The role of leadership styles in enhancing academic and administrative efficiency in Bangladeshi private universities

Abstract

As expectations grow for accountability in institutional performance and governance, leadership practices have emerged as a critical factor in higher education success. This study utilizes a mixed-methods approach, employing structured quantitative surveys in conjunction with qualitative insights from academic and administrative staff members of five established private universities. Data were collected from 150 respondents (academic leaders, faculty members, administrative staff, and students) using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). The leadership styles under investigation are transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire. Regression analysis was the method employed to assess the relationship of these styles with three variables: academic Efficiency, administrative Efficiency, and satisfaction of the stakeholders in the institution. Results show that transformational leadership seems to be the most prevalent style in both academic and administrative leadership. It showed a good effect on administrative Efficiency (β = 0.30), particularly in aspects like decision-making and policy implementation. Compared to transformational (β = -0.19) or transactional (β = -0.08) styles, academic Efficiency was positively associated with laissez-faire leadership (β = 0.22), thereby suggesting that autonomy may translate into academic productivity. Leadership styles only had a marginal impact on satisfaction levels, which indicated that there was a need for institutional supportive mechanisms. It recommends a context-driven, tamed (hybrid) leadership model—combining vision-centered administrative leadership and academic leadership with the autonomy-enhancing directive— to maximize university performance. The evidence-based and qualitative aspects, although valuable, stem from a cross-sectional study design and perception-based responses. Further work would do well to include direct measures of performance, longitudinal tracking, and comparisons of public and private institutions to fill this gap in understanding.