Management is the most important factor in the life, growth, and death of an organization (1). One of its duties is to play an effective role in the organization leadership. Leadership, because of its impact on individual and group effectiveness, is an important subject in organizational behavior which is in the spotlight of researchers and others from long before. An organization which benefits from a more competent manager can better achieve its goals, since it can present proper plans. In other words, leadership process has a direct impact on organization capabilities in satisfying personnel’s needs and making an optimum atmosphere for work.

The issue which currently attracts most researchers is that what kind of leadership behavior will be suitable for organizational process. The most recent studies about leadership mention two theories: transformational and transactional leadership which at first Berns theory (1978) was its starting point then Bass redefined it in 1985. Berns contrasted two styles of leadership: transformational and transactional and indicated that transformational leaders addressed crucial needs and high levels of followers (e.g. the need forself-flourishing from Maslow’s point of view) and encourages them to a higher level of motivation (2).

Transformational leadership process has its root in personal values and ideas of the leader. These kinds of leaders make their subjects to operate with a strong morale so they can effect deeply on the organization. Such leaders get their inspiration from their deepest personal values (e.g. justice, fairness, honesty, and honor). Thinkers of organizational behavior, alongside these two leadership styles, mention another style by the name of laissez-faire leadership. Laissez-fair leaders are those who have no motivation and skill to perform managerial tasks. They define standards when there is a problem (3).

In these recent decades, increasing competition in global scales and continuing changes in experiences and technology led to organization management methods have been reviewed. One of the most important achievements of this review was human resource management development (4). Human resource means all people who work in different levels of an organization. In a general categorization, human resource who works in the organizations is divided into two groups: official personnel and volunteers. From Paul’s (1999) point of view, a volunteer is a person with complete authority, without any expectation for reward, who works in a formal and official environment to help others (5).

The convention of volunteering and service delivering to the society is a contemporary world phenomenon which has its roots in social traditions of the people around the world. Today, volunteers are an important part of organizations’ human resource, public institutions and especially private sectors. The kind and nature of voluntary activities is various. Nowadays, volunteering in sports and entertainment is an important part of voluntary activities (6, 7). Volunteers in sport organizations are divided into two categories: traditional or long term volunteers and event or short term volunteers. Voluntary activities in sport area have bilateral benefits which are useful for both sport society and the volunteer. Cnaan,R.A,Goldberg-Glen (1991) indicate that people continue their voluntary activities as long as these activities satisfy their personal needs. In other words, if people feel satisfied about their voluntary experiences they will continue their activities and vice versa (8).

Pauline (2009) showed in his study that by satisfying motivational needs of volunteers, satisfaction will increase (9). Sherer (2004) studied the factors which effect volunteers’ satisfaction who were active in entertainment. He addressed six dimensions: work nature and environment satisfaction, general satisfaction about services, service conditions, current situation of work environment, and the manager and communication with colleagues. He indicated that work nature and environment satisfaction was the most important factor. Second and third place belonged to current condition of workplace and colleagues behavior as important resources for volunteers’ satisfaction (10).Proper behavioral patterns for the manager in each organization can lead to strong morale and motivation among employees (official and volunteer) and increase their level of job satisfaction. In the other hand, job satisfaction can lead to more efficiency, less employee absence, and it can encourage volunteers to participate in these activities again and again (11).

Waldman et al. (2001) suggest that leadership style of a manager should be one of the highest levels of theories; since manager’s guidance and control impact decision making process, employee satisfaction, and organization’s output (12). ). Howell and Frost (1989), Awamleh and Gardner (1999), Avolio et al (2002), Frese et al (2003) presented some strong documents which showed that transformational managers had more satisfied subjects than other managers (13). Money (2011) introduced transformational leadership as an important factor in organizations’ success and indicated that transformational leadership can increase job satisfaction and effectiveness in an organization (14). Wang et al. (2011) showed that there was a positive link between transformational leadership style and job satisfaction among the nurses (15). The study conducted by Moriano et al. (2011) illustrated that there was a positive relationship between transformational leadership and employees’ entrepreneurship while there was a meaningful and negative link between transactional leadership and entrepreneurship (16).

Burton & Peachy (2011) showed that there was more positive link between college sport managers’ transformational style and organizational outputs (satisfaction, extra effort and effectiveness) (17). Oguz (2010) illustrated that there was a positive and meaningful relation between principals’ transformational and transactional leadership styles and volunteer teachers’ citizenship behavior (18). Fang et al. (2009) indicated that managers, who used transformational leadership style to conduct their employees, increased their job satisfaction (19).

Regarding past studies’ findings, organizations need effective and competent managers and employees (official and volunteer) in order to achieve defined goals for multilateral development. Thus, management implementation and effective leadership styles are requisites for any organization success. One of these organizations is universities’ sport administrations.

Based on different theories, in sport organizations, manager’s leadership style selection method can effect volunteers satisfaction. The manager, as the leader of universities’ sport administration, can choose different styles in conducting human resource through which he/she can include employees’ satisfaction in the organization goals. If volunteers are content with managers’ performance and their management method in universities sport administrations , not only they will act with more motivation, but also they make them stay in the activity and participate again. Althogh there are many studies about leadership styles, there is no study about the relation between leadership style and sport volunteers satisfaction. Also, there are limited studies about sport volunteership especially satisfaction in our country. Regarding what mentioned above the purpose of this study is to answer these questions: Is there any relation between sport administration managers’ leadership style and sport volunteers satisfaction? Which leadership style is more related to volunteers satisfaction?

This field study is descriptive and correlative. Statistical population of this study is the volunteer students in universities’ sport associations of 10 regions of the country. Among 73 universities, 17 had active sport associations. Based on Morgan table, 231 students were selected as statistical sample (n=231) from which the results of 208 questionnaires were analyzed. Bass and Avolio (1995) Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) was used to measure managers’ leadership style of the universities’ sport administrations. This questionnaire includes 41 questions with 5-value Lickert scale (1=never to 5=always) and studies three concepts of transformational, transactional and laissez-faire leaderships as three independent and individual dimensions. Malaei’s experience satisfaction questionnaire is also used in order to study satisfaction dimensions and to determine their priorities. This questionnaire includes 31 questions with 5-value Lickert scale (1=absolutely disagree to 5=absolutely agree) and reviews eight dimensions of satisfaction: acquiring experience, career, material, enhancement, purposive, social, protective, and commitment. The face and content-related validity of research tools were confirmed by sport management experts. Also their reliability in a study including 30 sport associations volunteers by using Cronbach Alpha were α=0.91 and α=0.88 for leadership style and satisfaction of volunteer experiences. Descriptive statistical methods were used to describe the findings (mean, standard deviation, etc.). Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z test was used to study variable distribution (being normal and not being normal). Since variable distribution was normal, Pierson correlative coefficient tests, frequent measurement, independent t, and Bonferroni Post hoc test were used in order to analyze the data.

124 boys and 84 girls (59.6 and 40.4 percent of the total volunteers) were tested, 89.4% were single and 10.6% were married. Their average age was 22.03+2.2, 7.7% of them had junior college diploma, 79.3% had BA, 12.5% had MA, and 0.5% had PHD. More than half of these volunteers (67.8%), were sport students and 32.2% belonged to other fields. Also, average activity profile of sport association volunteers were 1.71+0.87.

Table1.

Table 1, shows the results of the study about the relation between study’s variables. Based on the results of this table, there is a positive and meaningful relation between transformational leadership style and volunteers satisfaction. Also there is no meaningful relation between transactional leadership style and volunteers satisfaction. Besides, there is a negative and meaningful relation between laissez-faire leadership style and volunteers satisfaction.

Table2.

* Significant difference in P≤0.05

Table3.

Regarding the results of tables 2 and 3 (repeated measurement test), it can be observed that there is a meaningful difference between priorities of universities ‘sport administration managers’ leadership styles. Transformational leadership style (3.723+0.683) is in the first priority and transactional leadership style (3.476+0.572) and laissez-faire (2.827+0.833) are in the second and third priority.

From volunteer students’ point of view, satisfaction of acquiring experience, career, and social are the most important and material satisfaction is the least important dimension of sport associations’ volunteers’ satisfaction (figure 1).

The purpose of this research is to study the relation between universities sport administrations managers’ leadership style and universities sport associations volunteers satisfaction. The results of this study show that there is a positive and meaningful relation between transformational leadership style and volunteers satisfaction (r=0.341; P<0.05), negative and meaningful relation between laissez-faire leadership style and volunteers satisfaction (r=-0.355; P<0.05). Also, there is no meaningful relation between transactional leadership style and volunteers satisfaction.

Studies show that in transformational leadership style, the leader, encourages the subjects in order to reach their maximum potential power and this makes them to satisfy their higher levels of needs (success and self-recognition), and group goals. Mahate (2005) shows in his study that to have higher satisfaction levels and better function, bank managers need to use transformational leadership style (13). The results of the studies of Mary ClaireKlein (2006), Charles Emery et al. (2007), Fang et al. (2009), Rowold (2009), Korek, S., Felfe, J., Rothe (2010), are similar to those of this study. The results of this study show that the tendency among sport administration managers leadership style is toward transformational, transactional, and then laissez-faire. Charles Emery et al. (2007), indicate that transformational leadership has higher relation with job satisfaction and organizational commitment than transactional leadership. This study’s results agree with the results of Tuker’s (1992) research results.

In contrast with the results of this study, Susan B. Pettine (2006) shows in her study that transformational leadership has no privilege over transactional leadership in using voluntary forces (23). Rejas et al. (2006) studied the effect of leadership style on the performance of small companies in Chile. They reported that transformational leadership was in the middle, transactional leadership was in the highest, and laissez-faire leadership was in the lowest level of leadership styles. It seems that, among the reasons that this study doesn’t compatible to that of Doherty (1997), Ceroy & Danylckuk (1996), Pruijn & Boucher (2002), Rejas et al (2006) are the difference between statistical population, cultural differences, and the difference between environments used by these researchers and those of sport administration. Transformational leadership style, because of considering individual’s morale and values, and driving their inner motivations, has a great impact on human resource management especially in sport management sector. Those sport officials who adopt this style, are recognized as successful leaders and have a great impact on their followers. Thus, universities sport administrations managers, through transformational leadership, can affect the level of sport associations’ volunteers’ satisfaction and the effectiveness of sport activities under their control. Also, the results of this study show that the priority of volunteers satisfaction dimensions are experiencing satisfaction, career, social, purposeful, protective, progress, commitment, and material. In this study, volunteer students of the universities sport associations introduce experiencing as the most important and material satisfaction as the least important dimensions of satisfaction. Farrell et al. (1998) and Ghazali (2003) introduce satisfaction from experiencing as the last priority of volunteers’ satisfaction which is in contrast with the results of this study (24, 25). Also, the results of this study show that the priority of volunteers satisfaction dimensions are experiencing satisfaction, career, social, purposeful, protective, progress, commitment, and material. In this study, volunteer students of the universities sport associations introduce experiencing as the most important and material satisfaction as the least important dimensions of satisfaction. Farrell et al. (1998) and Ghazali (2003) introduce satisfaction from experiencing as the last priority of volunteers’ satisfaction which is in contrast with the results of this study (24, 25). As one of the reasons for this contradiction, we can mention the difference in the nature of this study’s statistical population and of two others; because voluntary activity of their studies is eventual and short term, but in this research it is long term.

Choosing satisfaction from experiencing as the most important dimension of satisfaction shows volunteers’ high level of satisfaction from experiences they have acquired in universities sport associations. The reason of this fact is that sport activity in the association is long term in nature. Sport association provides the students an opportunity to experience and use their experiences in their sport and work life. Elstad (1996) showed material satisfaction as a relatively important factor in volunteers’ satisfaction. Farrel et al. (1998) also, introduced this factor as the most important factor of volunteers’ satisfaction which was not compatible to this research finding. This study illustrates that girls are more satisfied than boys in all satisfaction dimensions (especially acquiring experience, career, commitment, and material) in sport associations. Researches show that female students’ satisfaction is more than male students’ satisfaction and women’s job satisfaction is more than men’s job satisfaction. Thus, the higher degree of job satisfaction and experiencing in female students seems more justifying. Also, it’s been cleared that sport students were more satisfied than other students in all satisfaction dimensions (especially acquiring experience, career, purposeful, and commitment). Perhaps higher level of satisfaction in sport volunteers is due to similar nature of their education field with sport and performance of sport association’s activity. Finally, it is suggested that managers of universities sport administrations increase the level of satisfaction by using transformational leadership styles, special management strategies, proper encouraging policies, and transforming sport associations into a place which enables individuals to achieve their voluntary motivations more feasible and easier, thereby pave their way to participate in sport associations effectively.

2. Pearce C. L., et al. Transactors, Transformers and beyond (A Multi-method Development of a Theoretical Typology of Leadership), Journal of Management Development, 2003, vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 273-307.

3. Humphreys J. H., Einstein W. O. Nothing new under the sun: Transformational Leadership from a Historical Perspective. Journal of Management History, 2003, vol. 41, No. 1, pp. 85-95.

4. Cuskelly G., Taylor T., Hoye R., Darcy S. Volunteer Management Practices and Volunteer Retention: A Human Resource Management Approach. Sport Management Review, 2006, vol.9, pp. 141-163.

5. Hwang J. Does Sport Really Matter To Volunteers? Implications from an Empirical Comparison between Sport Volunteers and Non-Sport Volunteers, Thesis Ph.d. 2010, 100 p.

6. Daitch R., Short M.P., Bertolini R., Macpherson M. It's a Noble Choice they’ve made: Sport Volunteerism in Small Communities in the Northwest Territories. Research Report, Knowledge Development Centre, Canada. 2005, 120 p.

7. Downward P.M., Ralston R. The Sports Development Potential of sport Event Volunteering: Insights from the XVLL Manchester Commonwealth Games. European Sport Management Quarterly, 2006, vol.6(4). pp. 333-351.

8. Cnaan R.A. Goldberg-Glen R.S. Measuring motivation to volunteer in human services. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 1991, vol.27(3), pp. 269-284.

9. Pauline G. Volunteer motivation and demographic influences at a professional tennis event. Department of Sport Management, Syracuse University of United States, 2009, vol. 15, Iss. 3-4. pp. 172-184.

10. Sherer M. National Service in Israel: Motivations‚ Volunteer Characteristics‚and Levels of Content. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly‚ 2004, vol.33(1). pp. 94-108 .

11. Bass B. M., Avolio B. J. Full range leadership development: Manual for the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Mindgarden. 1990, 260 p.

12. Waldman D., Ramirea G., House, R. Puranam P. Does Leadership Matter, CEO Leadership Attributes and Perfitability Under Conditions of Perceived Environmental Uncertainty, Academy of Management Journal. 2001, vol. 38, No. 4, pp. 943-974.

13. Mahate A. A Test of Transformational and Transactional Leadership Styles on Employees' Satisfaction and Performance in The UAE Banking Sector. Journal of Comparative International Management, 2005, June, pp. 102-106.

14. Money, Richard K. J.R. Transformational Leadership as a Success Factor in a Merger. Walden University, 2011, pp. 145-160.

15. Wang X., et al. Transformational leadership: Effect on the job satisfaction of Registered Nurses in a hospital in China. Department of Sport Management, 2011, vol. 20, No. 7, pp. 643-712.

16. Moriano J.A., et al. The Influence of Transformational Leadership and Organizational Identification on Intrapreneurship.European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 2011, vol. 11, Iss. 3, pp. 264-276.

17. Burton L.J., Peachey J.W. Male or Female Athletic Director? Exploring Perceptions of Leader Effectiveness and a (Potential) Female Leadership Advantage with Intercollegiate Athletic Directors. New York: Mar 2011, 2011, vol. 64, Iss. 5, pp. 416-421.

18. Oguz E. (). The relationship between the leadership styles of the school administrators and the organizational citizenship behaviours of teachers. Journal of Management History, 2010, vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 65-75.

19. Fang C.H., Chang S.T., Chen G.L. Competency development among Taiwanese healthcare middle manager: A test of the AHP approach. African Journal of Business Management, 2010, vol.4(13), pp. 2845-2855.

20. ClaireKlein M. Leaders of Effective Volunteer Organizations: Their Character, Practice and Transformational Style. Phd thesis, Cardinal Stritch University. 2006, 100 p.

21. Rowold J. Relationships between Leadership Styles and Followers' Emotional Experience and Effectiveness in the Voluntary Sector. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 2009, vol. 38, No. 2, pp. 270-286.

23. Susan B. The Relationship of Leadership Styles and Recognition of Retiring Boomers as Potential Volunteers. Phd thesis, Capella University. 2006, 104 p.

24. Ghazali R.M. Motivational Factors of Volunteerism: A case Study of Warrens Cranberry Festival 2002, Master of Sport Science in Hospitality and Tourism, Master of Science Degree in Hospitality and Tourism, University of Wisconsin-Stout. 2003, 124 p.

Farrell J.M., Johnston M.E., Twynam D.G. Volunteer Motivation, Satisfaction, and Management at an Elite Sporting Competition, Journal of Sport Management, 1998, vol.1, pp. 288-300.

Reza Andam
noshinbenar@yahoo.com
Shahrood University of Technology
P.O.Box: 3619995161-316, Shahrood, Iran

Asieh Ghorbanian Rajabi
noshinbenar@yahoo.com
Shomal University
P.O.Box 731, Amol, Mazandaran, Iran

Nooshin Benar
(PhD), Assistant Professor
noshinbenar@yahoo.com
Guilan University of Iran
P.O. Box 1841, Rasht, Iran.

Seied Shahoo Hosseini
noshinbenar@yahoo.com
Shomal University
P.O.Box 731, Amol, Mazandaran, Iran

Реза Андам
noshinbenar@yahoo.com
Шахруд технологический университет
а/я 3619995161-316, Шахруд, Иран.

Асиех Гхорбаниан Раяби
noshinbenar@yahoo.com
Шомал университет
а/я 731, Амол, Мазатдаран, Иран.

Ноошин Бенар
noshinbenar@yahoo.com
Университет Гилян, Рашт, Иран.
п/я 1841, Рашт, Иран.

Сеид Хоссеини
noshinbenar@yahoo.com
Шомал университет
а/я 731, Амол, Мазатдаран, Иран.

Поступила в редакцию 19.02.2012г.