Leadership behavior of deans as a determinant of faculty job satisfaction and job commitment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Faculty job satisfaction and commitment contribute to the success of academic programs of a college. The main purpose of the study was to determine the relationship of leadership behavior of the deans of nursing colleges to the job satisfaction and job commitment of the faculty members.Methods: The study used a descriptive correlational design. Twenty deans and 100 faculty members from 20 nursing colleges in the National Capital Region, Philippines participated. Survey instruments used were the (1) modified Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire, (2) modified Minnesota Job Satisfaction Questionnaire, and (3) Job Commitment Questionnaire. Leadership behavior was measured based on the “initiating structure” and “consideration” dimensions.Results: Deans of nursing schools viewed their leadership behavior as “highly initiating” (M = 44.0, SD = 5.61) and “very highly considerate” (M = 50.1, SD = 4.99). Assessment of faculty members revealed congruent findings for the leadership dimensions of initiating structure (M = 46.6, SD = 3.83) and consideration (M = 49.9, SD = 2.66). Faculty members were generally “satisfied” (M = 4.20, SD = .25) and “committed” (M = 4.00, SD = .23) to their teaching job. Among the recently established colleges, the “initiating structure” dimension was highly positively correlated with job commitment of faculty members, r = .82, p < .05. There were no statistically significant relationships between the school classification, and the job satisfaction and job commitment of nursing faculty members.Conclusions: Measures must be instituted to improve the “initiating structure” behavior of deans of recently established nursing schools to increase job commitment of faculty members. Other factors associated with job satisfaction and job commitment should be explored.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".