this research study
was purposive sampling. According to [16], purposive
sampling refers to the random selection of sampling units in the
segment of a population that contains ample information
EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION REVIEW VOL. I NO. 1 JUNE 2017
20
Dominant Attributes of Moral Leadership Among Heads
of Department at Private Institutions in Klang Valley.
Total
Dominant
Total
Mean
Std.
No
Attribute
Mean
Interpretation
Deviation
1
Trustworthiness 3.4903 1.0293
High
2
Communication 3.5025 1.0597
High
Criticis m and
3
2.8663 0.8449
Average
Dissent
4
Fairness
2.6493 0.8237
Average
Emp loyees
5
2.8743 0.8206
Average
Development
6
Empowerment
2.8830 0.8776
Average
Emp loyee’s Job
7
2.9641 0.8944
Average
Performance
Table above shows the level of dominant attribute of moral
leadership among heads of department at selected private
institutions in Klang Valley. The h ighest dominant attribute is
communication dimension where the total mean score is
3.5025 and the total standard deviation score is 1.0293. The
level of mean interpretation is “High”. Next the second highest
dominant attribute is trustworthiness with the total mean score
is 3.4903 and the standard deviation is 1.0597. The level of
interpretation is “High”. The third highest is employee’s job
performance with the total mean is 2.9641 and standard
deviation is 0.8994. The level of interpretation is “Average”.
This follow by empowerment dimension with the total
mean score is 2.8830 and standard deviation is 0.8776. The
level of interpretation is “Average”. The fifth dimensions are
employee’s development with the total mean is 2.8743 and
standard deviation is 0.8206. The level of interpretation is
“Average”. The sixth dimensions are criticism and dissent with
the total mean score is 2.8663 and the standard deviation is
0.8449. The level interpretation is “Average”. The last is
fairness dimension with the total mean score is 2.6493 and
standard deviation is 0.8237. The level of interpretation is
“Average”
This study was carried out to examine moral leadership
among heads of department in private institutions in Klang
Valley. Two private universities were selected for this research
and seven dimensions were used to measure the level of
effectiveness of moral leadership (first research question). In
addition to measuring level of moral leadership, this study also
aimed to identify the dominant attribute of Moral Leadership
(second research question). For the third research question, the
researcher looked at the significant differences between gender
and moral leadership among heads of department, while for the
fourth research question, the significant relationship between
the effectiveness of moral leadership and employee’s
performance at selected private higher institutions in Klang
valley were examined. For the last research question, the
researcher examined significant differences between highest
level of education and employee’s job performance.
The researcher used Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences (SPSS) to derive the mean, standard deviation,
frequency and percentage (descriptive statistics). Each section
EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION REVIEW VOL. I NO. 1 JUNE 2017
was analyzed and the results measured. For the first section,
section B, which looked at the trustworthiness dimension, six
questions was utilized. The average mean for section B is
3.4903. The results show that most of the employees agreed
that the HOD can be relied on to honor their co mmit ments.
This shows that, in both institutions, the employees trust their
HOD to deliver their work co mmit ments success fully. In the
second section, section C which looked at communication,
respondents answered six questions. The average mean for
section C is 3.5025. The highest mean score was for when
employees agreed that the HOD is approachable and friendly.
This shows that employees can easily communicate with the
HOD on any arising problems. HODs who implement open
door policy can make employees feel they are important and
able to share any work-related problems. Many problems can
be resolved when communication between HOD and
employees is strong. The next section, section D looked at
criticism and dissent. In this section, four questions were asked.
The average mean for section D is 2.8663 and the average
standard deviation, 0.8449. The highest mean score for this
section was for when employees agreed that the HOD listens to
ideas and suggestions for improving the department. Accepting
ideas and suggestions from employees is very important as this
may indirectly help improve a department or the institution.
Brainstorming ideas and suggestions on different aspects of
tasks can help a department or institution reach its mission and
vision.
The next section is section E which looked at the fairness
dimension. In this section, six questions were forwarded to
respondents. The average mean for section E is 2.6493 and the
average standard deviation is 0.8236. In this section, many
respondents agreed that the HOD always holds employees
accountable for problems that the employees have no control
over. This shows that there is no fairness for employees who
cannot be held accountable for problems outside their
position’s jurisdiction. The HOD can only hold employees
accountable to matters that fall under the employee’s job
description. In addition, the HOD should guide employees in
facing and handling challenging task as the HOD may be more
experienced or has more expert ise. The next is section F wh ich
looked at employee development. In this section, respondents
answered six questions and the result shows that employees
agreed that the HOD should encourage employees to attend
trainings related to their career development. Employee
development is very important for the employees as well as the
institution. HODs should always encourage and give
opportunities to emp loyees to develop themselves by
undergoing trainings related to their expert ise. When employee
development is supported, employees will feel motivated and
they will not only be inspired to increase their knowledge but
also personal development. The average mean for section F is
2.8743. This is followed by section G which examined
empowerment. In this section, respondents answered five
questions. The average mean for section G is 2.8831. In this
section, respondents agreed that the HOD should provide
opportunities for employees to handle more challenging
responsibilit ies that are related to their expertise. By giving
employees a chance to handle challenging tasks related to their
expert ise, this will help emp loyees learn new things and be
more confident in facing new challenges and in dealing with
21
higher position people. The last section is section H which
looked at employee’s job performance. In this section, six
questions were asked to respondents. The average mean for
section H is 2.9641. In this section, the highest mean was
scored for my colleagues are very helpful and supportive in
performing indiv idual or grouping tasks. Respondents agreed
that their colleagues are very supportive to each other in
delivering tasks either group-based or individual tasks. Having
supportive colleagues will help employees feel motivated and
happy in their working environment. Having healthy
relationship with colleagues will also build a harmonious
workplace and strong teamwork.
IV. CONCLUSSION
The first objective of this study was to examine the level of
effectiveness of moral leadership among heads of department
at selected private institutions in Klang Valley while the second
objective of this study was to find the dominant attributes of
moral leadership among heads of department at selected private
higher institutions based on ranking in Klang Valley. Based on
past studies, researchers identified the dominant attributes of
moral leadership as trustworthiness, communication, criticism
and dissent, fairness, employee development, empowerment
and employee’s job performance. [19] concurred that moral
leadership requires any leader to display the following: trust,
integrity, transparency, accountable, responsible and most
importantly, innate honesty and kindness that make employees
look up to them. This present study found that the level of
effectiveness of moral leadership among heads of department
at both private institutions as high. Most of respondents agreed
that their head of department practiced moral leadership in
leading the department.
The mean score of trustworthiness is high which implies
that employees agreed that the head of department can be
trusted in handling the department and in dealing with
employees. They also responded that the head of department
can keep their promises and words in work –related matters.
The heads of department also trust their emp loyee’s credibility
in handling the tasks given and have faith in their subordinates
rather than those outside of their department. The result on
trustworthiness is similar with past research [20],[21]. whereby
trust, job satisfaction, team and organizational co mmit ment and
leader effectiveness are related to moral leadership. They also
found that leaders, who always showed consistent behavior
towards employees, can guide moral behavior in employees
and able to clarify the job roles were always perceived as more
effective than those who did not. This clearly shows that moral
leadership is strongly related to trust.
For commun ication, the mean score is high, which indicates
that the head of department practice an open communication
with their employees by being friendly and approachable to
employees. In addition, the head of the department also listened
to the frustration of their subordinates and try their best to help
them with the problems. Besides that, the heads of department
also encourage their employees to build an effective and
efficient communication culture among each other to build a
harmonious workplace. According to [22] and [23], leaders
who practice openness in communication, build enormous
EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION REVIEW VOL. I NO. 1 JUNE 2017
influence among employees and practice good culture is good
moral leadership built on social communication.
Motivating employees to voice out their ideas or
suggestions in formal meetings is one way to build effective
communication. This correlates with [24] and [25] who stated
that effective communication practiced by heads of department
can be used to give an order, express feelings, as a tool to
motivate and to deliver information. Giving clear instructions
and communicating clearly to emp loyees will help them
understand what is required of them and the department goals
that they need to accomplish. [26] stated that success and
improvement of an institution depends on the effectiveness of
heads of department effectiveness in handling any arising
challenges or circu mstances. [27] added that successful
institutions depend on the efficiency of co mmunication. Fro m
there, employees would be able to measure how good a leader
is.
The third dimension that was examined in this study is
criticism and dissent. In this section, the ability of heads of
department to accept criticism and dissent from their
employees was examined. The study looked at things such as
would heads of department be willing to listen to ideas and
suggestions given by employees, if heads of department are
open-minded by accepting dissent from employees, if heads of
department are willing to accept constructive criticism fro m
employees and if they are willing to consider a decision on the
basis recommendation comes from their employees. The result
of this study shows that most of the respondents partially
agreed on this dimension. This shows that some of the heads of
department accepted criticis m and dissent positively fro m
employees for department improvement. Additionally, [28]
also admitted that a leader who practices moral leadership will
mostly respond to criticism and dissent positively. They can
accept criticism and dissent fro m employees for imp rovement
purposes and they will try their best to avoid any negative
criticism and dissent.
Next, this study also looked at the fairness dimension. In
the fairness dimension, the researcher focused on how heads of
department treat their employees. The questions asked in this
study includes if heads of department practice favoritism
among employees especially when it comes to staff evaluation
performance, if heads of department held employees
accountable for problems over which they have no control and
if heads of department investigated instead of blindly blaming
when something goes wrong. Besides that, do heads of
department use their employees for their own benefit such as
pursuit of their o wn. The results reveal that respondents
claimed that some heads of department were fair in their
leadership style while some were not. [29] stated that good
moral leaders will always apply fairness in their relationship
with employees because, for a moral leader, being fair to all
employees is very crucial.
For the employee’s development dimension, the researcher
wanted to know if the heads of department pay heed to their
employees’ potential and credibility for career development
and if heads of department feel employee growth is important.
Do the heads of department give opportunities to employees to
show their ability to improve and develop themselves by
22
encouraging them to undergo training that is related to their
career development. Most importantly, do heads of department
reward and give recognition to deserving employees. The
results show that most employees partially agreed that heads of
department do support employee development.
According to [30], by rewarding employees, they will feel
positively happy and this helps to increase good behavior in
employees. This is supported by [31], [32] and [33] who stated
that when heads of department focus rewarding and developing
their employees, this will help to increase emp loyee motivation
who would then be very willing to deliver good service.
Emp loyee development is very important in any institution
as by rewarding and developing employees, they will feel
motivated and feel positive in doing their job. Besides that,
they will also feel more confident in delivering their tasks and
feel mo re appreciated. [34] h ighlighted that development is
important for employees. One way of developing employees is
by providing training to them as this will indirectly help
institutions grow as well.
Empowerment is another dimension that was discussed in
this study. The researcher intended to find out if heads of
department empower their emp loyees in crit ical decisions, give
opportunity to
employees
to
handle
challenging
responsibilit ies, give opportunity to them to do their o wn
planning, organizing and executing projects without any
interference and trusting them in decision making. According
to [35] and [36] one of the dimensions in leadership is
empowerment. Empowerment is very crucial for emp loyees in
their work engagement. When leaders empower emp loyees,
there will be some changes in the employees such as increased
self-efficiency and self-confidence in delivering the tasks
given. The study results show that the employees partially
agreed which indicated that that most heads of department
rarely empower their employees especially in decision-making.
[38] stated that one way of making emp loyees feel motivated in
doing their tasks, is by empowering them through actions such
as encouraging employees to participative in decision making,
giving them opportunities to lead meetings, sharing
information with them, and coaching them. [38] added that
increased level of empowerment among the employees is a key
factor in developing an institution.
The last dimension that was examined in this study was
employee’s job performance. In this study, the researcher
attempted to find out if heads of departments are very
supportive and if the employees are happy working with their
current head of department. Have the employees been given
sufficient opportunities to perform in their job and career by
getting full support from HODs? The results show that most
respondents chose to partially agree and this shows that most
employees are not really motivated in their job and this can
contribute to their poor job performance. According to [39], by
empowering employees, this will help contribute to the success
of institutions as this increases job performance. [40] added
that employee performance is reflected in improved
production, open-mindedness in using the modern technology
and highly motivated workers will appreciate being trusted by
their heads of department in decision-making.
EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION REVIEW VOL. I NO. 1 JUNE 2017
REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
Alvesson, M. and Sveningsson, S. (2003). The great disappearing act:
difficulties in doing ‘leadership’. Leadership Quarterly, 14, pp. 359–381.
Nucci, L. P. (2015). Education in the moral domain. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Judge, T . & Piccolo, R. (2004).Transformational and Transactional
Leadership: A Meta-Analytic Test of Their Relative Validity, Journal of
Applied Psychology, 5, 755-768.
Allio R. J., (2012). "Leaders and leadership – many theories, but
what advice is reliable?". Strategy & Leadership, Vol. 41 Issue:
1, pp.4-14, doi: 10.1108/10878571311290016.
Avery, G.C. (2004). Understanding Leadership: Paradigms and Cases.
London: Sage.
Northouse, G. (2007). Leadership theory and practice. (3rd ed.).
T housand Oak, London, New Delhi: Sage Publications, Inc.
Yukl, G. A. (2002). Leadership in organizations (5th ed.). Delhi:
Pearson Education.
Suraiya, I. (2011). Model Kepemimpinan Etika Berlandas Sirah Nabi
Muhammad Saw
Jurnal Hadhari, 3(2), 23 – 44.
Noriati A. Rashid et. al. (2010). Asas Kepimpinan dan Perkembangan
Profesional Guru. Selangor: Oxford Fajar.
Blaikie, N. (2000), Designing Social Research, 1st ed, Polity Press,
Cambridge.
Babbie, E. R. (2002). The basics of social research (2nd ed.). Belmont,
CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Ku Samsu, Ku Hasnita. (2007). Patriotisme di Kalangan Generasi Muda
Malaysia: Kajian Kes Ke Atas Mahasiswa Bukan Melayu di Institusi
Pengajian Tinggi. Universiti Malaya.
Ranjit Kumar (2014). Research Methodology (4th Ed.). London: SAGE
Pulication Ltd.
T uckman, Bruce W. (1999). Conducting educational research (5th ed.).
Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace & Company.
Sekaran, U. and Bougie, R. (2013). Research Methods for Business: A
Skill-Building Approach. 6th Edition, Wiley, New York.
Guarte, J. M. & Barrios, E.B. (2006). Estimation under purposive
sampling. Communications in Statistics – Simulation and Computation,
35(2), 277 – 284.
Kalshoven, K. (2010). Ethical leadership: through the eyes of
employees. Amsterdam Business School Research Institute (ABS-RI),
FMG: Psychology Research Institute
Northouse, G. (2015). Introduction to leadership: concept and practice.
(3rd ed.). Western Michigan University, Sage Publications, Inc.
Barrajon, P. L. C. (2013). Religion and leadership. Retrieved from
http://integralleadershipreview.com/8297-religions-and-leadership/
Brown, M. E., Trevin˜o, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical
leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development and
testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97(2),
117-134.
De Hoogh, A. H. B., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2008). Ethical and despotic
leadership, relationships with leader’s social responsibility, top
management team effectiveness and subordinates’ optimism: A multimethod study. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 297-311.
Goleman, D. (2000). LeadershipThat Gets Results. Harvard Business
Review, 78(2), 78-90.
Yukl, G.A. (1981). Leadership in Organizations. NJ : Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs.
Gibson, J.W., & R.M. Hodgetts. (1991). Organizational communication
– A managerial perspective. 2nd Edition. New York: HarperCollins
Publishers.
Robbins, S. (1993). Organisational behaviour: Concepts, controversies
and applications. 6th ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Thill J. V. & Bovee C.L.(2006). Excellence in business communication.
7th Edition. NJ, USA : Prentice Hall Press Upper Saddle River.
23
[28] Yukl, G.A. (2010). Leadership in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Prentice Hall.
[29] Berreth, D., & Berman, S. (2007). The moral dimensions of schools.
Educational Leadership, 54(8), 24-27.
[30] Cropanzano, R. & Mitchell, M.S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An
interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874-900.
[31] Rosen, C.C., Chang, C.-H., Johnson, R.E. & Levy, P.E. (2009).
Perceptions of the organizational context and psychological contract
breach: assessing competing perspectives. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 108(2), 202-17.
[32] Shore, L.M., Tetrick, L.E., Taylor, M.S., Coyle Shapiro, J.A.-M., Liden,
R.C., Parks, J.M., Morrison, E.W., Porter, L.FW., Robinson, S.L.,
Roehling, M.V., Rousseau, D.M., Shalk, R., Tsui, A.S.&Van Dyne, L.
(2004). The employee-organization relationship: A timely concept in a
period of transition. In Martocchio, J. (Ed.), Research in personnel and
human resources management (pp. 291-370). Oxford : Elsevier.
[33] Tekleab, A.G., Takeuchi, R. & Taylor, M.S. (2005). Extending the chain
of relationships among organizational justice, social exchange, and
employee reactions: The role of contract violations. Academy of
Management Journal, 48(1), 146-57.
[34] Beardwell, I., Holden, L. & Claydon, T. (2004). Human resource
management: A contemporary approach. Harlow: Prentice Hall.
EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION REVIEW VOL. I NO. 1 JUNE 2017
[35] Halbesleben, J. (2010). A meta-analysis of work engagement:
relationships with burnout, demands, resources and consequence. In
Bakker, A.B. & Leiter, M.P. (Eds), Work engagement: A handbook of
essential theory and research. New York : Psychology Press.
[36] May, D.R., Gilson, R.L. & Harter, L.M. (2004). The psychological
conditions of meaningfulness, safety and availability and the
engagement of the human spirit at work. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 77(1), 11-37.
[37] Pearce, C.L. & Sims, H.P. Jr.(2002). Vertical versus shared leadership as
predictors of the effectiveness of change management teams: an
examination of aversive, directive, transactional, transformational, and
empowering leader behaviors. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and
Practice, 6(2), 172-97.
[38] Mathieu, J.E., Gilson, L.L. & Ruddy, T .M. (2006). Empowerment and
team effectiveness: An empirical test of an integrated model. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 91(1), 97-108.
[39] Herbert, Donald, John, & Lee (2000). Personnel/Human resource
management, 4th ed. New Delhi :Universal Book Stall.
[40] Afshan, S., Sobia, I., Kamran, A. & Nasir, M. (2012). Impact of training
on employee performance: A study of telecommunication sector in
Pakistan. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in
Business, 4(6).
24
DEPARTMENTS AT SELECTED PRIVATE
INSTITUTIONS IN KLANG VALLEY
Nurul Qistina Binti Abu Bakar
Department of Educational Management,
Planning and Policy Faculty of Education, University
Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, MALAYSIA
Abstract— This research is to study the moral leadership
among heads of department at selected private institution in
Klang Valley. The first objectives of this study are to determine
the level of effectiveness of moral leadership; the second objective
is to identify the domain attribute of moral leadership among
heads of department at selected pri vate institutions in Klang
Valley. To answer the research objectives, questionnaires were
distributed to 260 academic and administrative staff at two
selected pri vate institutions in Klang Valley. The data were
analyzed using the S tatistical Package for the Social S cience
(S PSS) version 21. The descriptive statistical methods, such as
percentage, mean and standard deviation, were used to identify
the effectiveness and to find the dominant attributes of moral
leadership among heads of department. The findings showed that
the effectiveness and the dominant attribute of moral leadership
among heads of department are high level for trustworthiness
and communication dominants with the mean for both
dominants are more than 3.50, while for criticism and dissent,
fairness, employee’s development, empowerment and employee’s
job performance in average level when the mean is below than
3.00. This research implication indicates that, it is importance for
heads of department to practice and implemented moral
leadership in their leadership styles to achieve the goals of the
institutions.
Keywords— Moral Leadership, Head of Department, Private
Institutions
I. INT RODUCT ION
Leadership is a general term that is difficult to describe and
define. However, most experts in the leadership field believe
that leadership is an important aspect for institutional
excellence. Leadership can be seen in a person who
encourages, persuades and influences people to work diligently
to achieve a common vision and mission. According to [1],
many studies have discussed the differences between the roles
of “manager” and “leader” and there is a lot of literature on the
differences between managers and leaders in leadership
management. In this study, we will focus on leaders for
institutions. Effective leaders in institutions are crucial in
leading emp loyees. [2] stated that the role of leaders in
institutions includes that of being motivators, trainers, teachers,
counselors and in particular situations, as parents to employees
in guiding them to achieve the goals of the institution. The
effectiveness of that role depends on the leadership style
adopted by the leader.
EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION REVIEW VOL. I NO. 1 JUNE 2017
Muhammad Faizal Bin A. Ghani
Department of Educational Management
Planning and Policy Faculty of Education, University
Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, MALAYSIA
[email protected]
According to [3], while leadership is an essential topic that
needs to be discussed, at times, it appears to be a controversial
topic in institutional research studies. [4] added that the
common argument in leadership studies revolves around the
definition of the main characteristics or factors that produces
leadership. [5] emphasized that “an acceptable definition of
leadership needs to be sound both in theory and in practice,
able to withstand changing times and circumstances, and be
comprehensive and integrative rather than atomistic and
narrow focus”. [6] stated that leadership is commonly known
as the process of an individual creating influence on any
individual towards working together in achieving co mmon
goals. This is supported by [7] who described leadership as
“the process of influencing others to understand and agree
about what needs to be done and how it can be done
effectively, and the process of facilitating individual and
collective efforts to accomplish shared objectives”.
Moral leadership refers to a leadership style that involves
the process of understanding employees’ feeling and needs.
Leadership refers to those who have the exact characteristics
that can lead a group of people. Leaders should reflect morality
in their leadership styles. This is because a leader is a person
who has the power to control, give instructions and influence
his followers. Most of the time, followers’ attitudes are a
reflection of their leader’s attitude. This is supported by [8];
who highlighted that most institutions implement the ethical
leadership concept in their institutional structures. Leaders who
practice moral leadership not only have to shoulder
responsibilit ies by giving instructions but they must also be
able to meet needs, give aspirations and impart values to their
employees. Furthermore, most people assume leadership only
applies to top management. However, leadership is applicable
to everyone irrespective of qualification, t itle, background or
position. Besides that, one of the hardest challenges a leader
must face is being able to prove that he can lead followers and
give instructions in the right track.
[9] concurred that leadership is about guiding and imparting
knowledge to followers and towards this end, a leader must
have the strong ability to influence and gain the trust of their
followers. On ly by being able to gain followers’ trust, can
specific targeted goals can be accomplished.
19
II. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
A. Research Design
The study was conducted using descriptive research to
analyze Moral Leadership among Heads of Depart ment at
Selected Private Institutions in Klang Valley. [10],[11] and
[12] pointed out that descriptive studies will produce results
that are more accurate and clear because these studies are
usually done in detail. This research study was conducted using
social survey research and the method used was quantitative
research. Quantitative method emphasizes on structured and
predetermined ways of collecting data.[13] Th is type of
research describes aspects in numbers and measures instead of
words as it focuses more on statistical summary and analysis.
Moreover, social survey research also helps us to find out more
about employees’ opinions on their leaders’ style of leaderships
in workplaces.
In addition, this method was used because the researcher
wanted to explore if there are any significant relationship
between the effectiveness of moral leadership and employee’s
performance and to identify whether there are any significant
differences between gender and moral leadership among heads
at selected private higher institutions in Klang Valley. A
quantitative method is suitable for this study because this study
involves many respondents. Through quantitative methods, the
information obtained could help to explain some aspects that
are required as the number of respondents is large and their
view and feedback are suitable in this research study.
The data was collected through questionnaires that have
been created and administered by the researcher. According to
[14], questionnaire is the most effective way of obtaining
information fro m respondents. Each question outlined in the
questionnaire was created to get feedback related to the
objectives of the study. The questionnaires were distributed at
two selected private institutions in Klang Valley. Nominal
scale was also used in this research, as it is the most suitable
level of measurement especially in answering questions.
B. Population and Sampling
Population in the context of this study is defined as
employees in institutions, a community and as a group of
people that has been chosen by the researcher to conduct a
research study on them. For this research study, the researcher
selected two private institutions to distribute the questionnaires.
The two private institutions are Taylor’s University, and
Sunway University. At both universities, the respondents were
selected randomly without biases and consisted of officers,
executives, senior executives, assistant managers and academic
staff. Respondents included employees who have been working
less than five years, five years and above, ten years and above,
fifteen years and above and twenty years and above. A total of
300 academic and admin istrative employees from both
universities were targeted as respondents for this study.
According to [15], the appropriate sample size is 269
respondents.
regarding the essential characteristics of the study. The
selection of sampling units in the form of purposive sampling
is subjective because the researcher relies on experience and
judgment. Purposive sampling is the common form of
sampling used by researchers in social sciences research
studies. In purposive sampling, the researcher who understands
the nature of the study population can help determine in
advance the distribution and basis for selection of sample.
C. Instrumentation
The study used questionnaire as the instrument.
Questionnaires from [17] and [18] were co mbined and used in
this study to create the questionnaire for moral leadership.
Questionnaires were used for this study because questionnaires
can measure the level of effectiveness of moral leadership
among heads of department in six dimensions, which are
trustworthiness, communication, c riticism and dissent, fairness,
employee development and empowerment. The questionnaire
can also be used to determine if there any significant
relationships between the effectiveness of moral leadership and
employee’s job performance. The questionnaires were
distributed to two different private institutions in Klang Valley.
III. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
A. Effectiveness of Moral Leadership
In this section, the researcher discussed on the seven
dimensions that contribute to the moral leadership based on the
trustworthiness, communication, criticism and dissent, fairness,
employee’s development, empowerment and employees job
performance among heads of department at private higher
institutions. The first research objectives are to determine the
level of the effectiveness of moral leadership among heads of
department at selected higher institutions in Klang Valley. The
second research objectives are to identify dominant attribute of
moral leadership among heads of department at selected private
institutions based on ranking in Klang Valley. In this section,
the researcher has analyzed this study using the descriptive
statistic which consists of mean, standard deviation, frequency
and percentage which involved 260 respondens.
B. Dominant Attribute of Moral Leadership
In second research objective, is to identify the dominant
attribute of moral leadership among heads of department at
selected private institutions in Klang Valley. The do minant
attribute has been discussed as in the table below:
The sampling technique used in this research study
was purposive sampling. According to [16], purposive
sampling refers to the random selection of sampling units in the
segment of a population that contains ample information
EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION REVIEW VOL. I NO. 1 JUNE 2017
20
Dominant Attributes of Moral Leadership Among Heads
of Department at Private Institutions in Klang Valley.
Total
Dominant
Total
Mean
Std.
No
Attribute
Mean
Interpretation
Deviation
1
Trustworthiness 3.4903 1.0293
High
2
Communication 3.5025 1.0597
High
Criticis m and
3
2.8663 0.8449
Average
Dissent
4
Fairness
2.6493 0.8237
Average
Emp loyees
5
2.8743 0.8206
Average
Development
6
Empowerment
2.8830 0.8776
Average
Emp loyee’s Job
7
2.9641 0.8944
Average
Performance
Table above shows the level of dominant attribute of moral
leadership among heads of department at selected private
institutions in Klang Valley. The h ighest dominant attribute is
communication dimension where the total mean score is
3.5025 and the total standard deviation score is 1.0293. The
level of mean interpretation is “High”. Next the second highest
dominant attribute is trustworthiness with the total mean score
is 3.4903 and the standard deviation is 1.0597. The level of
interpretation is “High”. The third highest is employee’s job
performance with the total mean is 2.9641 and standard
deviation is 0.8994. The level of interpretation is “Average”.
This follow by empowerment dimension with the total
mean score is 2.8830 and standard deviation is 0.8776. The
level of interpretation is “Average”. The fifth dimensions are
employee’s development with the total mean is 2.8743 and
standard deviation is 0.8206. The level of interpretation is
“Average”. The sixth dimensions are criticism and dissent with
the total mean score is 2.8663 and the standard deviation is
0.8449. The level interpretation is “Average”. The last is
fairness dimension with the total mean score is 2.6493 and
standard deviation is 0.8237. The level of interpretation is
“Average”
This study was carried out to examine moral leadership
among heads of department in private institutions in Klang
Valley. Two private universities were selected for this research
and seven dimensions were used to measure the level of
effectiveness of moral leadership (first research question). In
addition to measuring level of moral leadership, this study also
aimed to identify the dominant attribute of Moral Leadership
(second research question). For the third research question, the
researcher looked at the significant differences between gender
and moral leadership among heads of department, while for the
fourth research question, the significant relationship between
the effectiveness of moral leadership and employee’s
performance at selected private higher institutions in Klang
valley were examined. For the last research question, the
researcher examined significant differences between highest
level of education and employee’s job performance.
The researcher used Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences (SPSS) to derive the mean, standard deviation,
frequency and percentage (descriptive statistics). Each section
EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION REVIEW VOL. I NO. 1 JUNE 2017
was analyzed and the results measured. For the first section,
section B, which looked at the trustworthiness dimension, six
questions was utilized. The average mean for section B is
3.4903. The results show that most of the employees agreed
that the HOD can be relied on to honor their co mmit ments.
This shows that, in both institutions, the employees trust their
HOD to deliver their work co mmit ments success fully. In the
second section, section C which looked at communication,
respondents answered six questions. The average mean for
section C is 3.5025. The highest mean score was for when
employees agreed that the HOD is approachable and friendly.
This shows that employees can easily communicate with the
HOD on any arising problems. HODs who implement open
door policy can make employees feel they are important and
able to share any work-related problems. Many problems can
be resolved when communication between HOD and
employees is strong. The next section, section D looked at
criticism and dissent. In this section, four questions were asked.
The average mean for section D is 2.8663 and the average
standard deviation, 0.8449. The highest mean score for this
section was for when employees agreed that the HOD listens to
ideas and suggestions for improving the department. Accepting
ideas and suggestions from employees is very important as this
may indirectly help improve a department or the institution.
Brainstorming ideas and suggestions on different aspects of
tasks can help a department or institution reach its mission and
vision.
The next section is section E which looked at the fairness
dimension. In this section, six questions were forwarded to
respondents. The average mean for section E is 2.6493 and the
average standard deviation is 0.8236. In this section, many
respondents agreed that the HOD always holds employees
accountable for problems that the employees have no control
over. This shows that there is no fairness for employees who
cannot be held accountable for problems outside their
position’s jurisdiction. The HOD can only hold employees
accountable to matters that fall under the employee’s job
description. In addition, the HOD should guide employees in
facing and handling challenging task as the HOD may be more
experienced or has more expert ise. The next is section F wh ich
looked at employee development. In this section, respondents
answered six questions and the result shows that employees
agreed that the HOD should encourage employees to attend
trainings related to their career development. Employee
development is very important for the employees as well as the
institution. HODs should always encourage and give
opportunities to emp loyees to develop themselves by
undergoing trainings related to their expert ise. When employee
development is supported, employees will feel motivated and
they will not only be inspired to increase their knowledge but
also personal development. The average mean for section F is
2.8743. This is followed by section G which examined
empowerment. In this section, respondents answered five
questions. The average mean for section G is 2.8831. In this
section, respondents agreed that the HOD should provide
opportunities for employees to handle more challenging
responsibilit ies that are related to their expertise. By giving
employees a chance to handle challenging tasks related to their
expert ise, this will help emp loyees learn new things and be
more confident in facing new challenges and in dealing with
21
higher position people. The last section is section H which
looked at employee’s job performance. In this section, six
questions were asked to respondents. The average mean for
section H is 2.9641. In this section, the highest mean was
scored for my colleagues are very helpful and supportive in
performing indiv idual or grouping tasks. Respondents agreed
that their colleagues are very supportive to each other in
delivering tasks either group-based or individual tasks. Having
supportive colleagues will help employees feel motivated and
happy in their working environment. Having healthy
relationship with colleagues will also build a harmonious
workplace and strong teamwork.
IV. CONCLUSSION
The first objective of this study was to examine the level of
effectiveness of moral leadership among heads of department
at selected private institutions in Klang Valley while the second
objective of this study was to find the dominant attributes of
moral leadership among heads of department at selected private
higher institutions based on ranking in Klang Valley. Based on
past studies, researchers identified the dominant attributes of
moral leadership as trustworthiness, communication, criticism
and dissent, fairness, employee development, empowerment
and employee’s job performance. [19] concurred that moral
leadership requires any leader to display the following: trust,
integrity, transparency, accountable, responsible and most
importantly, innate honesty and kindness that make employees
look up to them. This present study found that the level of
effectiveness of moral leadership among heads of department
at both private institutions as high. Most of respondents agreed
that their head of department practiced moral leadership in
leading the department.
The mean score of trustworthiness is high which implies
that employees agreed that the head of department can be
trusted in handling the department and in dealing with
employees. They also responded that the head of department
can keep their promises and words in work –related matters.
The heads of department also trust their emp loyee’s credibility
in handling the tasks given and have faith in their subordinates
rather than those outside of their department. The result on
trustworthiness is similar with past research [20],[21]. whereby
trust, job satisfaction, team and organizational co mmit ment and
leader effectiveness are related to moral leadership. They also
found that leaders, who always showed consistent behavior
towards employees, can guide moral behavior in employees
and able to clarify the job roles were always perceived as more
effective than those who did not. This clearly shows that moral
leadership is strongly related to trust.
For commun ication, the mean score is high, which indicates
that the head of department practice an open communication
with their employees by being friendly and approachable to
employees. In addition, the head of the department also listened
to the frustration of their subordinates and try their best to help
them with the problems. Besides that, the heads of department
also encourage their employees to build an effective and
efficient communication culture among each other to build a
harmonious workplace. According to [22] and [23], leaders
who practice openness in communication, build enormous
EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION REVIEW VOL. I NO. 1 JUNE 2017
influence among employees and practice good culture is good
moral leadership built on social communication.
Motivating employees to voice out their ideas or
suggestions in formal meetings is one way to build effective
communication. This correlates with [24] and [25] who stated
that effective communication practiced by heads of department
can be used to give an order, express feelings, as a tool to
motivate and to deliver information. Giving clear instructions
and communicating clearly to emp loyees will help them
understand what is required of them and the department goals
that they need to accomplish. [26] stated that success and
improvement of an institution depends on the effectiveness of
heads of department effectiveness in handling any arising
challenges or circu mstances. [27] added that successful
institutions depend on the efficiency of co mmunication. Fro m
there, employees would be able to measure how good a leader
is.
The third dimension that was examined in this study is
criticism and dissent. In this section, the ability of heads of
department to accept criticism and dissent from their
employees was examined. The study looked at things such as
would heads of department be willing to listen to ideas and
suggestions given by employees, if heads of department are
open-minded by accepting dissent from employees, if heads of
department are willing to accept constructive criticism fro m
employees and if they are willing to consider a decision on the
basis recommendation comes from their employees. The result
of this study shows that most of the respondents partially
agreed on this dimension. This shows that some of the heads of
department accepted criticis m and dissent positively fro m
employees for department improvement. Additionally, [28]
also admitted that a leader who practices moral leadership will
mostly respond to criticism and dissent positively. They can
accept criticism and dissent fro m employees for imp rovement
purposes and they will try their best to avoid any negative
criticism and dissent.
Next, this study also looked at the fairness dimension. In
the fairness dimension, the researcher focused on how heads of
department treat their employees. The questions asked in this
study includes if heads of department practice favoritism
among employees especially when it comes to staff evaluation
performance, if heads of department held employees
accountable for problems over which they have no control and
if heads of department investigated instead of blindly blaming
when something goes wrong. Besides that, do heads of
department use their employees for their own benefit such as
pursuit of their o wn. The results reveal that respondents
claimed that some heads of department were fair in their
leadership style while some were not. [29] stated that good
moral leaders will always apply fairness in their relationship
with employees because, for a moral leader, being fair to all
employees is very crucial.
For the employee’s development dimension, the researcher
wanted to know if the heads of department pay heed to their
employees’ potential and credibility for career development
and if heads of department feel employee growth is important.
Do the heads of department give opportunities to employees to
show their ability to improve and develop themselves by
22
encouraging them to undergo training that is related to their
career development. Most importantly, do heads of department
reward and give recognition to deserving employees. The
results show that most employees partially agreed that heads of
department do support employee development.
According to [30], by rewarding employees, they will feel
positively happy and this helps to increase good behavior in
employees. This is supported by [31], [32] and [33] who stated
that when heads of department focus rewarding and developing
their employees, this will help to increase emp loyee motivation
who would then be very willing to deliver good service.
Emp loyee development is very important in any institution
as by rewarding and developing employees, they will feel
motivated and feel positive in doing their job. Besides that,
they will also feel more confident in delivering their tasks and
feel mo re appreciated. [34] h ighlighted that development is
important for employees. One way of developing employees is
by providing training to them as this will indirectly help
institutions grow as well.
Empowerment is another dimension that was discussed in
this study. The researcher intended to find out if heads of
department empower their emp loyees in crit ical decisions, give
opportunity to
employees
to
handle
challenging
responsibilit ies, give opportunity to them to do their o wn
planning, organizing and executing projects without any
interference and trusting them in decision making. According
to [35] and [36] one of the dimensions in leadership is
empowerment. Empowerment is very crucial for emp loyees in
their work engagement. When leaders empower emp loyees,
there will be some changes in the employees such as increased
self-efficiency and self-confidence in delivering the tasks
given. The study results show that the employees partially
agreed which indicated that that most heads of department
rarely empower their employees especially in decision-making.
[38] stated that one way of making emp loyees feel motivated in
doing their tasks, is by empowering them through actions such
as encouraging employees to participative in decision making,
giving them opportunities to lead meetings, sharing
information with them, and coaching them. [38] added that
increased level of empowerment among the employees is a key
factor in developing an institution.
The last dimension that was examined in this study was
employee’s job performance. In this study, the researcher
attempted to find out if heads of departments are very
supportive and if the employees are happy working with their
current head of department. Have the employees been given
sufficient opportunities to perform in their job and career by
getting full support from HODs? The results show that most
respondents chose to partially agree and this shows that most
employees are not really motivated in their job and this can
contribute to their poor job performance. According to [39], by
empowering employees, this will help contribute to the success
of institutions as this increases job performance. [40] added
that employee performance is reflected in improved
production, open-mindedness in using the modern technology
and highly motivated workers will appreciate being trusted by
their heads of department in decision-making.
EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION REVIEW VOL. I NO. 1 JUNE 2017
REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
Alvesson, M. and Sveningsson, S. (2003). The great disappearing act:
difficulties in doing ‘leadership’. Leadership Quarterly, 14, pp. 359–381.
Nucci, L. P. (2015). Education in the moral domain. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Judge, T . & Piccolo, R. (2004).Transformational and Transactional
Leadership: A Meta-Analytic Test of Their Relative Validity, Journal of
Applied Psychology, 5, 755-768.
Allio R. J., (2012). "Leaders and leadership – many theories, but
what advice is reliable?". Strategy & Leadership, Vol. 41 Issue:
1, pp.4-14, doi: 10.1108/10878571311290016.
Avery, G.C. (2004). Understanding Leadership: Paradigms and Cases.
London: Sage.
Northouse, G. (2007). Leadership theory and practice. (3rd ed.).
T housand Oak, London, New Delhi: Sage Publications, Inc.
Yukl, G. A. (2002). Leadership in organizations (5th ed.). Delhi:
Pearson Education.
Suraiya, I. (2011). Model Kepemimpinan Etika Berlandas Sirah Nabi
Muhammad Saw
Jurnal Hadhari, 3(2), 23 – 44.
Noriati A. Rashid et. al. (2010). Asas Kepimpinan dan Perkembangan
Profesional Guru. Selangor: Oxford Fajar.
Blaikie, N. (2000), Designing Social Research, 1st ed, Polity Press,
Cambridge.
Babbie, E. R. (2002). The basics of social research (2nd ed.). Belmont,
CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Ku Samsu, Ku Hasnita. (2007). Patriotisme di Kalangan Generasi Muda
Malaysia: Kajian Kes Ke Atas Mahasiswa Bukan Melayu di Institusi
Pengajian Tinggi. Universiti Malaya.
Ranjit Kumar (2014). Research Methodology (4th Ed.). London: SAGE
Pulication Ltd.
T uckman, Bruce W. (1999). Conducting educational research (5th ed.).
Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace & Company.
Sekaran, U. and Bougie, R. (2013). Research Methods for Business: A
Skill-Building Approach. 6th Edition, Wiley, New York.
Guarte, J. M. & Barrios, E.B. (2006). Estimation under purposive
sampling. Communications in Statistics – Simulation and Computation,
35(2), 277 – 284.
Kalshoven, K. (2010). Ethical leadership: through the eyes of
employees. Amsterdam Business School Research Institute (ABS-RI),
FMG: Psychology Research Institute
Northouse, G. (2015). Introduction to leadership: concept and practice.
(3rd ed.). Western Michigan University, Sage Publications, Inc.
Barrajon, P. L. C. (2013). Religion and leadership. Retrieved from
http://integralleadershipreview.com/8297-religions-and-leadership/
Brown, M. E., Trevin˜o, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical
leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development and
testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97(2),
117-134.
De Hoogh, A. H. B., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2008). Ethical and despotic
leadership, relationships with leader’s social responsibility, top
management team effectiveness and subordinates’ optimism: A multimethod study. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 297-311.
Goleman, D. (2000). LeadershipThat Gets Results. Harvard Business
Review, 78(2), 78-90.
Yukl, G.A. (1981). Leadership in Organizations. NJ : Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs.
Gibson, J.W., & R.M. Hodgetts. (1991). Organizational communication
– A managerial perspective. 2nd Edition. New York: HarperCollins
Publishers.
Robbins, S. (1993). Organisational behaviour: Concepts, controversies
and applications. 6th ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Thill J. V. & Bovee C.L.(2006). Excellence in business communication.
7th Edition. NJ, USA : Prentice Hall Press Upper Saddle River.
23
[28] Yukl, G.A. (2010). Leadership in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Prentice Hall.
[29] Berreth, D., & Berman, S. (2007). The moral dimensions of schools.
Educational Leadership, 54(8), 24-27.
[30] Cropanzano, R. & Mitchell, M.S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An
interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874-900.
[31] Rosen, C.C., Chang, C.-H., Johnson, R.E. & Levy, P.E. (2009).
Perceptions of the organizational context and psychological contract
breach: assessing competing perspectives. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 108(2), 202-17.
[32] Shore, L.M., Tetrick, L.E., Taylor, M.S., Coyle Shapiro, J.A.-M., Liden,
R.C., Parks, J.M., Morrison, E.W., Porter, L.FW., Robinson, S.L.,
Roehling, M.V., Rousseau, D.M., Shalk, R., Tsui, A.S.&Van Dyne, L.
(2004). The employee-organization relationship: A timely concept in a
period of transition. In Martocchio, J. (Ed.), Research in personnel and
human resources management (pp. 291-370). Oxford : Elsevier.
[33] Tekleab, A.G., Takeuchi, R. & Taylor, M.S. (2005). Extending the chain
of relationships among organizational justice, social exchange, and
employee reactions: The role of contract violations. Academy of
Management Journal, 48(1), 146-57.
[34] Beardwell, I., Holden, L. & Claydon, T. (2004). Human resource
management: A contemporary approach. Harlow: Prentice Hall.
EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION REVIEW VOL. I NO. 1 JUNE 2017
[35] Halbesleben, J. (2010). A meta-analysis of work engagement:
relationships with burnout, demands, resources and consequence. In
Bakker, A.B. & Leiter, M.P. (Eds), Work engagement: A handbook of
essential theory and research. New York : Psychology Press.
[36] May, D.R., Gilson, R.L. & Harter, L.M. (2004). The psychological
conditions of meaningfulness, safety and availability and the
engagement of the human spirit at work. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 77(1), 11-37.
[37] Pearce, C.L. & Sims, H.P. Jr.(2002). Vertical versus shared leadership as
predictors of the effectiveness of change management teams: an
examination of aversive, directive, transactional, transformational, and
empowering leader behaviors. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and
Practice, 6(2), 172-97.
[38] Mathieu, J.E., Gilson, L.L. & Ruddy, T .M. (2006). Empowerment and
team effectiveness: An empirical test of an integrated model. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 91(1), 97-108.
[39] Herbert, Donald, John, & Lee (2000). Personnel/Human resource
management, 4th ed. New Delhi :Universal Book Stall.
[40] Afshan, S., Sobia, I., Kamran, A. & Nasir, M. (2012). Impact of training
on employee performance: A study of telecommunication sector in
Pakistan. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in
Business, 4(6).
24