1204 © 2025 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. The role of academic leadership in enhancing faculty engagement and job satisfaction: A pathway to advancing quality education Hassan K. Almahdi College of Business, Jazan University, Saudi Arabia. Email: researchscholar.management@gmail.com ABSTRACT Article History Received: 12 March 2025 Revised: 4 August 2025 Accepted: 22 August 2025 Published: 2 September 2025 Keywords Academic leadership Faculty engagement Higher education management Job satisfaction Sustainable development goal 4. The study investigates the influence of academic administrator leadership practices on faculty engagement and job satisfaction in higher education, particularly emphasizing the advancement of Sustainable Development Goal 4 (quality education). Transformational, transactional, and supportive leadership styles were analyzed concerning faculty involvement, work happiness, and psychological empowerment. Data was collected from Saudi universities, including public and private, and the respondents comprised 990 faculty members who willingly participated in the research. Data was collected using a quantitative approach with well-crafted questionnaires. The study employs Structural Equation Modeling - Partial Least Squares (SEM PLS) to assess the impact of leadership on SDG 4. The study revealed that transformational and transactional leadership greatly affect teacher engagement and job satisfaction with perceived institutional support and psychological empowerment as mediators. Faculty satisfaction responded more strongly directly from transactional leadership than transformative leadership. The results underline the need for balanced leadership approaches to improve education quality. Policymakers and academic institutions trying to raise faculty involvement, satisfaction, and institutional performance in the higher education sector will find great value in this study. Additionally, the study provides practical recommendations for improving faculty engagement and advancing the goals of quality education (SDG 4). Contribution/Originality: This paper pioneers tying transformational, transactional, and supporting leadership to SDG 4 in Saudi higher education emphasizing transactional leadership's direct influence on faculty satisfaction and mediators like empowerment. By use of balanced leadership styles, it provides feasible ways to improve the quality of education. 1. INTRODUCTION Higher education's leadership policies significantly affect faculty engagement and job satisfaction, which eventually shape the quality of the taught education. Effective leadership creates the conditions fit for academic performance, drive, and dedication. Deeper research of leadership dynamics in academia has been demanded by the growing worldwide focus on Sustainable Development Goal 4 (SDG 4) (Bhatnagar & Singh, 2024) which seeks to provide inclusive and fair quality education. Transformational leadership empowers teachers with a common goal and promotes creative teaching strategies through personal support (Maker, 2021). Conversely, transactional leadership emphasizes performance-based assessments, rewards, and well-defined objectives. Though transformational leadership inspires long-term commitment as it does, it offers clear goals and concrete rewards that raise work satisfaction (Adeniji et al., 2020). Humanities and Social Sciences Letters 2025 Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 1204-1225 ISSN(e): 2312-4318 ISSN(p): 2312-5659 DOI: 10.18488/73.v13i4.4395 © 2025 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. https://orcid.org/0009-0007-5705-0657 mailto:researchscholar.management@gmail.com https://www.doi.org/10.18488/73.v13i4.4395 Humanities and Social Sciences Letters, 2025, 13(4): 1204-1225 1205 © 2025 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. Faculty well-being also depends much on supportive leadership which is distinguished by mentoring and professional growth opportunities. The theoretical basis of this work includes transformational leadership theory (Berkovich, 2016), the Job Demands- Resources (JD-R) model (Tummers & Bakker, 2021) and Social Exchange Theory (SET) (Ali, Anshari, Hamdan, Ahmad, & Surieshtino, 2023). Transformational leadership’s approach emphasizes how much engaging faculty members depends on visionary leaders. The JD-R model helps to balance job requirements with resources at hand, therefore affecting job satisfaction by using institutional support and workload. SET stresses the reciprocal relationship between teachers and administrators wherein supporting leadership generates greater institutional engagement. This study uses structured questionnaires in a quantitative research method to evaluate leadership styles among Saudi institutions. A group of faculty members from five public and three private institutions participated to guarantee different points of view. Relationships among work satisfaction, faculty involvement, and leadership styles were examined using structural equation modeling (SEM-PLS). This study adds to the body of already published material by examining how leadership affects faculty motivation, especially in Saudi higher education institutions. It offers information for university officials trying to raise faculty job happiness and increase academic leadership effectiveness, therefore enhancing the conditions of student learning. 2. REVIEW LITERATURE The influence that the leadership practices of academic administrators have on the level of engagement and work satisfaction experienced by faculty members is of utmost importance in the pursuit of Sustainable Development Goal 4 ( quality education). Several theories can explain faculty engagement and job satisfaction in the institution. The present dynamic is explained by several different theories, such as the transformational leadership theory (Bass, 1999) which emphasizes inspiring and motivating followers, the job demands- resources (JD-R) model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007) which investigates the equilibrium between job demands and resources, and the social exchange theory (SET) (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005) which emphasizes the reciprocal relationships that exist between faculty and administrators. The literature review makes use of the transformational leadership theory as the most appropriate framework, with a particular emphasis on factors such as supporting, transactional, and transformational leadership techniques. Facilitating teacher involvement and satisfaction with work is essential for a high-quality educational environment. Psychological empowerment, organizational support, faculty demographics, and workload concerns mediate these practices as illustrated in Figure 1. Figure 1. Conceptual framework of study Humanities and Social Sciences Letters, 2025, 13(4): 1204-1225 1206 © 2025 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. Transformational leadership is widely applied in educational settings and positively influences teacher job satisfaction, commitment and self-efficacy (Firmansyah, Prasojo, Jaedun, & Retnawati, 2022). Transformational leadership has a notable impact on generating processes of change within organization not only in managerial aspects but also of a social nature (Capuñay, Santa María, Ramírez, Falla, & Salazar, 2024). 2.1. Transformational Leadership Traits Daniel Goldman’s emotional intelligence model demonstrates the relationship between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership traits (Barling, Slater, & Kelloway, 2000). Personality and self-concept are pivotal in predicting such leadership effectiveness (Perreault, Cohen, & Blanchard, 2016). Core traits like idealized influence, inspiration motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration—the latter strongly tied to job satisfaction define transformational leaders (Long, Yusof, Kowang, & Heng, 2014). They also enhance workplace safety and employee well-being by fostering supportive environments (Thibault, Gulseren, & Kelloway, 2019). Middle-leaders’ agreeableness and openness further strengthen leadership impact and teacher commitment (Zadok & Benoliel, 2023). Transformational leaders elevate the status of a job from mundane to something meaningful, prompting followers to engage in innovative work behavior (Pradhan & Jena, 2019). It can drive employees towards meaning, purpose, and interconnectedness with the organization's goals and values, thus inspiring and motivating them (Mack, Udechukwu, & Mujtaba, 2014). Transformational leadership ignites followers' work engagement, leading to better task performance and helping behaviors (Lai, Tang, Lu, Lee, & Lin, 2020). Transformational leadership inspires and motivates followers through their unique relationships with leaders, creating follower engagement. Studies have witnessed that it stimulates followers to show personal initiative and use their strengths, which predicts work engagement and job performance (Bakker, Hetland, Olsen, & Espevik, 2023). It is positively related to followers' job crafting behavior, particularly when followers have a promotion focus (Hetland, Hetland, Bakker, & Demerouti, 2018). Transformational leaders inspire and motivate their followers by elevating job status, fostering workplace spirituality, igniting work engagement, fostering follower engagement, stimulating personal initiative and strengths use, encouraging job crafting, and motivating commitment to organizational goals. 2.2. Transformational Leaders Use to Empower and Develop Their Followers Transformational leadership aligns with promotion-focused strategies, enhancing follower effort through regulatory fit (Hamstra, Van Yperen, Wisse, & Sassenberg, 2014). It cultivates work engagement, fostering behaviors that improve task performance and collaboration (Lai et al., 2020). This style boosts engagement and outcomes when leaders exemplify its principles by leveraging followers’ strengths and initiative (Bakker et al., 2023). Promotion-focused followers under such leadership proactively reshape roles, gaining resources (Hetland et al., 2018) while trust and empowerment drive innovation, moderated by engagement (Li et al., 2019). In academia, it elevates job satisfaction, curbing turnover and underscoring its value for employee well-being (Tentama & Kusuma, 2019) thereby informing policies to strengthen leadership efficacy (Samad, Muchiri, & Shahid, 2022). 2.3. Transactional Leadership in Education A form of leadership style known as transactional leadership, sometimes known as transactional management, emphasizes the transfer of experience, expertise, resources or effort between superiors and those they supervise. When it comes to achieving a desired result, this style of leadership emphasizes individual interests and extrinsic incentives over intrinsic motivation. To accomplish short-term objectives, it makes use of a system that balances rewards and punishments (Wilkinson & Downton, 1974). Humanities and Social Sciences Letters, 2025, 13(4): 1204-1225 1207 © 2025 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. The relationship between transactional leadership and job satisfaction has been observed in public organizations, including universities and schools (Alarabiat & Eyupoglu, 2022; Khaliq, Malik, Waseem, & Farooqi, 2024). 2.4. Key Components of Transactional Leadership in Academic Settings Transactional leadership and collaborative behaviour shown in organisational environments were predictive of comparable behaviour in academic environments, therefore stressing the need for consistent behavioural traits across contexts. The need for these elements in transactional leadership, role identification and self-awareness gradually added to the prediction of comparable leadership and collaboration behaviors in academic settings. Research on the validation scale for measuring transactional leadership style found components, such as ideal behavior, encouraging mental, and individual considerations, ideal features, active management based on exceptions and contingent rewards as integral to this leadership style (Nazem & Gheytasi, 2014). The influence of transactional leadership, particularly dependent compensation, on academic leaders' performance was examined, demonstrating how it affects job performance in higher education institutions (Mahdinezhad, Bin Suandi, bin Silong, & Omar, 2013). In higher education, faculty engagement is a vital idea affected by several elements like quality of work-life and leadership styles (Ali, Ullah, & Haque, 2023; Hanley, Maykrantz, & Houghton, 2024). Transactional leadership is positively related to talent engagement and development in academic settings (Ali et al., 2023). Emotional intelligence was identified as a crucial skill for academic leadership with relationship management, empathy, self- management, and self-awareness being critical emotional intelligence abilities for academic leadership leading to more staff (Asmamaw & Semela, 2023). Transactional leadership has been shown to have a positive impact on the psychological empowerment of university faculty, which influences their organizational commitment (Huang, Liu, & Huang, 2021). A study highlighted the positive effects of transformational and contingent reward leadership on faculty's psychological empowerment and organizational commitment with psychological empowerment mediating these relationships (Huang et al., 2021). Empowering leadership was found to be related to academics' work engagement through job autonomy, the social community at work, and unreasonable tasks, emphasizing the importance of empowering leadership in enhancing work engagement (Helland, Christensen, & Innstrand, 2020). A study at a public university in Malaysia found that transformational and transactional leadership positively influenced psychological empowerment which in turn had a positive relationship with task performance (Ambad, Kalimin, Ag Damit, & Andrew, 2021). 2.5. Supportive Leadership in Education The type of leadership known as supportive leadership is one in which an executive does not merely delegate responsibilities and wait for the results but rather assists an employee until the task is finished. Supportive leadership is linked to effective communication, collaborative working practices, and performance management practices (Uman, Argento, Grossi, & Mattei, 2024). It is also characterized by behaviors, such as providing autonomy support, recognition, and integrity (Hocine & Zhang, 2014). 2.6. Characteristics of Supportive Leadership in Academic Settings Effective academic leadership involves being visionary and committed to the school/staff and creating a collegial/supportive work environment (Morrison, 2018). Leaders in academic contexts need to demonstrate supportive behaviors, such as support for development, integrity, sincerity, and formal acknowledgment (Shirazi et al., 2014). Through the cultivation of effective communication channels, the acquisition of commitment, and the formation of teams and coalitions, a great academic leader creates alignment and connections among individuals Humanities and Social Sciences Letters, 2025, 13(4): 1204-1225 1208 © 2025 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. (Smith, Williams, Owen, Rubenstein, & Chaney, 2008). Inspiring and energizing, encouraging and empowering the entire team to attain their goals are the hallmarks of a successful academic leader. The morale of faculty members has a substantial impact on faculty behavior, productivity, and the quality of instruction, which ultimately affects the learning of students and the overall quality of the program (Hebert, 2019). There is a positive relationship between supportive leadership and job happiness with communication and collaborative working practices serving as mediators of this relationship (Uman et al., 2024). Effective leadership communication produces a favorable environment that inspires staff members and increases job satisfaction (Suppiah, Ling, Pakirnathan, & Ahmad, 2021). 2.7. Psychological Empowerment Psychological empowerment (PE) encompasses emotional and cognitive dimensions, influencing diverse facets of individual well-being and environments (Christens, Byrd, Peterson, & Lardier, 2018; Speer, Peterson, Christens, & Reid, 2019). PE significantly moderates the relationship between leadership styles, job satisfaction, and faculty involvement. Research shows that PE positively affects employee engagement (Sefnedi, Puspita, & Tiara, 2023) and mediates the relationship between empowerment and job satisfaction. Empowering leadership styles also enhance psychological capital, work engagement, and well-being among employees. Psychological well-being and work engagement act as effective mediators while psychological capital does not mediate empowering leadership’s impact on job happiness (Yassin & Hasyim, 2022). Thus, PE is vital for boosting engagement and satisfaction in organizations. PE’s link to job satisfaction stems from meaningful work (Karizme, Pordanjani, & Ebrahimi, 2016; Meng & Han, 2014). Studies consistently highlight its role in connecting leadership and satisfaction while also enhancing commitment, involvement, and performance (Allam, 2017). 2.8. Perceived Institutional Support The correlation between work satisfaction among faculty members and leadership styles depends much on perceived organizational support (POS). Studies have revealed that POS may greatly raise work satisfaction and faculty involvement by serving as a mediator between leadership styles and these results. All of this effects faculty work satisfaction. It also encourages good behaviors, such as organizational citizenship, and dedication, and lessens emotional tiredness. Furthermore, POS is supposed to manage the relationship between leadership actions and faculty job satisfaction in the framework of servant leadership. This emphasizes the need for organizational assistance in the process of developing favorable work attitudes and involvement (Dahleez & Aboramadan, 2022). Perceived organizational support (POS) greatly affects employee loyalty by improving a good work environment and hence increasing commitment. Studies have indicated that POS improves employee organizational commitment (Artatanaya, Supiatni, Kencanawati, Marhaeni, & Muderana, 2023) hence fostering more loyalty and participation (Sihag, 2021). Furthermore, important in determining workers' impressions of the value of their efforts and concerns for their well-being which shapes their loyalty is POS (Koomson, 2022). All of which can either positively mediate or moderate the relationship between POS and employee loyalty are total quality management (TQM), information communication technology adoption (ADT), government support (GOS), and co-worker support (COS). Encouraging loyalty and dedication among the workforce depends mostly on a favourable organizational climate that values and supports its people. 3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY The present research uses quantitative research for the study of employing questionnaire assessment (Sandelowski, 2000). The chosen methodology is aligned with the objectives to examine the impact of academic administrator leadership practices on faculty engagement and job satisfaction in higher education. The chosen Humanities and Social Sciences Letters, 2025, 13(4): 1204-1225 1209 © 2025 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. strategy is explanatory to establish and explain the relationship among the variables. In the study, the data is collected using cross-sectional (Zangirolami-Raimundo, de Oliveira Echeimberg, & Leone, 2018) methodology, hence, allowing data collection from faculties from different fields of academic domains and different universities in Saudi Arabia. A structured questionnaire is used using a self-assessment Google Form from faculties across different universities of Saudi Arabia for data collection. The collection of data is managed by personal connection through the proper channel and through the university communication mode. In the study, both inferential as well as descriptive analysis is employed for the optimization of the examination process. The inferential method by Al- Aufi and Al-Azri (2013) provides an examination of relationships across variables and assesses the pattern of relationships whereas descriptive analysis provides a broader overview of the data. Hence, integrating both approaches can have a wider understanding of the concept. The Structured Equational Modeling with Partial Least Square (SEM-PLS) method is used to analyze data in the study as it can handle larger as well as optimal sets of data (Becker, Cheah, Gholamzade, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2022). 3.1. Data Collection In the present study, faculty members from different domains across different Saudi universities including 5 public universities and 3 private universities from different geographic locations of the kingdom. A multi-level sampling technique is used in the study. Purpose sampling is used to ensure an equal distribution of public and private universities in the study. Moreover, it could also ensure that the universities have been chosen from different geographic locations of the kingdom. The rationale for employing this methodology is to avoid common biases among the participants (Zaman, 2021). It also boosts reliability and validity in analyzing the data. The decision to collect data from 3 public universities and 2 private because they have distinct features and capabilities, including the types of establishment and infrastructure they deliver to their stakeholders may vary considerably. Hence, a thorough assessment impact of academic administrator leadership practices on faculty engagement and job satisfaction in higher education in Saudi universities could be accessed and understood more broadly. The minimum size of the sample for the present should not be less than 900 as it is advised that the sample should be at least ten times the largest number of structural paths directed toward a specific construct in the structural model (Leguina, 2015). Moreover, it is also advisable to have a larger set of samples as it can improve statistical power, accuracy, coherence, and dependability of estimations (Hair, Black, Barry, Anderson, & Tatham, 2006; Hair, 2023). 1200 respondents were sent the questionnaire and out of that 990 filled responses were taken for data analysis excluding the responses that were filled randomly. 3.2. Source of Data 3.2.1. Secondary Source The secondary data is collected from Scopus and Web of Science-indexed journals that have helped build a concrete framework for the study towards the foundation of the theory. 3.2.2. Surveys The study conducted surveys by Rowley (2014) to investigate faculty engagement and job satisfaction influenced by different leadership styles in the academic institutions of Saudi Arabia putting psychological empowerment and perceived institutional support as a mediating factor in the study. The participants were the faculties who are working in different colleges and universities (see Annexure II). 4. STATISTICAL PROCESSING OF DATA The study employed a methodical approach for data analysis encompassing descriptive data. Humanities and Social Sciences Letters, 2025, 13(4): 1204-1225 1210 © 2025 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 4.1. Descriptive Analysis The initial stage involved a comprehensive and meticulous descriptive examination of the gathered data. This technique utilized descriptive statistics to analyze the distribution, core tendencies, and variations in academic accomplishment, motivation for sustainability, psychological empowerment and the digital learning environment. The study aimed to uncover intrinsic patterns and characteristics in the information by examining these descriptive statistics. 4.2. Inferential Analysis using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) The inferential analysis step looks beyond descriptive statistics at the complex interactions and links among the research variables usually carried out by Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) (Hooper & Coughlan, 2008). Robust statistical method structural equation modelling analyze complicated models containing many variables continuously concurrently. In this instance, the mediating variable, psychological empowerment, the dependent variable, academic performance and Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) were applied to examine the relationships between the independent variables, specifically the motivation for sustainability and the digital learning environment. The study aims to investigate the impact of leadership styles on work satisfaction by use of Structural Equation Modelling (SEM), therefore obtaining a better knowledge of the interrelationships among these elements. Figure 2. Measurement model. Table 1. Construct reliability and validity Constructs Cronbach's alpha Composite reliability (rho_a) Composite reliability (rho_c) Average variance extracted (AVE) Faculty engagement 0.874 0.878 0.941 0.888 Job satisfaction 0.856 0.860 0.933 0.874 Perceived institutional support 0.860 0.865 0.915 0.782 Psychological empowerment 0.805 0.880 0.880 0.710 Quality education delivered 0.879 0.879 0.925 0.805 Supportive leadership 0.911 0.920 0.944 0.849 Transactional leadership 0.827 0.831 0.897 0.743 Transformational leadership 0.795 0.796 0.880 0.709 Humanities and Social Sciences Letters, 2025, 13(4): 1204-1225 1211 © 2025 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 4.3. Data Analysis and Interpretation Among the several factors measured in the study, faculty engagement, job satisfaction, perceived institutional support, psychological empowerment, quality education delivered, supportive leadership, transactional leadership, and transformational leadership—strong validity and dependability abound. Cronbach's alpha scores for all structures over the recommended threshold of 0.7 show strong internal consistency with the highest dependability recorded for supportive leadership (0.911) and the lowest for transformational leadership (0.795). Moreover, substantially over 0.7 are composite reliability measures (rho_a and rho_c), therefore confirming the structural dependability. Good convergent validity is shown by all construct's average variance extracted (AVE) values above 0.5. This shows that every construct essentially reflects the variance in its corresponding indicator with AVE values ranging from 0.709 ( transformational leadership) to 0.888 ( faculty engagement). These findings generally confirm the strength of the measuring model, therefore guaranteeing the validity and consistency of the constructions in this research as shown in Table 1 and Figure 2. Humanities and Social Sciences Letters, 2025, 13(4): 1204-1225 1212 © 2025 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. Table 2. Discriminant validity Constructs Faculty engagement Job satisfaction Perceived institutional support Psychological empowerment Quality education delivered Supportive leadership Transactional leadership Transformational leadership Faculty engagement 0.942 Job satisfaction 0.787 0.935 Perceived institutional support 0.893 0.804 0.884 Psychological empowerment 0.543 0.694 0.646 0.842 Quality education delivered 0.706 0.750 0.668 0.585 0.897 Supportive leadership 0.777 0.751 0.753 0.614 0.681 0.921 Transactional leadership 0.757 0.742 0.795 0.709 0.689 0.868 0.862 Transformational leadership 0.694 0.670 0.675 0.609 0.663 0.844 0.730 0.842 Humanities and Social Sciences Letters, 2025, 13(4): 1204-1225 1213 © 2025 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. The discriminant validity results demonstrate that every construct in the study is unique and measures a different concept using the Fornell-Larcker criterion. As the table shows that the square root of the average variance extracted (AVE) for every construct surpasses its correlations with other constructs. Strong discriminant validity is shown by faculty engagement with a square root of AVE of 0.942, greater than its correlations with other constructs. Similarly, job satisfaction (0.935), perceived institutional support (0.484), psychological empowerment (0.842), quality education delivered (0.897), supportive leadership (0.921), transactional leadership (0.862), transformational leadership (0.842) all show square roots of AVE that are greater than their correlations with other constructions. This guarantees that the constructions clearly differ from one another and thereby sufficiently reflect several facets of the study model. The findings demonstrate that every construct is unique and well-differentiated throughout the research, therefore validating the strength of the measuring approach as shown in Table 2. Table 3. Collinearity statistics – VIF Items VIF FE1 2.511 FE2 2.511 JS1 2.268 JS2 2.268 PE1 1.971 PE2 1.842 PE3 1.566 PIS1 1.906 PIS2 2.337 PIS3 2.617 QED1 2.764 QED2 2.175 QED3 2.518 SL1 3.313 SL2 3.306 SL3 2.771 TL1 1.630 TL2 1.697 TL3 1.744 TR1 2.140 TR2 1.636 TR3 2.123 Table 3 illustrates the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) measures the collinearity statistics show that in this study, multicollinearity is not a problem. From 1.566 to 3.313, all VIF values are much below the 5 thresholds. Items connected to supportive leadership (SL) show the greatest VIF values. SL1 and SL2 have VIF values of 3.313 and 3.306 respectively but within reasonable ranges. Furthermore, displaying modest VIF levels are items connected to quality education delivered (QED), including QED1 (2.764) and QED3 (2.518). On the other hand, transformational leadership (TL) components had the lowest VIF values, therefore suggesting quite minimal multicollinearity. Further proving the absence of multicollinearity, other constructions including faculty engagement (FE), job satisfaction (JS), psychological empowerment (PE), perceived institutional support (PIS), and transactional leadership (TR) also show VIF values within the allowed range. This absence of multicollinearity improves the validity and robustness of the results of the study and guarantees the dependability of the regression coefficients. Humanities and Social Sciences Letters, 2025, 13(4): 1204-1225 1214 © 2025 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. Table 4. Model fit indices for saturated and estimated models Model fit Saturated model Estimated model SRMR 0.082 0.096 d_ULS 1.714 2.326 d_G 1.881 1.975 Chi-square 3555.180 3611.372 NFI 0.634 0.629 Though there are significant variations across the models, the model fit indices shown in the table show that both the estimated and saturated models offer a generally reasonable match to the data. Both the estimated model and the saturated model have Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) values of 0.096 and 0.082, respectively, both below the criterion of 0.10, implying a fair match; the saturated model performs rather better. The d_ULS and d_G values—which gauge the difference between the observed and estimated covariance matrices are lower for the saturated model (1. Courtney and 1.881, respectively) than for the estimated model (2. 326 and 1.975 suggesting a better match for the saturated model. These variations are not significant. Hence, the generated model still sufficiently fits the data. Typically, in large samples, the chi-square values for both models (3555.180 for the saturated model and 3611.372 for the estimated model) are rather high; yet, the little rise in the estimated model reflects a somewhat less optimum match. Indicating modest fit, the Normed Fit Index (NFI) values for the estimated model are 0.629 and for the saturated model, they are 0.634. Although the saturated model shows a somewhat better fit, both models might gain from greater improvement to raise these indices—especially the NFI to obtain a more ideal model fit as shown in Table 4. Table 5 indicates the R-square and adjusted R-square values offer information on the degree of model explanation for the variance in every dependent variable. Faculty engagement displays the greatest R-square value at 0.799, meaning almost 80% of the variance in faculty involvement is explained by the model with a minimum reduction to 0.798 when corrected for the number of predictors. With an R-square of 0.73, job satisfaction follows with 73% of its variance explained. The adjusted R-square of 0.728 validates the great explanatory ability of the model. Perceived institutional support shows that the model reasonably explains a large amount of its variance with an adjusted score of 0.651 and an R-square of 0.654. Psychological empowerment and superior learning with R-square values of 0.532 and 0.597 respectively and minor changes to 0.528 and 0.595 delivered demonstrate little explanatory power. The absence of R-square values for transformational leadership, transactional leadership, and supportive leadership points to these constructs either as independent variables or as yet unevaluated for their explanatory power. The model shows general excellent explanatory power, especially for faculty engagement and job satisfaction, indicating a dependable and well-fitting model with modified R-square values nearly matching the unadjusted values. Humanities and Social Sciences Letters, 2025, 13(4): 1204-1225 1215 © 2025 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. Table 5. R-square and f-square matrix Constructs f-square matrix R-square R-square adjusted Faculty engagement Job satisfaction Perceived institutional support Psychological empowerment Quality education delivered Faculty engagement 0.799 0.798 0.116 0.087 Job satisfaction 0.73 0.728 0.247 Perceived institutional support 0.654 0.651 2.507 0.036 Psychological empowerment 0.532 0.528 0.009 0.224 Quality education delivered 0.597 0.595 Supportive leadership 0.008 0.025 Transactional leadership 0.236 0.27 Transformational leadership 0.017 0.064 Humanities and Social Sciences Letters, 2025, 13(4): 1204-1225 1216 © 2025 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. The f-square values expose the degree of mutual influence among several elements in the research. Job satisfaction (0.116) and quality education delivered (0.087) have a modest impact from faculty engagement. With a score of 0.247, job satisfaction clearly has a major influence on the quality of the delivered education. Perceived institutional support has a significant impact on faculty engagement (2.506) but only a minor effect on job satisfaction (0.36). Psychological empowerment has a modest impact on job satisfaction (0.224) but a small one on faculty engagement (0.009). Supportive leadership hardly affects psychological empowerment (0.025) and perceived institutional support (0.008). By contrast, transactional leadership has a major impact on psychological empowerment (0.270) and perceived institutional support (0.236). Transformational leadership has a lesser effect on psychological empowerment (0.064) and perceived institutional support (0.017). These values emphasize elements which have the most important influence in the model and assist us in comprehending the different strengths of these interactions. Figure 3. Structural model Humanities and Social Sciences Letters, 2025, 13(4): 1204-1225 1217 © 2025 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. Table 6. Hypothesis testing Hypothesis Path Original sample (O) Sample mean (M) Standard deviation (STDEV) T statistics (|O/STDEV|) P values Remarks H-D1 Transformational leadership -> quality education delivered 0.128 0.129 0.049 2.591 0.010 Accept H-D2 Transactional leadership -> quality education delivered 0.438 0.437 0.038 11.572 0.000 Accept H-D3 Supportive leadership -> quality education delivered 0.043 0.043 0.058 0.728 0.467 Reject H-M1 Transformational leadership -> psychological empowerment -> faculty engagement -> job satisfaction - > quality education delivered 0.202 0.198 0.036 5.581 0.000 Accept H-M2 Transformational leadership -> perceived institutional support -> job satisfaction -> quality education delivered 0.017 0.018 0.012 1.476 0.14 Reject H-M3 Transactional leadership -> psychological empowerment - > faculty engagement -> job satisfaction -> quality education delivered -0.008 -0.008 0.005 1.82 0.069 Reject H-M4 Transactional leadership -> perceived institutional support -> faculty engagement -> job satisfaction -> quality education delivered 0.108 0.105 0.022 4.932 0.000 Accept H-M5 Supportive leadership -> perceived institutional support -> faculty engagement -> job satisfaction -> quality education delivered 0.025 0.025 0.019 1.361 0.174 Reject H-M6 Supportive leadership -> psychological empowerment -> faculty engagement -> job satisfaction -> quality education delivered 0.003 0.003 0.002 1.957 0.05 Reject Humanities and Social Sciences Letters, 2025, 13(4): 1204-1225 1218 © 2025 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. Results for several hypotheses investigating the relationships between leadership styles and educational outcomes including direct and mediated effects are shown in Table 6. H-D1: Transformational leadership suggests that it significantly and positively influences the quality of education delivered (0.128 and p = 0.010), therefore helping to substantially raise the standard of education. Transactional leadership (H-D2) clearly and significantly affects the quality of education delivered (0.438 and p = 0.000). This shows that improving the quality of education is much influenced by transactional leadership. H-D3: Supportive leadership has no appreciable impact on the quality of education delivered (0.043 and p = 0.467), therefore it does not greatly affect the quality of education. H-M1: Transformational leadership (0.202 and p = 0.000) has an indirect impact on quality of education delivered using psychological empowerment, faculty engagement, and job satisfaction. This shows how indirectly transformative leadership improves quality education through these middle-ground factors. H-M2: Transformational leadership's mediation effect the quality of education delivered through perceived institutional support and job satisfaction (0.017 and p = 0.14), therefore this pathway does not improve the quality of education. H-M3: Transactional leadership's mediation effect the quality of education delivered through psychological empowerment, faculty engagement, and job satisfaction (-0.008 and p = 0.069), suggesting that this indirect pathway has little influence. Transactional leadership has a positive impact on quality education provided through perceived institutional support, faculty engagement, and job satisfaction (0.108 and p = 0.000). This significant discovery highlights the effectiveness of transactional leadership in enhancing educational outcomes through the use of these mediators. H-M5: Supportive leadership's mediation effect the quality of education delivered through perceived institutional support, faculty engagement, and job satisfaction (0.025 and p = 0.174), thereby implying that this pathway does not significantly influence the quality of education. H-M6: Supportive leadership indirectly affects the quality of education delivered through psychological empowerment, faculty engagement, and job satisfaction (0.003 and p = 0.05), indicating that this mediating effect is slightly significant and does not affect quality education (see Figure 3). Table 7. Importance-performance map (quality education delivered) Constructs Quality education delivered Performance Faculty engagement 0.505 48.355 Job satisfaction 0.511 50.787 Perceived institutional support 0.594 49.993 Psychological empowerment 0.136 53.297 Supportive leadership 0.043 52.467 Transactional leadership 0.438 52.938 Transformational leadership 0.128 47.898 Table 7 offers an understanding of the relevance and performance of several elements influencing the delivery of quality education. Perceived institutional support ranks highest in importance and is therefore both vital and performs well with a score of 0.594 and a performance score of 49.993. Job satisfaction and faculty engagement also demonstrate great relevance with ratings of 0.511 and 0.506 respectively. Their performance scores of 50.787 and 48.355 indicate that they are successful in improving the educational quality (Hakami, Al-Shargabi, Sabri, & Khan, 2023). By comparison, psychological empowerment (0.136) and transformational leadership (0.128) have lower relevance scores and their performance scores are rather lower at 53.297 and 47.898, respectively. Supportive leadership was shown to have little effect on the quality of education with a performance score of 52.467 and a lowest importance score of 0.043. Transactional leadership is somewhat important (0.438), suggesting its Humanities and Social Sciences Letters, 2025, 13(4): 1204-1225 1219 © 2025 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. relevance but not as vital as institutional support or work satisfaction with a performance score of 52.938. While psychological empowerment and transformational leadership help considerably with quality education, the analysis emphasizes that perceived institutional support, job satisfaction, and faculty engagement are crucial elements of great importance and reasonable performance. Figure 4. Importance-performance map 5. DISCUSSION Within the framework of SDG 4, which seeks to guarantee inclusive and fair quality education and advance lifelong learning possibilities for all, the findings of the importance performance map analysis (IMPA) offer insightful analysis of how various leadership approaches affect educational results (see Figure 4). With an IMPA score of 0.128, transformational leadership has a somewhat favorable impact on the quality of the delivered education. This leadership style promotes a good learning atmosphere and propels creative ideas for encouraging and motivating teachers. Still, its influence is quite less than that of other elements. With an IMPA value of 0.438, transactional leadership has a higher impact on educational quality. The emphasis of this strategy on well-defined expectations and rewards fits very nicely with reaching particular performance goals and educational objectives (Wilkinson & Downton, 1974). Transactional leaders enhance SDG 4's emphasis on quantifiable educational outcomes by defining specific targets and offering incentives, therefore helping to preserve high standards in educational environments. With an IMPA value of 0.043, supportive leadership has a smaller direct impact on educational quality. Still, it's important to provide a supportive environment that raises staff morale and satisfaction, therefore indirectly supporting improved educational results (Hebert, 2019; Uman et al., 2024). This reflects SDG 4 by creating a supportive environment for teachers. Reflected by an IMPA value of 0.136, psychological empowerment greatly affects the quality of education. Encouragement of teachers by confidence and autonomy increases their effectiveness and engagement (Meng & Humanities and Social Sciences Letters, 2025, 13(4): 1204-1225 1220 © 2025 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. Han, 2014). This helps to achieve the objective of SDG 4— establishing a classroom where teachers are engaged and driven. With an IMPA value of 0.594, perceived institutional support (PIS) is rather important for improving educational quality. This great value emphasizes the need for institutional support in offering resources and building a favorable atmosphere for teaching and learning (Dinc, Gürbüz, & Hacıoğlu, 2022; Mwesigwa, Tusiime, & Ssekiziyivu, 2020). A supportive institution guarantees that teachers have the resources and encouragement they need to succeed, therefore complementing SDG 4. The IMPA findings show that although transformational leadership is crucial for inspiring and motivating teachers, transactional leadership and perceived institutional support have a more immediate and significant effect on raising educational quality. Though to different degrees, psychological empowerment and supportive leadership also have major roles. These results highlight the requirement of a balanced leadership style in education that fits the dedication of SDG 4 to high-quality, inclusive education (see Annexure I). 6. CONCLUSION The results of this study emphasize how much faculty involvement and job satisfaction depend on leadership approaches. Transformational leadership increases faculty motivation through encouraging an environment of creativity and invention. Although more regimented and reward-based, transparent and stable transactional leadership helps faculty performance to be better. Psychological empowerment depends on supportive leadership, which also encourages institutional commitment and professional development. Key mediators in the relationship between leadership-engagement-satisfaction were revealed to be perceived institutional support and psychological empowerment. Faculty members who believe their institution supports them show more involvement, satisfaction with their jobs, and dedication to academic success. Transformational leadership has a long-term effect on faculty involvement and improves performance right away. The findings underline the requirement of a well-balanced leadership style in educational institutions. University officials have to combine transformational, transactional, and supportive leadership aspects to establish a whole atmosphere that supports faculty well-being and improves educational quality. Institutions giving teacher satisfaction top priority are more likely to experience long-term academic achievement. 6.1. Future Direction of Research Although this study offers insightful analysis of how academic leadership affects faculty involvement and job satisfaction, numerous more areas of research are required. Future studies may look at how institutional success and teacher retention are long-term consequences of leadership styles. Deeper understanding of how faculty motivation changes with time might come from longitudinal research on leadership styles. Furthermore, qualitative research techniques like case studies and interviews might enhance the quantitative results by giving better knowledge of faculty experiences and leadership dynamics. Comparative studies conducted in several educational environments and cultural settings would also help to highlight how differently leadership effectiveness differs throughout organizations and areas. As technology changes higher education, future studies might examine how digital tools and virtual leadership affect teacher involvement and job satisfaction. Faculty involvement and leadership development programs should also be studied to improve academic leadership and success tactics. 6.2. Implication of the Study This research can help policymakers and academics. Institutions should start transformative leadership development programs while maintaining transactional elements. Professional development and mentoring enhance teacher engagement and work satisfaction. Institutional initiatives should focus on boosting purported institutional Humanities and Social Sciences Letters, 2025, 13(4): 1204-1225 1221 © 2025 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. support. Universities should foster open communication, recognize faculty accomplishments, and offer necessary resources. Giving psychological empowerment a priority would help to ensure faculty members' autonomy and support enabling them to innovate in their preferred methods. This study emphasizes the need for good leadership in advancing SDG 4. Academic institutions may increase the general quality of education, minimize turnover rates, and improve teacher participation by establishing a nice environment. Future research on the long-term effects of leadership styles on teacher retention and student performance should serve to improve the global discussion on educational quality. Funding: This study received no specific financial support. Institutional Review Board Statement: The Ethical Committee of the College of Business, Saudi Arabia has granted approval for this study on 26 April 2024 (Ref. No. REC/CBA/20242). Transparency: The authors state that the manuscript is honest, truthful, and transparent, that no key aspects of the investigation have been omitted, and that any differences from the study as planned have been clarified. This study followed all writing ethics. Competing Interests: The author declares that there are no conflicts of interests regarding the publication of this paper. REFERENCES Adeniji, A., Osibanjo, A., Salau, O., Atolagbe, T., Ojebola, O., Osoko, A., . . . Edewor, O. (2020). Leadership dimensions, employee engagement and job performance of selected consumer-packaged goods firms. Cogent Arts & Humanities, 7(1), 1801115. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2020.1801115 Al-Aufi, A., & Al-Azri, H. (2013). Information literacy in Oman’s higher education: A descriptive-inferential approach. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 45(4), 335-346. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000613486824 Alarabiat, Y. A., & Eyupoglu, S. (2022). Is silence golden? The influence of employee silence on the transactional leadership and job satisfaction relationship. Sustainability, 14(22), 15205. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215205 Ali, E., Anshari, M., Hamdan, M., Ahmad, N., & Surieshtino, Y. (2023). Green finance for sustainable development: a bibliographic analysis. Paper presented at the 2023 International Conference on Sustainable Islamic Business and Finance (SIBF). Ali, M., Ullah, M. S., & Haque, A. (2023). Effect of transactional and transformational leadership on talent engagement: Mediating role of talent development. Global Business and Organizational Excellence, 42(6), 120-137. https://doi.org/10.1002/joe.22214 Allam, Z. (2017). Developing employee excellence through psychological empowerment: A conceptual approach. International Journal of Applied Business and Economic Research, 15(22), 121-126. Ambad, S. N. A., Kalimin, K. M., Ag Damit, D. H. D., & Andrew, J. V. (2021). The mediating effect of psychological empowerment on leadership styles and task performance of academic staff. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 42(5), 763-782. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-05-2020-0197 Artatanaya, I. G. L. S., Supiatni, N. N., Kencanawati, A. A. A. M., Marhaeni, K. E., & Muderana, I. K. (2023). The effect of perceived organizational support to employee's organizational commitment. International Research Journal of Management, IT and Social Sciences, 10(2), 101-109. https://doi.org/10.21744/irjmis.v10n2.2290 Asmamaw, A. T., & Semela, T. (2023). Exploring the influence of leader emotional intelligence on faculty engagement in Ethiopian higher education. Cogent Education, 10(2), 2277547. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2277547 Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands‐resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309-328. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940710733115 Bakker, A. B., Hetland, J., Olsen, O. K., & Espevik, R. (2023). Daily transformational leadership: A source of inspiration for follower performance? European Management Journal, 41(5), 700-708. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2022.04.004 Barling, J., Slater, F., & Kelloway, E. K. (2000). Transformational leadership and emotional intelligence: An exploratory study. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 21(3), 157-161. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437730010325040 Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(1), 9-32. https://doi.org/10.1080/135943299398410 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2020.1801115 https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000613486824 https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215205 https://doi.org/10.1002/joe.22214 https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-05-2020-0197 https://doi.org/10.21744/irjmis.v10n2.2290 https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2277547 https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940710733115 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2022.04.004 https://doi.org/10.1108/01437730010325040 https://doi.org/10.1080/135943299398410 Humanities and Social Sciences Letters, 2025, 13(4): 1204-1225 1222 © 2025 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. Becker, J.-M., Cheah, J.-H., Gholamzade, R., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2022). PLS-SEM’s most wanted guidance. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 35(1), 321-346. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-04-2022- 0474 Berkovich, I. (2016). School leaders and transformational leadership theory: Time to part ways? Journal of Educational Administration, 54(5), 609–622. Bhatnagar, A., & Singh, T. (2024). Quality education: Foundation for 16 SDGs. In Sustainability: Science, Policy, and Practice in India: Challenges and Opportunities (pp. 53-62). Cham: Springer. Capuñay, L. M. P., Santa María, A. L. P., Ramírez, J. N. G., Falla, J. V. H., & Salazar, P. O. M. (2024). Transformational leadership as a commitment to change. A systematic review of the literature. Interciencia, 49(5), 292–299. Christens, B. D., Byrd, K., Peterson, N. A., & Lardier, D. T. (2018). Critical hopefulness among urban high school students. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 47, 1649-1662. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-018-0889-3 Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874- 900. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305279602 Dahleez, K., & Aboramadan, M. (2022). Servant leadership and job satisfaction in higher education: The mediating roles of organizational justice and organizational trust. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 28(4), 853–874. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2022.2052753 Dinc, M. S., Gürbüz, H., & Hacıoğlu, G. (2022). Institutional support and content relevance on instructional quality of basic education teachers. International Journal of Novel Research and Development, 9(11), 1-8. Firmansyah, F., Prasojo, L. D., Jaedun, A., & Retnawati, H. (2022). Transformational leadership effect on teacher performance in Asia: A meta-analysis. Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences, 17(6), 2127-2146. https://doi.org/10.18844/cjes.v17i6.7552 Hair, J., Black, W., Barry, J., Anderson, R., & Tatham, R. (2006). Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River: Pearson. Prentice Hall. Hair, J. F. (2023). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning. Hakami, T. A., Al-Shargabi, B., Sabri, O., & Khan, S. M. F. A. (2023). Impact of blackboard technology acceptance on students learning in Saudi Arabia. Journal of Educators Online, 20(3), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.9743/jeo.2023.20.3.13 Hamstra, M. R. W., Van Yperen, N. W., Wisse, B., & Sassenberg, K. (2014). On the perceived effectiveness of transformational– transactional leadership: The role of encouraged strategies and followers' regulatory focus. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44(6), 643-656. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2027 Hanley, Y. D., Maykrantz, S. A., & Houghton, J. D. (2024). Broken engagement: The role of grit and LMX in enhancing faculty engagement. Higher Education Quarterly, 78(1), 153-172. https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12450 Hebert, E. (2019). Faculty morale: A perspective for academic leaders. Kinesiology Review, 8(4), 305-311. https://doi.org/10.1123/kr.2019-0040 Helland, E., Christensen, M., & Innstrand, S. T. (2020). The relationship between empowering leadership, work characteristics, and work engagement among academics: A SEM mediation analysis. Scandinavian Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.16993/SJWOP.84 Hetland, J., Hetland, H., Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2018). Daily transformational leadership and employee job crafting: The role of promotion focus. European Management Journal, 36(6), 746-756. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2018.01.002 Hocine, Z., & Zhang, J. (2014). Autonomy supportive leadership: A new framework for understanding effective leadership through self-determination theory. International Journal of Information Systems and Change Management, 7(2), 135-149. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJISCM.2014.069397 Hooper, D., & Coughlan, J. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53-60. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-04-2022-0474/FULL/HTML https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-04-2022-0474/FULL/HTML https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-018-0889-3 https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305279602 https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2022.2052753 https://doi.org/10.18844/cjes.v17i6.7552 https://doi.org/10.9743/jeo.2023.20.3.13 https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2027 https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12450 https://doi.org/10.1123/kr.2019-0040 https://doi.org/10.16993/SJWOP.84 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2018.01.002 https://doi.org/10.1504/IJISCM.2014.069397 Humanities and Social Sciences Letters, 2025, 13(4): 1204-1225 1223 © 2025 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. Huang, Y.-T., Liu, H., & Huang, L. (2021). How transformational and contingent reward leaderships influence university faculty's organizational commitment: The mediating effect of psychological empowerment. Studies in Higher Education, 46(11), 2473-2490. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1723534 Karizme, T. B., Pordanjani, T. R., & Ebrahimi, A. M. (2016). The relationships between structural and psychological empowerment and job satisfaction among nurses. HAYAT, 22(3), 201–215. Khaliq, A. A., Malik, J. T., Waseem, M., & Farooqi, U. (2024). Leadership styles and job performance of college teachers: Mediating role of job satisfaction. Journal of Logistics, Informatics and Service Science, 11(1). Koomson, S. (2022). A conceptual framework of employees’ perceived organisational support on student loyalty. IIM Ranchi Journal of Management Studies, 1(2), 209-221. https://doi.org/10.1108/irjms-01-2022-0003 Lai, F.-Y., Tang, H.-C., Lu, S.-C., Lee, Y.-C., & Lin, C.-C. (2020). Transformational leadership and job performance: The mediating role of work engagement. Sage Open, 10(1), 2158244019899085. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019899085 Leguina, A. (2015). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 38(2), 220-221. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727x.2015.1005806 Li, H., Sajjad, N., Wang, Q., Muhammad Ali, A., Khaqan, Z., & Amina, S. (2019). Influence of transformational leadership on employees’ innovative work behavior in sustainable organizations: Test of mediation and moderation processes. Sustainability, 11(6), 1594. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11061594 Long, C. S., Yusof, W. M. M., Kowang, T. O., & Heng, L. H. (2014). The impact of transformational leadership style on job satisfaction. World Applied Sciences Journal, 29(1), 117-124. Mack, C., Udechukwu, I., & Mujtaba, B. G. (2014). Workplace spirituality and transformational leadership: An assessment of their relationship and Fry’s causal spiritual model. In M. G. Hunter & M. E. Vidal (Eds.), Organizational innovation and IT governance in emerging economies. In (pp. 70–86). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Mahdinezhad, M., Bin Suandi, T., Bin Silong, A. D., & Omar, Z. B. (2013). Transformational, transactional leadership styles and job performance of academic leaders. International Education Studies, 6(11), 29-34. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v6n11p29 Maker, C. J. (2021). From leading to guiding, facilitating, and inspiring: A needed shift for the 21st Century. Education Sciences, 12(1), 18. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12010018 Meng, B., & Han, H. (2014). The effects of empowerment on employee psychological outcomes in upscale hotels. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 23(2), 218-237. https://doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2013.768189 Morrison, A. R. (2018). Beyond the status quo–setting the agenda for effective change: The role of leader within an international school environment. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 46(3), 511-529. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143216682500 Mwesigwa, R., Tusiime, I., & Ssekiziyivu, B. (2020). Institutional support and teacher competence in government-aided secondary schools in South Western Uganda. International Journal of Educational Policy Research and Review, 7(1), 1–11. Nazem, F., & Gheytasi, S. (2014). Validation scale for measuring the leadership style (Transformational and transactional leadership style) in education ministry. Advances in Environmental Biology, 8, 86-91. Perreault, D., Cohen, L. R., & Blanchard, C. M. (2016). Fostering transformational leadership among young adults: A basic psychological needs approach. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 21(3), 341-355. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673843.2015.1083451 Pradhan, S., & Jena, L. K. (2019). Does meaningful work explains the relationship between transformational leadership and innovative work behaviour? Vikalpa, 44(1), 30-40. https://doi.org/10.1177/0256090919832434 Rowley, J. (2014). Designing and using research questionnaires. Management Research Review, 37(3), 308-330. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-02-2013-0027 Samad, A., Muchiri, M., & Shahid, S. (2022). Investigating leadership and employee well-being in higher education. Personnel Review, 51(1), 57-76. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-05-2020-0340 https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1723534 https://doi.org/10.1108/irjms-01-2022-0003 https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019899085 https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727x.2015.1005806 https://doi.org/10.3390/su11061594 https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v6n11p29 https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12010018 https://doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2013.768189 https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143216682500 https://doi.org/10.1080/02673843.2015.1083451 https://doi.org/10.1177/0256090919832434 https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-02-2013-0027 https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-05-2020-0340 Humanities and Social Sciences Letters, 2025, 13(4): 1204-1225 1224 © 2025 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. Sandelowski, M. (2000). Combining qualitative and quantitative sampling, data collection, and analysis techniques in mixed‐method studies. Research in Nursing & Health, 23(3), 246-255. Sefnedi, Puspita, D. F., & Tiara, F. (2023). The effect of psychological empowerment and HR practices on job satisfaction: The role of employee engagement as mediator. International Journal of Business Management and Economic Review, 6(1), 52- 63. https://doi.org/10.35409/ijbmer.2023.3459 Shirazi, M., Emami, A. H., Mirmoosavi, S. J., Alavinia, S. M., Zamanian, H., Fathollahbeigi, F., & Masiello, I. (2014). Contextualization and standardization of the supportive leadership behavior questionnaire based on socio-cognitive theory in Iran. Medical Journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran, 28, 125. Sihag, P. (2021). The impact of perceived organizational support on employee engagement: A study of Indian IT industry. International Journal of Human Capital and Information Technology Professionals, 12(2), 35-52. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJHCITP.2021040103 Smith, J. L., Williams, J. W., Owen, R. R., Rubenstein, L. V., & Chaney, E. (2008). Developing a national dissemination plan for collaborative care for depression: QUERI Series. Implementation Science, 3, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-3- 59 Speer, P. W., Peterson, N. A., Christens, B. D., & Reid, R. J. (2019). Youth cognitive empowerment: Development and evaluation of an instrument. American Journal of Community Psychology, 64(3-4), 528-540. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12339 Suppiah, S. M., Ling, W. X., Pakirnathan, P. G., & Ahmad, M. K. (2021). Exploring the influence of leadership communication on job satisfaction among staff members in Malaysian private institution of higher learning. Jurnal Komunikasi: Malaysian Journal of Communication, 37(2), 130-153. Tentama, F., & Kusuma, D. R. (2019). Job satisfaction as a mediating variable in the effect of transformational leadership on performance. Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews, 7(6), 1082-1089. Thibault, T., Gulseren, D. B., & Kelloway, E. K. (2019). The benefits of transformational leadership and transformational leadership training on health and safety outcomes. In R. J. Burke & A. M. Richardsen (Eds.), Increasing occupational health and safety in workplaces: Individual, work and organizational factors. In (pp. 334–348). Cheltenham, UK ; Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing. Tummers, L. G., & Bakker, A. B. (2021). Leadership and job demands-resources theory: A systematic review. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 722080. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.722080 Uman, T., Argento, D., Grossi, G., & Mattei, G. (2024). Supportive leadership and job satisfaction at the European court of auditors. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 90(2), 454-473. https://doi.org/10.1177/00208523231187275 Wilkinson, P., & Downton, J. V. (1974). Rebel leadership: Commitment and charisma in the revolutionary process. The British Journal of Sociology, 25(3), 305-307. Yassin, T., & Hasyim, H. (2022). The role of empowering leadership style in increasing employee job satisfaction in government organizations. Benefit: Jurnal Manajemen Dan Bisnis, 6(2), 97-110. https://doi.org/10.23917/benefit.v6i2.14408 Zadok, A., & Benoliel, P. (2023). Middle-leaders' transformational leadership: Big five traits and teacher commitment. International Journal of Educational Management, 37(4), 810-829. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-12-2022-0541 Zaman, T. (2021). An efficient exponential estimator of the mean under stratified random sampling. Mathematical Population Studies, 28(2), 104-121. https://doi.org/10.1080/08898480.2020.1767420 Zangirolami-Raimundo, J., de Oliveira Echeimberg, J., & Leone, C. (2018). Research methodology topics: Cross-sectional studies. Journal of Human Growth and Development, 28(3), 356-360. https://doi.org/10.7322/jhgd.152198 https://doi.org/10.35409/ijbmer.2023.3459 https://doi.org/10.4018/IJHCITP.2021040103 https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-3-59 https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-3-59 https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12339 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.722080 https://doi.org/10.1177/00208523231187275 https://doi.org/10.23917/benefit.v6i2.14408 https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-12-2022-0541 https://doi.org/10.1080/08898480.2020.1767420 https://doi.org/10.7322/jhgd.152198 Humanities and Social Sciences Letters, 2025, 13(4): 1204-1225 1225 © 2025 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. Annexure I. Importance performance map analysis. Code Items Quality education delivered MV performance FE1 To what extent do you feel engaged in your work activities at the institution? 0.257 47.274 FE2 How often do you actively participate in academic and administrative activities beyond your regular duties? 0.279 49.333 JS1 How satisfied are you with your overall job at the institution? 0.262 52.933 JS2 To what extent do you feel that your contributions are valued by the institution? 0.285 48.695 PE1 How much autonomy do you feel you have in making decisions related to your work? 0.04 62.598 PE2 To what extent do you feel confident in your ability to handle challenging tasks at work? 0.048 47.861 PE3 How often do you experience a sense of control over your work environment? 0.073 51.697 PIS1 How adequately does the institution provide resources and support for your professional development? 0.207 49.864 PIS2 To what extent does the institution support you in achieving a work-life balance? 0.24 49.021 PIS3 How often do you receive recognition for your contributions and achievements from the institution? 0.224 51.11 SL1 To what extent do you feel supported by your leadership in your professional development? 0.015 55.483 SL2 How effectively does your leadership provide guidance and feedback on your work performance? 0.017 49.799 SL3 How often does your leadership show genuine concern for your well-being? 0.014 52.676 TL1 How clearly do you understand the expectations and rewards associated with your performance? 0.049 50.196 TL2 To what extent does your leadership provide specific rewards for meeting performance targets? 0.05 46.867 TL3 How frequently do you receive feedback on your performance from your leadership? 0.052 46.54 TR1 To what extent does your leadership inspire you to exceed your usual performance? 0.154 50 TR2 How often does your leadership encourage innovative thinking and problem-solving? 0.176 58.355 TR3 How effectively does your leadership communicate a clear vision and goals for the institution? 0.179 50.392 Annexure II. Source response. University Participants Jazan University 320 Arab Open University 221 Majmaah University 150 Saudi Electronic University 127 King Abdulaziz University 172 Views and opinions expressed in this article are the views and opinions of the author(s), Humanities and Social Sciences Letters shall not be responsible or answerable for any loss, damage or liability etc. caused in relation to/arising out of the use of the content.