BME_2017_15_1 maketas_spaudai.indd Copyright © 2017 The Authors. Published by VGTU Press. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. The material cannot be used for commercial purposes. SUSTAINABLE LEADERSHIP, ORGANIZATIONAL TRUST ON JOB SATISFACTION: EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FROM HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS IN SYRIA Serene DALATI1, Jurgita RAUDELIŪNIENĖ2, Vida DAVIDAVIČIENĖ3 1Management Department, Business Administration Faculty, Arab International University, Ghabagheb Daraa, Syria 2,3Business Technologies Department, Business Management Faculty, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Vilnius, Lithuania E-mails: 1s-dalati@aiu.edu.sy; 2jurgita.raudeliuniene@vgtu.lt; 3vida.davidaviciene@vgtu.lt (corresponding author) Received 6 March 2017; accepted 26 April 2017 Abstract. This research develops a theoretical model of sustainable leadership, organizational trust and satisfaction at work in higher education environment in Syria. The model assesses staff perception of outstanding leadership behaviors and examines its relationship with perceived organizational trust in the field of higher education institutions in Syria. This research examines a conceptual framework identifying outstanding leadership styles and behaviors which are associated with sustainable leadership, organisational trust identified by members’ trust in their co- workers, and job satisfaction at an institutional level. The research methodology applied in this research develops a quantitative approach through application of questionnaire survey. To measure the dimensionality of scale factors an explora- tory factor analysis is conducted. Reliability analysis is performed, Cronbach al- pha test indicates that the research scales are internally consistent. The sample of the study employed a convenience sample from higher education institutions. The managerial implication of the research study recommends application and adop- tion of sustainable leadership behaviors among functional, mid and senior levels of managers and academics in management positions in higher education institutions. The limitation of research is mainly indicated in the sample size and measurement scales of sustainable leadership, organizational trust and job satisfaction. Keywords: sustainability, sustainable leadership, organisational trust, job satisfac- tion, higher education institution, exploratory factor analysis. JEL Classification: M100, M140. 1. Introduction Sustainable leadership aspects in higher education institution is becoming a very actual research topic of investigation that requires comprehensive examination. The need for institution leaders is increasingly growing in higher education environment which is B u s i n e s s, Ma n ag e M e n t a n d e d u c at i o n ISSN 2029-7491 / eISSN 2029-6169 2017, 15(1): 14–27 doi:10.3846/bme.2017.360 15 Business, Management and Education, 2017, 15(1): 14–27 becoming transnational, global, virtual, and boundary-less. Syria is having been going through years of crisis and war that has torn the nation and reflected massive destruction and devastation. A considerable number of talented Syrian individuals left the country seeking better standards of living and secure environment. The prevalent organisational settings in higher education institutions in Syria could be strongly associated with bu- reaucratic approaches which enforce uniformity, accountability and Machiavellian style of management. The predominant styles of management overlook contemporary be- havioral management approaches which would tend to emphasize teambuilding, people empowerment, collaboration and emphasis on outstanding performance. The need for establishing a model of leadership behaviors and styles exercised on institutional levels becomes evident. There is requirement for contemporary management and leadership styles which could sustain time, place, geography, and the environment becomes evident. This research develops a theoretical framework examining the effect sustainable leadership and organisational trust, on university staff satisfaction at work. In order to achieve the purpose such methods as the analysis of the scientific literature, question- naire survey, exploratory factor analysis and application of the theoretical model are employed. The model builds on two independent variables including sustainable leadership and trust among co-workers, and an outcome variable namely university staff satisfaction at work. The model predicts that sustainable leader-ship behaviors and organisational trust will cause a positive effect on satisfaction of faculty and university staff at work. 2. Theoretical aspects of sustainable leadership, organisational trust and job satisfaction In order to examine the sustainable leadership in education term, it is important to analyse such concepts as sustainability, sustainable leadership, trust in organisations and job satisfaction. Discourse about sustainability started by Brundtland Commission of the United Na- tions, which identified three main components of sustainable development: economic, social and environmental (Brundtland 1987). The Brundtland point of view of sustain- ability caused a lot of scientific discussions related with the responsibilities of busi- ness, economic, legal and also ethical responsibilities (Wilkinson et al. 2001; Rodriguez et al. 2002; Wirtenberg et al. 2007; Bottery et al. 2008; Harris, Twomey 2008; Székely, Knirsch 2009; Ameer, Othman 2012; Bottery 2012; Ehnert, Harry 2012; Kramar 2014; McCann, Sweet 2014). According to scientists, sustainability is related to development of society, with balance between economic, social and ecological aspects, quality of products or services, creation of value for all the organisation’s stakeholders, economic growth and ethical business practices. 16 S. Dalati et al. Sustainable leadership, organizational trust on job satisfaction: empirical evidence from higher education institutions in Syria Sustainable leadership is a new concept in leadership approaches in organisational aspects (Avery 2005; Robèrt 2007; Székely, Knirsch 2009; Avery, Bergsteiner 2011; McCann, Holt 2011, 2012; Mccarten 2011; Jing 2012; Schaltegger et al. 2012; Kant- abutra, Rungruang 2013; Kramar 2014; McCann, Sweet 2014; Dalati et al. 2016; Evans, Sinclair 2016; Suriyankietkaew, Avery 2014, 2016). Based on scientific research results, sustainable leadership involve ethical, social, and responsible business aspects, stake- holders value orientation, corporate responsibility and etc. The idea of a sustainable leadership strategy related to the development of organisation competencies that can help to create better value for stakeholders. According to Suriyankietkaew, Avery (2016) sustainable leadership integrates lead- ership and management practices and values such as competitive and motivated staff and team orientation, trust, strategic planning, vision, ethical behavior, financial inde- pendence, environmental and social responsibility, ethical behavior, culture, knowledge management aspects as knowledge sharing, innovation, quality and etc. (Suriyankiet- kaew, Avery 2016). Sustainable leadership concept in education were analysed by scientists as Har- greaves, Fink (2004), Hoyle, Wallace (2005), Bottery (Botery et al. 2008; Botery 2012), Morrison (2010), Lambert (2012) and others. According to Lambert (2012) sustainable leadership in education sector is its infancy (Lambert 2012). Hargreaves, Fink (2004) developed a model of sustainable leadership in education sector particularly primary, secondary and post-secondary. The model is comprised of seven dimensions including such aspects as: length, depth, justice, breadth, resourceful- ness, diversity and conservation (Hargreaves, Fink 2004). Lambert (2012) conducted a framework of sustainable leadership in education sector, which consists of six factors, including building human capacity, strategy, and part- nership, developing long term goals from short term objectives, building diversified workplace and learned lessons. The prior literature indicates a significant relationship between leadership and or- ganisational trust (Joseph, Winston 2005; Sendjaya, Pekerti 2010; Rezaei et al. 2012; Erkutlu, Chafra 2013; Chan, Mak 2014). Leader’s quality, transparency, resilience and optimism has a significant effect on perceived trust in leader (Norman et al. 2010). Gillespie and Mann (2004) investigate relationship between leadership behaviours (transformational, transactional and consultative) and organisational members trust in their leader in research teams. The results of the study underline that trust is strongly correlated with leader’s effectiveness (Gillespie, Mann 2004). A study by Joseph, Winston (2005) analysed the relationship between employee perception of servant leadership, leader trust and organisational trust. Results of the study indicates that organisations who are believed to be servant oriented demonstrated superior standards of leader and organisational trust (Joseph, Winston 2005). 17 Business, Management and Education, 2017, 15(1): 14–27 There are considerable scientific research results reporting relationship between ef- fective leadership and job satisfaction in organisational aspect (Lok, Crawford 1999, 2004; Sancar 2009; Braun et al. 2013). Previous studies investigated the association between managerial leadership behav- iors and styles and job satisfaction (Kythreotis et al. 2010; Aydin et al. 2012, 2013; Alonderienne, Majauskaite 2016). Alonderienne and Majauskaite (2016) examined the effect of leadership styles on work satisfaction of staff in higher education institutions in Lithuania through applying quantitative approach and the design of a survey ques- tionnaire. The sample of the study comprised 72 members and 10 supervisors from Lithuanian universities. The findings of the empirical research specified and shown significant and positive impact of leadership styles on job satisfaction of staff, indicating that servant leadership style has the highest level of positive impact on job satisfaction, while autocratic leadership style has the lowest impact. 3. Conceptual model of sustainable leadership, organizational trust and job satisfaction in Higher Education Higher Education environment in Syria could be characterized by an old paradigm with bureaucratic structures, cultures and systems which employs traditional methodologies which emphasises uniformity, control and top – down management approaches. The organisational cultures in higher education institutions in Syria are also characterised by ineffective emphasis on individual performance and excellence; limited partnership with international partner institutions, and a volatile economical environment, caused by a crisis in Syria since 2011. Taking into consideration the above-mentioned situation in Syria, a conceptual structure of sustainable leadership and organizational trust and job satisfaction is composed (Dalati 2016). The first component of the theoretical model scrutinizes the construct of sustainable leadership in higher education institutions in Syria. The construct of sustainable leader- ship in higher education is based on prior research studies and theoretical frameworks on effective leadership in organisational aspects (Tichy, Devanna 1986; Conger, Ka- nungo 1998; Conger 1999; Bennis, Biederman 2009; Mittal, Dorfman 2012). Sustainable leadership is defined as an outstanding leadership style which comprised of effective leadership dimensions and behaviors. Sustainable leadership comprises the quality of vision in organisational approach. Sustainable leaders in higher education de- velop organisational vision which represents a sense of purpose and values shared both by leader and followers in the institution. Sustainable leadership reflects leader’s abil- ity to communicate effectively and exercise persuasive approaches demonstrating clear goals and objectives. Sustainable leadership reflects capacity of establishing trust and transcending self-interest for the sake of group and organisation interest. It also advo- cates personal integrity and, sensitivity to stakeholder’s interest, rights and ownerships including larger society. Sustainable leadership reflect capacity and skills of building 18 S. Dalati et al. Sustainable leadership, organizational trust on job satisfaction: empirical evidence from higher education institutions in Syria teams, and social collective identity for followers. Sustainable leadership reflects lead- er’s capability to inspire followers and built a motivated workforce by demonstrating outstanding levels of effort and energy. The second component in the theoretical model examines the construct of organisa- tional trust in higher education environment in Syria. Organisational trust is developed based on prior theoretical and empirical studies mainly (Cook, Wall 1980). Trust is conceptualised as individual intention to have good intent and have assurance in the actions and behaviour of others; where trust is the main factor in the long-term stability of the organisation and the wellbeing of its members. The third component examines the construct of job satisfaction at higher education environment. Job satisfaction is developed based on prior studies examining intrinsic and extrinsic factors related to satisfaction at work (Warr et al. 1979). The theoretical model examines the effect of sustainable leadership and organisational trust among co-workers, on job satisfaction for Syrian university staff. Sustainable leadership is manipulated as the first independent variable this model. Organisational trust among co- workers is manipulated as the second independent variable. Job satisfaction is examined as the outcome variable in this model (Fig. 1). Research hypotheses relating to sustainable leadership and organizational trust on job satisfaction are formulated: H1: Sustainable leadership has a positive effect on staff job satisfaction at higher education institutions in Syria. H2: Organisational trust has positive effect on staff job satisfaction at higher educa- tion institutions in Syria. Fig. 1. Model of sustainable leadership and organizational trust in higher education (source: created by the authors) Sustainable Leadership Organisational Trust Job Satisfaction + + 19 Business, Management and Education, 2017, 15(1): 14–27 4. Research methodology The research for empirical testing of sustainable leadership, organisational trust and job satisfaction model employs quantitative approaches. Primary data is collected through self-administered questionnaire. The subject of study examined is academic and admin- istrative staff at the target institutions under investigation. The total number of observa- tions in this research comprise 73 cases. Sustainable leadership behaviors questionnaire is developed based on previous lead- ership research (Conger, Kanungo 1998; Strange, Mumford 2002; Kouzes, Posner 2012; Mittal, Dorfman 2012). Dalati (2015) examined, in a previous study the prior research and developed the final scale of managerial leadership. Sustainable leadership scale con- sists of 10 questions assessing perceived sustainable leadership behaviours. Sustainable leadership is developed as a composite construct. Organisational trust scale was presented by scholars Cook and Wall (1980). The measure encompasses 12 item measuring faith in intentions and confidence in action in both peers and management. The scale was developed in Great Britain and its design is targeting blue-collar workers. The organizational trust scale developed by Cook and Wall was originally developed as a multi-dimensional construct by two dimensions. In this research, it is developed as a composite scale measuring members’ organizational trust in their co-workers. The job satisfaction scale was developed by Warr et al. (1979). The instrument con- sists of 16 items and contains sub-scales to measure intrinsic and extrinsic features of job. The last item (item 16) measures overall job satisfaction. Developing a research instrument must consider different research respects (Cooper, Schindler 2014). Five points Likert scale is employed in the questionnaire. The instru- ment is designed to examine participants’ perception of statements constructed in the questionnaire. Likert scale has advantages including simplicity and reliability (Cooper, Schindler 2014). Translation from English to Arabic and backwards is performed. It is advisable to perform back translation when the scale is developed in different languages (Brislin 1970). The original scale for organisational trust developed by Cook and Wall (1980) follows a 7-points Likert scale. A preliminary investigation was constructed to test the validity of instrument as it is applied in a different cultural environment representing different language. The results of the pilot test recommended that the 7-point scale is to be adjusted to 5 five points, as the translation of the responses were not clearly un- derstood in Arabic. The scale for organisational trust was modified from 7 to 5 points Likert scale. The research on measurement and scaling indicates that 5 and 7 points scales make little difference. An analysis of variance could be applied comparing sam- ples applying 5 and 7 points scale and comparing frequency distribution of responses between two sample groups of 5 and 7 points of Likert scale. 20 S. Dalati et al. Sustainable leadership, organizational trust on job satisfaction: empirical evidence from higher education institutions in Syria Convenience sampling strategy is selected. The research unit of analysis was aca- demic and administrative staff. The data is collected from mainly two target universities operating in Damascus. Few respondents who are employed as part time academics at the first private sector institution are fulltime academic staff at a public university in Syria. They were included in the sample as part time staff of the private higher educa- tion institution. The data was collected in 2016 through paper and pencil questionnaire technique. The total sample size is 73 cases. 5. Results and discussion To explore sustainable leadership, organizational trust and job satisfaction dimensionali- ty in higher education environment in Syria, an exploratory factor analysis is conducted, which produced three factors with an Eigen value and factor loading which exceeded 1 and 0.30. The first factor indicates sustainable leadership behaviors as a composite construct which comprises 10 items (Table 1). The second factor represent organiza- tional trust as composite construct representing members’ trust in co-workers, which comprises 6 items. The third factor indicates job satisfaction as a composite construct which comprises 5 items. Originally the organizational trust scale was developed by Cook and Wall (1980) indicating two factors construct measuring faith of the intention and confidence of action of management and peers. The exploratory factor analysis combined both factors in composite factor producing a new factor which was defined as organisational trust among co-workers. Also, originally the job satisfaction scale was developed by Warr et al. (1979). The instrument consists of 16 items and contains sub-scales to measure intrinsic and extrinsic features of job and a final item measuring overall job satisfaction. The exploratory factor analysis combined both items from in- trinsic and extrinsic features of job satisfaction in a composite factor producing a new factor which was defined as job satisfaction. Reliability analysis of the scale is performed through the application of Cronbach Alpha test. The test inspects if the items in the scale measure the same construct (Ta- vakol, Dennick 2011). Reliability test ranges from acceptable to optimal levels from 60 to .93 (Table 2). Normality tests are performed before statistical tests are performed in this research study. Shapiro Wilk test shows that data is normally distributed for sustainable leader- ship df (63) = .974, P> .05, and visual inspection of histogram, normal Q-Q plot, with skewness of –.130 (SE = .302), and kurtosis of –.486(SE = .595). Shapiro Wilk test in- dicates that data is approximately normally distributed for organisational trust df (63) = .970, P> .05, and visual inspection of histogram, normal Q-Q plots, with skewness of –.271 (SE = .303), and kurtosis of .084 (SE = .595). Shapiro Wilk test indicates that the data is normally distributed for job satisfaction df (63) = .980, P> .05, and visual inspection of histogram, normal Q-Q plot, with skewness of .034 (SE = .302), and kurtosis of –.069 (SE = 595). 21 Business, Management and Education, 2017, 15(1): 14–27 Table 1. Exploratory factor analysis (n 73) (source: created by the authors) Factors Exploratory factor analysis Eigen value % of variance Factor loading Factor 1: Sustainable leadership 7.420 35.334 1. Has good comprehension and listens carefully to what people are saying .855 2. Has the awareness of team members’ cultural backgrounds and values .836 3. Keeps all channels opened and informs the team about decisions made .830 4. Is aware of any organisational factors that may impair organisational goals .797 5. Works jointly with others .789 6. Has the ability to interpret and use the knowledge of the sector trends .789 7. Deserves trust and is believed to keep their word .781 8. Has the ability to set future oriented tasks and goals .771 9. Has a vision of future for the organisation .739 10. Works towards one collective team identity .716 Factor 2: Organisational trust 3.681 17.529 1. I can trust the people I work with to lend me a hand if I needed it .830 2. I have full confidence in the skills of my workmates .819 3. Most of my fellow workers would get on with their work if team and group leaders were not around .804 4. I can rely on other workers not to make my job more difficult by careless work .788 5. Most of my workmates can be relied upon to do as they say they will do .756 6. If I got into difficulty at work I know my workmates would try and help me out .748 Factor 3: Job satisfaction 1.742 8.295 1. The amount of variety in your job .725 2. Your hours of work .661 3. The freedom chooses your own method of working to .623 4. The amount of responsibility you are given .582 5. Your opportunity to use your abilities .532 Extraction method: principal component analysis, rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser normalization. Rotation converged in 5 iterations. Table 2. Cronbach Alpha test (n 73) (source: created by the authors) Research variables Number of items Cronbach Alpha (α) Sustainable leadership 10 .93 Organisational trust 6 .89 Job satisfaction 5 .60 22 S. Dalati et al. Sustainable leadership, organizational trust on job satisfaction: empirical evidence from higher education institutions in Syria To explore the effect of sustainable leadership and organisational trust on job satis- faction on the sample of the research study, a linear regression analysis is performed. Sustainable leadership and organisational trust are manipulated as predictor variables of the study. Job satisfaction is treated as outcome variable. The stepwise regression analysis produced two models. In the first model the regression analysis shows a significant relationship between organi- sational trust and university staff job satisfaction, where multiple regression analysis produces a standardized beta .363, p = .003, accounting for 11.7% of the variability in job satisfaction. The regression analysis confirms organisational trust is predictor of job satisfaction. In the second model the regression analysis indicates that organisational trust is a significant predictor of job satisfaction, where multiple regression produced a standard- ized beta of .279, p = .026. In the second model the regression analysis indicates that sustainable leadership is a predictor of job satisfaction where multiple regression model produced a standardized beta of .271, p = .030. Over all organisational trust and sustain- able leadership accounted for 17.1% of the variability in job satisfaction. The results of regression analysis support the first and second hypotheses confirming organisational trust and sustainable leadership are predictors of job satisfaction among academic and administrative staff in higher education institutions examined in this re- search (Fig. 2). Table 3 illustrates the results for regression analysis. The main objective of this research is to analyse the relation between sustainable leadership and staff members’ trust in co-workers in the context of higher education institutions in Syria. The constructs of the study are developed for this research study. Sustainable leadership is developed as a composite construct which contains 10 items Sustainable Leadership Organisational Trust Job Satisfaction R2 = 19.8% (β=.279*) (β=.271*) Fig. 2. Regression model of sustainable leadership, organisational trust and job satisfaction (Significant at: *p, 0.05, n = 73) (source: created by the authors) 23 Business, Management and Education, 2017, 15(1): 14–27 measuring perceived leadership behaviors which are examined and defined as sustain- able leadership behaviors. Sustainable leadership comprises a set of behaviors, abili- ties and skills which are examined as outstanding and effective. Sustainable leadership emphasize behaviors and abilities including having vision of future for organization, being performance oriented, being communicative, collaborative, team oriented and above all ethical are behaviors and abilities associated with the term sustainable leader- ship. Organizational trust is examined in the context of perceived trust in co-workers including considering workmates as helpful, supportive, and reliable and having faith and confidence in the skills of co-workers. The research study emphasizes on the importance of sustainable leadership and co- workers trust and its effect on job satisfaction at faculty and university levels. Sustain- able leader in higher education institutions is expected to apply a positive association with co-worker’s trust. The research study provides contribution to the sustainable leadership behaviors in higher education environment, by examining the effects of sustainable leadership of organizational trust. 6. Conclusions This research investigated the relationship and effect of sustainable leadership behaviors on organizational trust in co-workers in higher education in Syria. The empirical testing of the model finds support for the hypotheses signifying an effect of sustainable leader- ship and staff members’ organisational trust on job satisfaction. The research study develops specific leadership behaviors which are defined as sustainable leadership behaviors. The research study emphasizes that behaviors and abilities including the state of being visionary, communicative, collaborative, team ori- ented, inspirational and ethical are strongly advised to be practiced, fostered and adapted among managers and educational leaders in higher education environment. Table 3. Multiple regression analysis results of sustainable leadership and organisational trust to job satisfaction (source: created by the authors) Variable B BSE β t Sig The first model Constant 2.162 .502 4.310 .000 Organisational trust .395 .130 .363 3.039 .003 The second model Constant 1.417 .590 2.400 .019 Organisational trust .303 .133 .279 2.289 .026 Sustainable leadership .283 .127 .271 2.224 .030 Note: for the first model, Multiple R = .36,R2 = .131, Adjusted R2 = .117 For the second model, Multiple R= .445, R2 = .198, Adjusted R2 = .171 24 S. Dalati et al. Sustainable leadership, organizational trust on job satisfaction: empirical evidence from higher education institutions in Syria The first limitation in this research study is related to sample size. The lack of adequate sample size is a limitation for research analysis and results. Whereas many early recommendations focused on the importance of absolute sample size, later re- search studies focused on the number of cases per variable (N/p) and recommendations range from 3:1–6:1 (Winter et al. 2009). Conducting an EFA with sample less than 100 requires cautiousness, and the results could not be robustly generalised. Obtaining an adequate sample size requires persistent process of data collection. Another limitation of research could be caused by the instrument. Questionnaires are efficient and require less financial cost and time. However, response bias is to be considered as one the disadvantages of this method. The third limitation is related to the scales of research study. There is a requirement to further improve the scales to produce a multi- dimensional scale of sustainable leadership and organisational trust. References Alonderienne, R.; Majauskaite, M. 2016. Leadership style and job satisfaction in higher education institutions, International Journal of Educational Management 30(1): 140–164. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-08–2014–0106 Ameer, R.; Othman, R. 2012. Sustainability practices and corporate financial performance: a study based on the top global corporations, Journal of Business Ethics 108: 61–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551–011–1063-y Avery, G. 2005. Leadership for sustainable futures: achieving success in a competitive world. Chel- tenham: Edward Elgar. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781845425494 Avery, G. C.; Bergsteiner, H. 2011. Sustainable leadership: honeybee and locust approaches. Rout- ledge: New York, NY, USA. Aydin, A.; Uysal, S.; Sarier, Y. 2012. The effect of gender on job satisfaction of teachers: a meta- analysis study, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 46: 356–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.05.122 Aydin, A.; Sarier, Y.; Uysal, S. 2013. The effect of school principals’ leadership styles on teachers’ or- ganizational commitment and job satisfaction, Kuram ve Uygulamada Egitim Bilimleri 13(2): 806–811. Bennis, W.; Biederman, W. 2009. The essential Bennis. Harvard Business Review. Bottery, M; Ngai, G.; Wong, P. M. 2008. Leaders and contexts: comparing English and Hong Kong perceptions of educational challenges, International Studies in Educational Administration 36(1): 56–71. Bottery, M. 2012. Leadership, the logic of sufficiency and the sustainability of education, Educational Management Administration & Leadership 40(4): 449–463. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143212438220 Braun, S.; Peusb, C.; Weisweilera, S.; Freya, D. 2013. Transformational leadership, job satisfaction, and team performance: a multilevel mediation model of trust, Leadership Quarterly 24(1): 270–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.11.006 Brislin, R. W. 1970. Back-translation for cross-cultural research, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 1(3): 185–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/135910457000100301 Brundtland, G. (Ed.). 1987. Report of the World Commission on environment and development: our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 25 Business, Management and Education, 2017, 15(1): 14–27 Chan, S. C. H.; Mak, W. 2014. The impact of servant leadership and subordinates’ organizational tenure on trust in leader and attitudes, Personnel Review 43(2): 272–287. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-08–2011–0125 Conger, J. A.; Kanungo, R. N. 1998. Charismatic leadership in organizations. SAGE Publications, Inc. Conger, J. A. 1999. Charismatic and transformational leadership in organizations: an insider’s perspec- tive on these developing streams of research, Leadership Quarterly 10(1974): 145–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048–9843(99)00012–0 Cook, J.; Wall, T. 1980. New work attitude measures of trust, organizational commitment and personal need non-fulfilment, Journal of Occupational Psychology 53(1977): 39–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044–8325.1980.tb00005.x Cooper, D.; Schindler, P. 2014. Business Research Methods. 12th ed. Irwin: McGraw-Hill. Dalati, S. 2015. Leadership and sustainable entrepreneurship: classical approaches and contemporary contexts, Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues 2(4): 209–219. https://doi.org/10.9770/jesi.2015.2.4(4) Dalati, S. 2016. The impact of servant leadership on leadership sustainability: empirical evidence from higher education in Syrian universities, Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues 3(3): 269–281. https://doi.org/10.9770/jesi.2016.3.3(4) Dalati, S.; Eddin Al Hamwi, S. 2016. Sustainable development in higher education through service quality and price fairness: empirical evidence from private universities in Syria, Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues 4(1): 25–38. https://doi.org/10.9770/jesi.2016.4.1(3) Ehnert, I.; Harry, W. 2012. Recent developments and future prospects on sustainable human resource management: introduction to the special issue, Management Revue 23(3): 221–238. Erkutlu, H.; Chafra, J. 2013. Effects of trust and psychological contract violation on authentic leader- ship and organizational deviance, Management Research Review 36(9): 828–848. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-06–2012–0136 Evans, M.; Sinclair, A. 2016. Containing, contesting, creating spaces: leadership and cultural identity work among Australian Indigenous arts leaders, Leadership 12(3): 270–292. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715015620463 Gillespie, N. A.; Mann, L. 2004. Transformational leadership and shared values: the building blocks of trust, Journal of Managerial Psychology 19(6): 588–607. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940410551507 Hargreaves, A.; Fink, D. 2004. The seven principles of sustainable leadership, Leading in Tough Times 61(7): 8–13. Harris, D.; Twomey, D. 2008. The enterprise perspective: a new mind-set for competitiveness and sustainability, Competitiveness Review 6: 258–266. Hoyle, E.; Wallace, M. 2005. Educational leadership: ambiguity, professionals, and managerialism. London: SAGE. Jing, F. F. 2012. An investigation of the relationship between leadership paradigms and organizational performance in pharmaceutical sales organizations. Fudan University Press: Shanghai, China. Joseph, E. E.; Winston, B. E. 2005. A correlation of servant leadership, leader trust, and organizational trust, Leadership & Organization Development Journal 26(1/2): 6–23. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437730510575552 Kantabutra, S.; Rungruang, P. 2013. Perceived vision-based leadership effects on staff satisfaction and commitment at a Thai energy provider, Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration 5: 157–178. https://doi.org/10.1108/17574321311321621 26 S. Dalati et al. Sustainable leadership, organizational trust on job satisfaction: empirical evidence from higher education institutions in Syria Kouzes, J.; Posner, B. 2012. The leadership challenge: how to make extraordinary things happen in organizations. 5th ed. Jossey-Bass. Kramar, R. 2014. Beyond strategic human resource management: is sustainable human resource management the next approach? The International Journal of Human, Resource Management 25(8): 1069–1089. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2013.816863 Kythreotis, A.; Pashiardis, P.; Kyriakides, L. 2010. The influence of school leadership styles and culture on students’ achievement in Cyprus primary schools, Journal of Educational Administration 48(2): 218–240. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231011027860 Lambert, S. 2012. The perception and implementation of sustainable leadership strategies in further education colleges, Journal of Leadership Education 11(2): 102–120. https://doi.org/10.12806/V11/I2/RF6 Lok, P.; Crawford, J. 1999. The relationship between commitment and organizational culture, sub- cultures, leadership styles, job satisfaction in organizational change and development, Leadership and Organizational Development Journal 20(7): 365–73. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437739910302524 Lok, P.; Crawford, J. 2004. The effect of organisational culture and leadership style on job satisfaction and organisational commitment: a cross-national comparison, Journal of Management Development 23(4): 321–338. https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710410529785 McCann, J.; Holt, R. 2011. Servant and sustainable leadership: an analysis in the manufacturing en- vironment, International Journal of Management Practice 4(2): 134–148. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMP.2010.033691 McCann, J.; Holt, R. 2012. Defining sustainable leadership, International Journal of Sustainable Stra- tegic Management 2(2): 204–210. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSSM.2010.032561 McCann, J.; Sweet, M. 2014. The perceptions of ethical and sustainable leadership, Journal of Busi- ness Ethics 121(3): 373–383. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551–013–1704–4 Mccarten, M. 2011. Developing sustainable leadership capability in the Victorian State and public library sector, The Australian Library Journal 60(1): 21–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049670.2011.10722553 Mittal, R.; Dorfman, P. W. 2012. Servant leadership across cultures, Journal of World Business 47(4): 555–570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2012.01.009 Morrison, K. 2010. Complexity theory, school leadership and management: questions for theory and practice, Educational Management Administration & Leadership 38(3): 374–393. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143209359711 Norman, S. M.; Avolio, B. J.; Luthans, F. 2010. The impact of positivity and transparency on trust in leaders and their perceived effectiveness, Leadership Quarterly 21(3): 350–364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.03.002 Rezaei, M.; Salehi, S.; Shafiei, M.; Sabet, S. 2012. Servant leadership and organizational trust: the mediating effect of the leader trust and organizational communication, EMAJ: Emerging Markets Journal 2(1): 70–78. https://doi.org/10.5195/EMAJ.2012.21 Robèrt, K. 2007. Strategic leadership for sustainability. Blekinge Institute of Technology: Karlshamn, Sweden. Rodriguez, M. A.; Ricart, J. E.; Sanchez, P. 2002. Sustainable development and sustainability of competitive advantage: a dynamic and sustainable view of the firm, Sustainable Development and Competitive Advantage 11(3): 135–146. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467–8691.00246 Sancar, M. 2009. Leadership behaviors of school principals in relation to teacher job satisfaction in North Cyprus, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 1(1): 2855–2864. 27 Business, Management and Education, 2017, 15(1): 14–27 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2009.01.508 Schaltegger, S.; Lüdeke-Freund, F.; Hansen, E. 2012. Business cases for sustainability: the role of busi- ness model innovation for corporate sustainability, International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development (IJISD) 6(2): 95–119. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJISD.2012.046944 Sendjaya, S.; Pekerti, A. 2010. Servant leadership as antecedent of trust in organizations, Leadership & Organization Development Journal 31(7): 643–663. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437731011079673 Strange, J. M.; Mumford, M. D. 2002. The origins of vision. Charismatic versus ideological leadership, Leadership Quarterly 13(4): 343–377. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1048–9843(02)00125-x Suriyankietkaew, S.; Avery, G. 2016. Sustainable leadership practices driving financial performance: empirical evidence from Thai SMEs, Sustainability 8(4): 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8040327 Suriyankietkaew, S.; Avery, G. C. 2014. Leadership practices influencing stakeholder satisfaction in Thai SMEs, Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration 6: 247–261. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJBA-01–2014–0010 Székely, F.; Knirsch, M. 2009. Responsible leadership and corporate social responsibility: metrics for sustainable performance, European Management Journal 23: 628–647. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2005.10.009 Tavakol, M.; Dennick, R. 2011. Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha, International Journal of Medical Education 2: 53–55. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd Tichy, N. M.; Devanna, M. A. 1986. The transformational leader, Training & Development Journal 40(7): 27–32. Warr, P. B.; Cook, J.; Wall, T. D. 1979. Scales for the measurement of some work attitudes and aspects of psychological well-being, Journal of Occupational Psychology 52: 129–148. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044–8325.1979.tb00448.x Wilkinson, A.; Hill, M.; Gollan, P. 2001. The sustainability debate, International Journal of Opera- tions and Production Management 12(12): 1492–1502. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570110410865 Winter, J. C. F.; Dodou, D.; Wieringa, P. A. 2009. Exploratory factor analysis with small sample sizes, Multivariate Behavioral Research 44: 147–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273170902794206 Wirtenberg, J.; Harmon, J.; Russell, W. G.; Fairfield, K. D. 2007. HR’s role in building a sustainable enterprise: insights from some of the world’s best companies, Human Resource Planning 30: 10–20. Serene DALATI is the Head of Management Department and a senior lecturer at the faculty of Business administration at the Arab International University, Syria. Dr. Dalati has obtained a PhD in Leadership, Organizational Culture and Job satisfaction in 2008 which was preceded by an MBA from Bangor University in 2002. Dr. Dalati teaches for areas in organizational Behaviour, Leader- ship, Culture and Job satisfaction. Fields of expertise of teaching also include Strategic Management, International Management, Marketing, and Entrepreneurial Small Business. Jurgita RAUDELIŪNIENĖ is doctor of social sciences (Management), Professor of Business Tech- nologies Department at Vilnius Gediminas Technical University. J. Raudeliūnienė is a member of editorial boards of several research journals as well as the author and co-author of more than 50 papers. Her research interests are related to knowledge management, formation and evaluation of strategic decisions. Vida DAVIDAVIČIENĖ is doctor of social sciences (Management), Professor at Business Technol- ogy Department at Vilnius Gediminas Technical University. Her research interests are: ICT develop- ment influence on business, society, and economic; e-business solutions and strategies, behavior in e-environment.