This article examines the impact of three leadership styles as a predictor of job satisfaction in a state university system. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire was used to identify the leadership style of an administrator as perceived by faculty members. Spector's Job Satisfaction Survey was used to assess a faculty member's level of job satisfaction. The population consisted of 567 full-time faculty members, and 104 participants completed the survey. The results of logistic regression analysis revealed that (a) faculty members who identified transformational leadership as dominant had increased job satisfaction, (b) faculty members who identified transactional leadership as dominant had increased job satisfaction, and (c) faculty members who identified passive/avoidant leadership as dominant had decreased job satisfaction. Demographics did not appear to predict satisfaction. Using this model, academic leaders can take further action by refining their leadership styles on the basis of their faculty members' indicated preferences. The study results may contribute to social change at the departmental level by making academic administrators aware of effective leadership models that promote higher job satisfaction among faculty in universities.

As change management becomes an essential ingredient of organizations performance, the body of literature describing successful and unsuccessful change management initiatives continues to expand. Numerous articles and studies provide an insight into the nature of change management and its most common pitfalls. The most recurring themes include resistance to change, readiness for change, leadership effectiveness, employee commitment and participation in change initiatives, and the roles and competencies needed to ensure the success of strategic change. The present article focuses on one of these themes: resistance to change. Understanding of resistance may enable managers to reduce conflict and increase collaboration. To meet these challenges, leaders must be trained and educated to overcome resistance to change. This article points out important types of resistance for organizations to address.

This article examines the impact of three leadership styles as a predictor of job satisfaction in a state university system. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire was used to identify the leadership style of an administrator as perceived by faculty members. Spector's Job Satisfaction Survey was used to assess a faculty member's level of job satisfaction. The population consisted of 567 full-time faculty members, and 104 participants completed the survey. The results of logistic regression analysis revealed that (a) faculty members who identified transformational leadership as dominant had increased job satisfaction, (b) faculty members who identified transactional leadership as dominant had increased job satisfaction, and (c) faculty members who identified passive/avoidant leadership as dominant had decreased job satisfaction. Demographics did not appear to predict satisfaction. Using this model, academic leaders can take further action by refining their leadership styles on the basis of their faculty members' indicated preferences. The study results may contribute to social change at the departmental level by making academic administrators aware of effective leadership models that promote higher job satisfaction among faculty in universities.

Organizations worldwide have adopted sustainability strategies to enhance their productivity and develop a competitive advantage. More often than not, organizations and their leaders develop a narrow view of sustainability and consider only the aspects of sustainability that are directly related to their sphere of performance (internal sustainability). Yet, sustainability issues impact all business and non-business organizations, as well as the long-term sustainability of international business relations and quality of life issues worldwide (external sustainability). An increase of appropriate sustainability efforts often requires expanding beyond conventional thinking. Economic necessity can drive both internal and external sustainability measures. Leadership effort is essential to enable shifts in organizational culture that enable sustainability efforts to succeed. This article discusses the sustainability movement. After defining internal and external sustainability, this paper discusses the philosophy of sustainability, internal and external sustainability, measurements, leadership, and best practices.

<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"> </span><p style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt; text-align: justify; mso-pagination: none;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black; font-size: 10pt; mso-themecolor: text1;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Sustainability has become a buzzword in organizational research and ecological science. Much has been said about the role of sustainability for organizational development and markets. Thousands of organizations worldwide have adopted sustainability strategies to boost their productivity and develop a competitive advantage. Yet the concept of sustainability is so complex that it is virtually impossible to ensure a standardized definition or for one organization to understand all its facets in detail. Moreover, under the influence of its own popularity, the concept of sustainability constantly evolves and changes meaning. More often than not, organizations and leaders develop a narrow view of sustainability. They consider only the aspects of sustainability that are directly related to their sphere of performance. In this article, three elements of the definition of sustainability are discussed: longevity, maintenance of core principles or purposes, and responsibility to external needs. The term organization is used because the principles are often applicable to governmental and non-profit organizations as well as businesses.</span></span></p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"> </span>