TOPIC: EFFECTS OF LEADERSHIP STYLES ON EMPLOYEES PRODUCTIVITY,

Case study of NTARIKON COOPERATION

Abstract

The major objective was to investigate the effects of leadership style on

employee’s performance. The specify objectives was Examine the effect on each
leadership style on employee performance and make recommendation. For this
study four kinds of leadership styles where used and there include autocratic,
laissez fair, democratic and transactional. There was a cross survey and the
population for the study was the management and employees of NTARIKON
COOPERATION with a sample population of 30 employees. Data was collected in

the form of questionnaire and analyzed using descriptive and regression analysis.
The findings shows that leadership style has a significant influence on employees
performance In respect to the above conclusion, leadership style has a significant
effects on employees performance and democratic leadership style in particular in
NTARIKON COOPERATION could further empower their employees by developing

team and according some measure of power and authority to their employees, in
this way, employees could ignite their potentials, feel part of an organisation and
perform maximally for the organisation This will ensure better organizational
results.

Also, large organizations should know who leadership style is best at and particular
time and on the type of employees hence there is a need carry out more research on
the effects of leadership style on employee’s performance.

Key words: leadership style, employee’s performance

 Table of Contents
CHAPTER ONE..............................................................................................................................1

GENERAL INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................1

1.1 Background to the Study...........................................................................................................1

1.2 Statement of the problem..........................................................................................................3

1.3 Research Questions....................................................................................................................4

1.3.1 Main Research Question.........................................................................................................4

1.3.2 Specific Research Questions...................................................................................................4

1.4 Objective of the study................................................................................................................4

1.4.1 Main objective........................................................................................................................4

1.4.2 Specific objectives..................................................................................................................4

1.5 Hypothesis.................................................................................................................................5

1.6 Significance of the study...........................................................................................................5

1.7 Scope of the study......................................................................................................................6

1.8 Definition of Key Terms............................................................................................................6

1.9 Organization of the Study......................................................................................................7

CHAPTER ONE

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background to the Study

It is impossible to overstate the significance of effective leadership in a company. Organizations

and governments that are successful and those that are unsuccessful are distinguished by their
leadership. It is critical in providing direction and a sense of purpose in order to achieve the
organization's mission and goals. It also plays an important role in the social relationships that
exist between groups at work. Group behavior is primarily determined and shaped by the actions
of those in positions of leadership. When correctly implemented, each employee experiences a
strong sense of commitment to the achievement of organizational objectives. Regardless of the
equality of its members, every group will tend to have a system in which it will have a leader at
the helm of the ship.

Organizational objectives, on the other hand, will never be achieved unless the appropriate
leadership style is in place. It is important to remember that the effective performance of an
individual employee is a function of both his or her personal characteristics and the environment
in which he or she works. A thorough evaluation of an employee's knowledge, skills, experience,
attitude, and motivation will result in the highest possible level of productivity and efficiency on
the job. Because leadership is concerned with the human resource element, it serves as the
foundation for the effective utilization of material resources in an organization through the
development of individual skills, knowledge, and ability in a given organization.

The globalization of businesses and the numerous challenges they face in order to achieve their
goals and be more successful than competitors characterize today's competitive environment. It
has captured the attention of researchers for many years, but they have been unable to settle on a
single definition. Leaders play a critical role in the achievement of these goals and the
enhancement of employee performance through their satisfaction with their jobs. Many
researchers have concentrated their efforts on various aspects of leadership. According to
Mintzberg (2010), leadership is the key to building trust by earning the respect of others and
demonstrating it. According to Raelin (2011), leadership is directly related to the practice to
which the majority of people devote their time and energy.
It was during this period that the first attempts at leadership research were made, which was
influenced by the scientific management precept that there is "one best way" to accomplish a
given objective. Additionally, the notion that leadership is a fleeting quality possessed by "great
men" whose personal characteristics made them "natural leaders" was prevalent. Instead of
attempting to comprehend leadership style, the research team sought to identify the characteristic
that distinguishes leaders from followers, as well as ineffective leaders from effective leaders, as
a starting point. As research revealed that personality traits and intelligence play only a minor
role in leadership effectiveness, this line of inquiry began to fade in importance (Bass, 2008).

A simple definition of leadership is a process of exerting influence over the activities of an

individual or a group in order to achieve predetermined goals. An organization's lifeline is the
person who provides it. Douglas McGregor's theories X and Y are based on the belief that a
leader's attitude toward human nature has a significant impact on how that person behaves as a
leader and how that person's attitude affects the employees who work for him or her. Although it
is important to note that no single leadership style is likely to be effective in all circumstances,
leadership styles do vary depending on the environment and circumstances in which they are
used.

Instead of focusing on a single leadership style, leaders can adapt their approaches based on three
factors: the leader's own forces, the forces of the subordinate, and the forces of the situation
itself. An effective leader is defined by his or her ability to manage and withstand the forces that
surround him or her, as well as their ability to effectively utilize human and material resources to
achieve organizational objectives. McGregor made it clear that the expectations of leaders and
the performance of subordinates are closely related. As he goes on to explain, when leaders have
high expectations of their employees, they are more likely to be productive.
1.2 Statement of the problem

One of the issues that the researcher has observed is the inflexibility of the leadership style
exhibited by the majority of organization managers. They are unable to adapt their leadership
style in response to shifting circumstances and business environments. This failure is the result
of a lack of understanding of the fact that no single style of leadership can be applied to all
situations and that leaders must be adaptable in order to allow for change.

another issue that is closely related to the first is the failure of administrators to take into account
the current situation when leading their subordinates. They make the mistake of allowing the
circumstances to dictate the type of leadership style to be used.

The absence of an effective line of communication between administrators and their employees
is another issue to consider. Many organizations are concerned about the communication gap that
exists between leaders and their subordinates, because effective leadership is predicated on the
communication patterns of both managers and their subjects.

For the reasons stated above, leaders lack managerial experience in terms of ensuring that
employees are motivated, and an insufficient level of motivation contributes to employees'
inefficiency and effectiveness.

1.3 Research Questions

1.3.1 Main Research Question

1. What are the effects of leadership style on employee productivity?
1.3.2 Specific Research Questions
From the above, the study seems to attempt to provide answers to the following research

question.

1. What is the effect of autocratic leadership style on employee productivity?

2. What is the effect of democratic leadership style on employee productivity?

3. What is the effect of laissez-faire leadership style on employee productivity?

4. What is the effect of transactional leadership style on employee productivity?

1.4 Objective of the study

1.4.1 Main objective

1. The main objective of the study is to examine the effect of leadership style on employee

productivity.

1.4.2 Specific objectives

The specific objective of the study includes;

1. To identify the different leadership styles and their relationship with employee

productivity

2. Examining the effect of democratic leadership style on employee productivity

3. Examine the effect of laissez-faire leadership style on employee productivity.

4. Examine the effect of transactional leadership style on employee productivity.

5. Make the necessary recommendations to problems identified.

1.5 Hypothesis
The following null hypothesis guide the study
H01: Autocratic leadership style has no significant influence on employee performance

H02: Democratic leadership style has no significant influence on employee performance

H03: Laissez-faire leadership style has no significant influence on Productivity.

H04: Transactional leadership style has no significant influence on Productivity

1.6 Significance of the study

This study may reveal new findings and adds to existing knowledge which will be helpful for

other researchers who may be focusing on understanding the concept of effective leadership on

employee’s performance. This research work is aimed at improving employee productivity

through the various leadership styles. It is also aimed at highlighting the relationship between

leadership styles and employee motivation, the significance of leadership styles on organization

survival. It will also serve as reference document to students, government, other researchers and

scholars, leaders, employee by contributing towards the advancement of knowledge in

management and other field.

The study would be useful to organisational leaders and managers by helping them to apply the

appropriate leadership style in relevant situation effectively. This would help reduce social

accidents, wastage of organisational resources and internal conflicts in the working environment.

The study will be important to the economy of Cameroon, to understand what leaderships styles

by managers to the staff using the best strategy and hence contributes to the company growth. It

would be important for the government policymakers to know of areas in which they can provide

the organisations with further skills and training

1.7 Scope of the study
The study centre on the concept of leadership styles and their impact on employee productivity,

to identify the different leadership styles and their relationship with employee productivity, to

determine the relationship between leadership styles and employee motivation, to determine the

relationship between employee productivity and placement, to ascertain the relationship between

leadership styles on employee morale, to establish the impact of leadership styles on organization

survival.

1.8 Definition of Key Terms

Leadership: The process of directing and inspiring to perform task and oriented activities of the

organisation

Style: The various behavior patterns favoured by leaders during the process of directing and

influencing employee

Productivity; The act of carrying out an action or a piece of work

Motivation: The force that influence enthusian direct employee energy towards the attainment

of set of objectives

Autocratic: One who rules by his own power without seeking the opinion of his subordinate.

Democratic: One who adheres to, or promote individual participation as a principle.

Laissez faire: A leader general principle of no interference with the free action of his

subordinate.

Reward: Feeling of satisfaction derived from achieving recognition and competence.

1.9 Organization of the Study

This chapter contains, an introduction to the topical issue is.This introductory chapter gives the

background to the study. The chapter also presents the problem the study intends to investigate,

the objectives it hopes to achieve. A brief statement of the anticipated usefulness of the study

also forms part of this introductory chapter. The scope of the study concludes the chapter.

Chapter Two sheds light on the review of related literature, which will basically dwell on the

various leadership syles and how they influence productivity. Theoretical literature on leadership

styles and employees productivity will also be discussed. A conceptual framework that relates

the relationship among variables in the study will also be presented.

In chapter three, the researcher presents the research design and methodology that will describe

the research design, target population, sample and sampling procedures. This chapter also

contains description of the instruments that will be used for data collection, validity and

reliability of these instruments, data collection and analysis procedures.

 CHAPTERTWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Conceptual framework

2.1.1 Definitions of leadership

Although leadership has been well researched over the years, there is still lack of a definition that

is universally accepted. Leadership has been defined by several authors and an example of such

definitions includes the definition of(Adair (2005),” leadership is the ability to persuade other to

seek defined objectives enthusiastically. It is the human factor which binds a group together and

to improve their performance and to direct them toward goals.”

According to Hill (2008), leadership is the process of motivating, influencing and directing

others in the organisation to work productively in the pursuit of organisational goals. According

to Lussier and Achua (2009), Leadership is the influencing process of leaders and followers to

achieve organisational objectives through change. According to Northouse (2010), leadership is

the process of whereby leaders interact with follower and influence followers to achieve the most

desire organisational outcome.

Leslie, (2013) assert that leadership is the ability to influence people to willingly follow one’s

guidance or adhere to one’s decision. On the other hand, a leader is one who obtains followers

and influences them in setting and achieving goals and objectives. According Sundi (2013),

leadership is the ability to convince and mobilize others to work as a team under his leadership to

achieve a certain goal.

According to Kumar (2014)” leadership is defined as a process by which a person influences

others to accomplish an objective and directs the organisation in a way that makes it more

cohesive and coherent. These are accomplished through the application of leadership attributes

such as beliefs, values, ethics, character knowledge and skills. Leadership is the integrated

sharing of visions, resources and values to induce positive changes. It is the ability to build up

confidence and zeal among people and to create an urge in them to be led. Wammy and

Swammy (2014) see leadership as a social influence process in which the leader seeks the

voluntary participation of subordinates in an effort to reach organizational goals and therefore a

leader is a person who delegates or influences others to act, so as to carry out specific task.

Memon(2014) defines leadership as process by which an individual influence the thoughts of

others taking responsibility for setting direction for the firm, make others to see what lies ahead

and figures out how to achieve it.

Talat et al (2015) which define leadership as a wide spread process which calls for authority,

responsibility and power delegation. Leadership is process by which a leader can direct, guide

and influence the behaviour and the work of others towards the accomplishment of specific goal

in a given situation. Leadership is an ability of a manager to induce the subordinates to work

with confidence and zeal. Leadership can be defined as the capacity to influence a group

realization of the goal. Leaders are required to develop the future vision and to motivate the

organisational members to want to achieve the visions and to improve the performance. Thus,

leadership cover all aspect of dealing within and outside the organisation, handling or dealing

with conflicts, helping and guiding the work force to achieve their task and appearing as a role

model for all.

2.1.2 Leadership style

 Basically, every leader has a different behaviour in leading his followers and it is called

leadership style. Cuadrodo et al (2007) define leadership style as consistent set of behaviours and

pattern proposing two dimensions in leaders; behaviour and structure initiation which includes

task oriented leaders and consideration which includes relation oriented leaders. Leadership

styles are seen as approaches that leaders use when leading departments, organisation or a group

(Mehmood and Arif, 2011). Memon (2014) defines leadership style as a leader’s style of

providing direction, motivating people, and implementing plans.

2.1.3. Definition of organizational performance

Perform

ance is a multidimensional concept and an extremely vital criterion that determines

organisational success or failure. Prasetya and Kato (2011) define performance as the attained

outcome of action with skills of employees who perform in some situation. Jason et al (2015)

define job performance as the behaviour and the terms results” or “job performance results” to

describe the outcome from those behaviour. In sum, job performance is defined as the value of

the set of employee behaviour that contribute either positively or negatively to reach the

organisational goals. Performance means the outcome of the employees about their work and

objectives that align with the organisation’s goal and objectives that are achieved by employees

to work effectively, efficiently and motivation.

Currently most studies are conducting to measure the performance by reaction of user to

performance appraisal (Lustik, 2008) Performance is a relative concept and is defined in terms of

employing time-based measurements of generating future results. Hence performance appraisal

is the logical evaluation of the employees” performance so as to understand their abilities for

further growth and developments. It is important to make sure a company is meeting its goals. It
also helps in terms of budgeting, determines effective management strategies, finding area that

need to be improved and determine potential areas for collaboration. Without measuring

performance, an organisation cannot place a value on employee’s activities and management

activities (Mathews, 2010).

Employees are performing different jobs in an organisation which depends on the nature of the

organisation. They mainly perform tasks like production, transportation, marketing,

transportation, finance and accounting, research and public relations. These jobs are to be

performed properly by employees so that they can give their best output at their work which will

greatly impact the total production, sales, profit, progress and the marketing position of the

company. Various factors like skills, training, motivating, dedication, welfare, management

policies, fringe benefits, salary and packages, promotion and communication etc. are responsible

to encourage the people to work sincerely and give their best output. The importance of

employees’ performance must be understood by the management and since efforts must be put in

that direction, the management of the organisation taking timely steps in that direction will be in

the position to develop and motivate the people to do so. Finally, the company may take the lead

of the market and grab the opportunities available in the market.

Advantages of employee’s performance

Following are the advantages of performance to the individuals, the organisation, society and the

nation as a whole: the productivity of individual on the job increases, Employees get job

satisfaction at job, Psychological problem of employees come to low level. Involvement of

employees in their job increases. A sense of commitment and loyalty among employees

develops, Employees get higher incentives and salaries on production basis. • Sales and

marketing position of the company improves; Profits improve that leads to the progress of the
business, Good will of the organisation goes high. All these contribute in the development of the

national economy and living standards of the society as a whole.

Following the Disadvantages of performance to the individuals, the organisations, society and

the nation as a whole: because of increase in productivity, they will also be demand for high

salaries from the employers as well as discourage those employees who can’t meet up their

target.

Factors affecting performance

Employees differ in their personalities and these differences influence the way they react to

internal and external pressure at the organisation. It is therefore essential for workers to identify

these factors having effect on employee’s performance at the workplace and take the necessary

correction. These factors include

• Personality or ego clashes: this in general is seen between people with opposing personalities.

The problem crops in when there is mistrust between both parties with respect to character and

motives. /Stress: The modern workplace is full of demands, deadlines etc. There are employees

who sustain and perform under pressure while there are those who succumb to this rising

pressure. Thus, a working environment where the stress levels are high will prove detrimental to

employee performance.

• Heavy workload: if there is an alarming increase in workload the workload, worker sometime

become disgruntle with the work and this is reflected in their output. It also takes a toll on their

health and demoralizes them.

• Inadequate resource: adequate time and material resources such be allocated to employees to

enable them perform their job easily. This will help them perform to the best of their ability and

enable them to be proud of their achievement

• Clash of values: an organisation comprises of individuals from various fields of life. They

bring in their own set of values, ideas and principles which may not be received by everyone in

the organisation. This sometimes results in some animosity and intolerance between individuals.

• Poor performance measurement: Badly conducted appraisal can create a lot of problems for

the organisation as well as the employees. If a hard-working employee is rated low, besides

being unfair it creates an inferiority complex in the mind of the employee while being over rated

may cause egoism.

2.1.3 conceptual variables under study

2.1.3.1 Laissezfaire leadership

Laissez-faire leadership, also known as delegative leadership, is a type of leadership style in

which leaders are hands-off and allow group members to make the decisions. This style of

leadership implies that someone in the position of a leader does not fulfil leadership

responsibilities and practically does not engage or involve in any meaningful transactions

whatsoever (Wirkom, 2016).

This leader does little or nothing to affect either the followers or the outcomes of their behaviors.

Passive or avoidant leadership describes the leaders who avoid getting involved in the work

progress and decision making. Goals and standards of tasks are not clearly articulated for the

followers.
It can be effective in situations where the group members are highly skilled, motivated and

capable of working on their own. While the convectional term for style is“laissez- faire” and

implies completely hands-off approach, many leaders still remain open and available to group

members for consultation and feedback.

Some advantages of Laissez-faire Style of Leadership include Freedom to choose, no burden on

the team members, sometimes: independent the group leader hardly requires any preparation

time, there is a lot of freedom and Own social structures

The disadvantages of Laissez-faire Style of Leadership style include The group attempts to

overstep the limit, Unsatisfiedminorities, Tolerance between the group members is destroyed,

Misuse of rules, Team members are no longer taken seriously, noresponsibility, Weaker

members are held back, Resignation, No initiative, the group does not stick together and High

danger of injury to supervision laws

2.1.3.2Authoritarian (autocratic)

The autocratic leadership style is characterized by individual control over all decision and little

input from group members. “It is characterized by an “I tell” philosophy. Autocratic leaders tell

their subordinates what to do. This can give a business a clear direction but it may also lead

managers to under value or ignore input from teams. However, autocratic leaders typically make

decisions based on their own ideas and judgments. And rarely accept advice from followers. An

autocratic approach is appropriate in a situation when decision has to be made quickly without

consulting with a large group. In situations that are particularly stressful, such as during military

conflicts, group members may prefer autocratic style. It is valuable when the business faces a

crisis or when an urgent problem arises that requires an immediate response. However, Edoka,
2012 stated that some people tend to think of this style as vehicle for yelling, using demeaning

language, and leading by threats and abusing their power.

Advantages of Autocratic Style of Leadership include Good control, overview Unimpaired

program, Laws: Youth protection laws, No long discussions Group members know what they

must do, Rules give security and Discipline while the disadvantages of Autocratic style of

leadership include Defiance, No development of freedom of choice, Listlessness, Less own

initiative (Fears, hatred toward other members), No trust Less or no self-confidence ,

Hierarchy is promoted, Group interests are suppressed, Groups are not relaxed, Rivalry amongst

the group members, Ability to criticize is suppressed, The independence of the group is

weakened by the authority of the leader, Talents are not recognized and therefore not promoted

and Fear turns into aggression, therefore violence .

This leadership style has been greatly criticized during the past 30 years. Some studies say that

organizations with many autocratic leaders have higher turnover and absenteeism than other

organizations. Certainly Gen X employees have proven to be highly resistant to this management

style. These studies say that autocratic leaders: Rely on threats and punishment to influence

employees Do not trust employees Do not allow for employee input Autocratic leadership is

not bad. Sometimes it is the most effective style to use. New, untrained employees who do not

know which tasks to perform or which procedures to follow. Effective supervision can be

provided only through detailed orders and instructions. Employees do not respond to any other

leadership style There are high-volume production needs on a daily basis There is limited time

in which to make a decision A manager's power is challenged by an employee

2.1.3.3 Participative (Democratic):

This style involves the leader including employees in the decision making process (determining)

what to do and how to do it). However, the leader maintains the final decision making authority.

Using this style is not a sign of weakness; rather it is sign of strength that employees will respect

(Edoka, 2016). Researchers have found that this learning style is one of the effective style and

leads to higher productivity, better contribution from group members and increased group

morale. Because group members are encouraged to share their thoughts, democratic leadership

can lead to better ideas and creative solutions to problems, group members also feel more

involved and committed to projects making them more likely to care about the end result. Using

this style of mutual benefit, it allows them to become part of the team and allows you to make

better decision.

The advantages of Democratic Style of Leadership include Self-sufficient, Compromises are

agreed, Motivating, Varied ideas, Has the confidence of the group members, Strengthens public

interests, Prohibitions are understood, An understanding of most problems, the possibility to

grow creatively is given, Freedom of opinion, Equal rights and Makes integration of outsiders

possible while the disadvantages of Democratic leadership style include Time consuming for

the leader, Difficult for the leader, Very dependent upon age , No optimal solutions and Lots

of discussions can become boring

2.1.3.4 Transactional leadership

Transaction literally mean “exchange” therefore, transaction leadership deals with the exchange

between leader and his followers ( Paracha, Qamara., Inam-ul- Hassan, and Waqas 2012). In

other words, transactional leadership as supported by Bass and Riggio (2006) is based on the

expected reward in return that will be received by the followers with their determinations,
productivity and trustworthiness. The objectives of the transactional leaders therefore are to

ensure the path to goal accomplishment is clearly understood by the followers, to remove

potential barriers within the organisation, and to motivate them to achieve the predetermined

goals (House and Aditya, 1997). Obiwuru Okwu, Akpa, andNwankwere, (2011) in their study

point out that transactional leadership display both constructive and corrective behaviour.

Constructive behaviour involves contingent reward, and corrective measurements determined

management by exceptions. Contingent rewards comprise the clarifications of the work required

to attain rewards and the use of the incentives and contingent rewards to employ the influence.

It is true that transactional leadership style is easy to implement and give directions. Punishment

and reward, these two words are key of this leadership style. Because people motivate easily for

work with the rule of "rewards and punishments", and transactional leadership just utilize it in

workplace. Leaders do not need much training, in short run there is minimum need to train

leaders. Leaders merely need to tell followers to follow the rules for rewards or else they will get

punishment. A well-defined chain of command needs to be established, where each person

knows whom the leader is and who is following. Employee's do their duty or accomplish goals

throughout organizational objectives; they are aware of the leader and each organizational

member leaves their all self-determination and control. In workplace, transactional leaders treat

their followers as subordinates, whereas transformational leader treat as followers. Subordinates

just need to obey their leader in work place; nothing more is essential. It is easy and effortless to

give rewards and punishments, only need to observe that how well subordinate obeys.

Transactional leadership theories do not need to think about the difficulty of divergence in

intelligence, passions, or task difficulty.

2.1.4 OTHER TYPES OF LEADERSHIPS

Transformational leadership

Transformational theory suggests that effective leaders can generate and encourage an

appropriate idea or image of the organisations. They are more goals and vision oriented leaders

who seek to achieve their desired intentions to be fulfilled. According to Bryman (2007), the

transformational leadership in the educational setting is more likely to sustain the educational

system change. In relation to the leadership styles within the higher education settings, many

academic leaders prefer transformational leadership (Lustik, 2008). The transformational leaders

motivate their followers to be fully aware the importance of their tasks outcomes and induce

them to exceed their own self-interest for the sake of the organisations by achieving their higher

needs (Obiwuru, Okwu, Akpa, andNwankwere, (2011). One of the main elements of this type of

leadership is transformational at its core which elevates both leaders and the followers (Thrash,

2009). Avolio (2007) supports the theory that transformational leadership is morally inspiring, a

quality that differentiates it from other leadership styles. As the overall of this theory dictates

that the leaders must have the capability to response to the demands in any circumstances

(Northouse, 2007). Particularly, leaders who operate under this leadership must be aware of

their environment surrounding, abilities of their employees, and to be flexible in their leadership

approach (Bledsoe, 2008).

2.2 Theoretical Literature

2.2.1Contingencytheory

Fiedler’s (1964) contingency theory directs the study variables by the assertion that “the leader’s

ability to lead is contingent upon various situational factors including the leaders preferred style,

the capabilities and behaviour of workers that depends heavily on situational factors. This theory
propounds the intimate approach of management by focusing on situation fits rather than

organisational means to apply the leadership style that will stimulate individual performance.

The assumption here is that individual who attempt to influence others must use both directive

and supportive behaviours. The second assumption here is that any leadership style depends on a

specific situation. theory suggests that task- oriented leaders will extract the best employee

performance an organisation can produce when they have either a very high level or very low

level of control of the employees, while, relationship-oriented leaders are thought to get the best

employee performance out of an organisation when they are in situations that give them

moderate amount of control over the employees. The theory also suggested high employee

performance for groups lead by smart leaders when under low level of stress while groups lead

by more average leaders may perform best under stressful situations. The theory also suggested

that when followers are unwilling able leaders need to be support to get the best performance

from employees while when followers are both willing and able little support is needed to get the

best performance from employees.

2.2.2 The situational leadership style

Hersey and Blanchard (1969) situational leadership asserts that “leadership style is dependent

upon the environment or situation in which the leader needs to act. This theory implies that

leadership needs to be changed as the situation and as the need for subordinates’ change.

Essential to the idea there are two dimensions that needs to coexist to change the leader’s

behaviour: supportive and directive behaviour. Supportive behaviour refers to showing socio-

emotional concern for the subordinates whereas directive behaviour refers to the need for leaders

to delegate task and watch over subordinates. The model for the theory suggested that employees

at stage one characterise by low level of competences and a high level of commitment will
perform best under highly directive and supportive behaviours, while for employees at stage two

characterised by moderate level of competencies and low commitment will perform best under

good coaching and a supervisor who can deal with problematic behaviours quickly and effective

and for employees at stage three characterised by high level of competence but variable level of

commitment to their job will best perform under situations less directive and high supportive

situation while for employees at stage four characterised by high level of competence and

commitment will best perform under situations of less direction and supportive behaviours.

2.2.3 Path- goal theory of leadership

Also, House and Mitchell (1974) path- goal leadership theory directs the variables of the study

by the assertion that a leader’s behaviour is contingent to employee’s satisfaction, employee

behaviour and employee performance. Path-goal theory states that a good leader provides clear

directions, set high goals, gets involved in goal achievements and supports his employees. The

path goal theory centered on the motivational factor of subordinates that have significant

influence on the outcome of the task. The path goal theory stresses that if the subordinates find

the leadership style to be satisfying and it meets their expectation, they will be motivated towards

the goal of leadership. On the other hand, when the role of subordinates and task structure

ambiguous, it’s not clear, what is expected of one and how he will be evaluated the subordinate

feel extremely stressed and dissatisfying and will disprove of leader’s style. Hence the suggest

leader to be directive, supportive, participative and delegating to get the best out of employees.

2.2.4 Theories of Employee Motivation. Theory X and Y

Theory x and y was created and developed by Douglas McGregor at the MIT sloan school of

management in 1960s.it describes two very different attitudestoward work force

motivation.McGregor felt that companies followed either one of these approaches

Description of Theory X

In the theory, management assumes that employees are inherently lazy and will avoid work if

they can, because of these workers need to be closely supervised and comprehensive systems of

control put in –place. A hierarchical structure is needed, with narrow span of control at each

level for effective employee management. According to these theory employees will show little

ambition without an enticing incentive program and will avoid responsibilities whenever they

can

The managers influence by theory x believes that everything must end in blaming someone.

They think most employees are only out for themselves and their sole interest in the job is to earn

money,they turn to blame employees in most situations without questioning the system, policy or

lack of training which could be the real cost of failures.

Managers that subscribes to theory X tend to take a rather pessimistic view of employees. Theory

X manager believe that it is the manager’s job to structure the work and energize employees. The

results of this line of thought is that theory X managers naturally adopt a controlling style base

on the treat of punishment. critics believe that a theory X manager could be an impediment to

employees’ morale and productivity

Description of Theory Y
Management influence by these theory assumes that employees are ambitious, self-motivated

and anxious to accept greater responsibilities and exercise self -control, self-direction, autonomy

and empowerment. Managers believe that employees ensure their work. They also believe that

employees have desire to be creative at their work and become forward looking. There is a

chance for greater productivity by giving employees the freedom to perform the best of their

abilities, without being bogged down by rules.

Theory Y manages believes that given the right condition, most people will want to do well at

work and there is a pool of unused creativity in the work force. they believe that the satisfaction

of doing a good job is a strong motivation in itself. Theory Y managers will try to remove the

barriers that prevent workers from full actualizing themselves

Many people interpret theory y as a positive set of assumptions about workers. A close rending

of the human side of enterprise reveals that McGregor simply argues for managers to be open to

a more positive view of workers and the possibilities that create enthusiasm.

2.3 Empirical Framework

A large body of empirical literature has demonstrated that leadership styles influence employee

performance as indicated below

Ipas (2012) examined the effects of transformational, transactional, and non-transactional

leadership on hotel employees’ outcomes including extra effort, perceived efficiency, and

satisfaction with managers. Employees from eleven 4-star hotels in Spain provided the collected

data. A series of statistical analyses (1) identify the elements of three leadership styles using a
multi-factor leadership questionnaire (MLQ-5X); (2) examine the effect of leadership styles on

employees’ outcomes. The results of this study indicate that “idealized attributes” of

transformational leadership and “contingent reward” from transactional leadership are the most

important factors that positively affect all three outcomes (that is, extra effort, perceived

efficiency and satisfaction), and (3) to assess the moderating effect of different types of

ownership of hotel properties on the relationship between styles of leadership and outcomes of

employees’ activities Other than these two elements, the significant factors indicating positive or

negative relationships vary depending on the types of individual outcomes as well as ownership

of hotel properties. The discussion sections indicate theoretical and practical implications of the

findings.

Gauguin,Nandutu . and Magolo. (2014).carried out a study in Uganda on the effect of

leadership on employee performance of the local government, a case of the Mbale district

council and concluded a positive and significant relationship between the three leadership styles

(autocratic, lassies-faire, democratic) and performance in Mbale local government. The

researchers revealed further findings that Mbale local government leaders use autocratic style of

leadership to influence employees to perform their duties, but laissez- fair style of leadership

dominated Mbale local leadership which could have caused delay in meeting deadlines. The

findings also revealed that the local government has realised some performance in terms of

increased work forces, high speed of accomplishment of work, effectiveness and timeliness due

to democratic leadership. It was therefore concluded that Mbale local government tries to

integrate the three leadership styles though autocratic and laissez faire dominated.

Anyango (2015) carried a study aimed at assessing the effect of leadership styles on employees’

performance at Bank of Africa, Kenya. The main objective of this study was to investigate the
effect of different leadership styles (transformational, transactional, autocratic, and laissez-faire

leadership styles) on employees’ performance of employees. A cross section descriptive survey

research strategy was adopted in which 80 usable structured questionnaires were collected from

300 questionnaires distributed. The leadership styles were measured through the Multi factor

Leadership Questionnaire developed by Avolio and Bass (1995), modified to fit the context of

the study. Employee performance was measured by the scale of Yousef (2000). Descriptive and

inferential statistical techniques were used for data analysis. In inferential statistics, Pearson’s

correlation and regression analysis were used to assess both relationships and effects as per the

hypotheses of the study. The findings show that transformational leadership style is the most

exhibited style at the bank followed by the transactional leadership style and laissez-faire.

Employee performance is above average. Overall, scores in transformational leadership style

were found to be strongly correlated with both measures of employee performance and overall

performance except for the intellectual simulation dimension, which had insignificant positive

correlation with quality of performance. Transactional leadership style was found to be

positively correlated with both measures of employee performance as well as overall

performance. However, contingent rewards had a negative but insignificant correlation with

performance while management by exception had insignificant positive correlations.

Authoritative leadership style had insignificant positive relationship while laissez faire style had

insignificant positive correlation. The results suggest that supervisors in organisations need to

use a lot of transformational leadership behaviours or rather embrace transformational leadership

style, but not laissez-faire leadership. From the results, transformational leadership could have

greater effects on employee productivity and quality of performance. It is recommended

therefore that Transformational and transactional leaderships are the most effective leadership

styles.

Nuhu (2016) carried out a study to investigate the effect of leadership styles practiced and their

effect on employee performance. The purpose of this study was concerned with analysing the

effect of corporate leadership styles, authoritative leadership styles and laissezfaire leadership

styles on their ability to influence work and productivity in Kampala city council in a manner

that creates efficiency and effectiveness. The objectives that guided the study were; to investigate

the effect of corporate leadership styles affect employee performance, to investigate the effect of

laissez-faire leadership styles on performance and to analyse the effect of authoritative leadership

styles on employee performance in Kampala city council. The study followed a survey research

design using both quantitative and qualitative approaches, the parent population was two

hundred and eighty respondents and the sampling techniques were; simple random sampling

which for issues of triangulation, were the same for all the local councils. The data collected was

analysed using descriptive statistics and Pearson’s co-relation co-efficient techniques. The

findings of the study were; the corporate leadership style was not highly practiced, authoritative

leadership was practiced especially in higher offices and also the laissezfaire leadership was

highly existent especially in lower offices. Concluded, there was high confusion in the practice

of leadership. Most managers were arrogant yet employees were practicing laissez-faire

leadership. Recommendations of the study were; that empowerment was needed through

developing teams and according some measure of power and authority to these teams, the district

council would reduce the dominance of authoritative and laissez-faire leadership by providing a

system that provides professionalism and transparency.

Sunjo (2016) carried out a study to investigate and compare the relationship between employee

performance in public and private schools. The specific objectives of the study were to determine

the dominants leadership styles in public and private schools, to investigate factors influencing

leadership behaviours in private and public schools using questions from a sample of 135 leaders

and 405 subordinates. A question was designed based on the Blake and mouton leadership grid

to determine leadership style within the organisation. Employees’ performance was captured and

recorded using data on the student’s performance at the GCE. Leadership and its traits were

identified as the independent variable and employee performance as the dependent variable. Data

collected from the research were statistically analysis. Through the chi square of goodness of fit

test, it was concluded that the dominant leadership style of leadership of public is not

significantly different from that private schools, and that there is a significant relationship

between employee performance and organizational leadership style.

Over the past years, different researchers have focused their attention of the various leadership

and how these leaderships affect employee’s performance. Most of the researchers conclude that

autocratic and laissez-faire style affects work output and productivity but very little knowledge

has been focus on transactional and democratic and hence a need for further studies.
 CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH METHODOLY

3.1.1. OBJECTIVES OF NJEIFORBI BAKERY LTD.

NJEIFORBI BAKERY, Is a Privately Owned Company, established by Mr Njei Louis Tebi in the year

1998, NJEIFORBI BAKERY has undergone series of growth for the past years since it was

created. This Baking enterprise has objectives which serve as their guide for their services

rendered as well as purpose of existence and these include: They equally produce family bread,

Cakes and events cakes NJEIFORBI BAKERY render services to its clients so as to improve their

customer’s deadline and demand. They give annual leave to all employees and equally provide

compensation to deserving employees.

3.2 DATA COLLECTION

Research Design

The data collection instrument to be used will be a well-structured questioner and it will be

administered to the respondent. The questions shall contain twenty items divided in to Five

sections. The first section shall focus on questions on the personal information or the respondent

profile while the second section shall focus on the various type of leadership style and section

three has questions on the effects of employee’s performance.

Section 1 base of the respondent profile is made up of five questions running from the gender to

staff category.

Section 2 has five statement base on autocratic type of leadership and here correspondent give

the degree of their responsiveness ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree
Section 3 has six statement base on laissez faire type of leadership and here correspondent give

the degree of their responsiveness ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree

Section 4 has four statement base on democratic type of leadership and here correspondent give

the degree of their responsiveness ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree

Section 5 has three statement base on transactional type of leadership and here correspondent

give the degree of their responsiveness ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree

Section 6 has four statement base on employee’s satisfaction and here correspondent give the

degree of their responsiveness ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree

The data for this research will be obtain from two main sources such as primary and secondary.

3.2.1: SOURCES OF DATA COLLECTION

For this research will be obtain from two main sources such as primary and secondary. Primary

sources of data will be information collected form employee one on one Secondary data will be

collected from company records and web sites and also from journals, books and periodicals etc.

and the primary data is compiled from customers of the printing industry through questionnaires

3.2.2 M E T H O D OF DATA COLLECTION

Research instruments of data collection will mainly be questionnaires, 30 of which will be

administered by the researcher from a population of about 35 inhabitants. The questions will be

closed ended on a 5 point Likert scale ranging from (1-5 where 1 will be strongly agree, 2 is

Agree, 3 is Neutral, 4 is Disagree, and 5 is strongly disagree) is applied to measure the response

of the survey, maintain consistency and avoid ambiguity. Descriptive statistics will be used to

analyse the overall data collected from questionnaires as well as inferential tools of analysis (the

regression analysis). The regression analysis will be employed because it is easy to use, its

results are easy to understand and it is more realistic than other tools of analysis.
3.3 VARIABLE ON WHICH DATA IS COLLECTED

The key variables use here in this study is the independent and the dependent variables. The

independent variable which this study focuses on is the leadership style consists of three

components (Democratic, laissez faire, autocratic leadership style and transactional).

Democratic leadership style This style involves the leader including employees in the decision

making process (determining) what to do and how to do it). However, the leader maintains the

final decision making authority. A set of 4 questions are used to measure the variables

Laissez faire style Laissez-faire leadership, also known as delegative leadership, is a type of

leadership style in which leaders are hands-off and allow group members to make the decisions.

A set of six question are used to measure the variable

Autocratic leadership style. The autocratic leadership style is characterized by individual control

over all decision and little input from group members. “It is characterized by an “I tell”

philosophy. Autocratic leaders tell their subordinates what to do. A set of three question are used

to measure the variable.

Transactional leadership style Transaction literally mean “exchange” therefore, transaction

leadership deals with the exchange between leader and his followers (Paracha, Qamara., Inam-

ul- Hassan, and Waqas2012). In other words, transactional leadership as supported by Bass and

Riggio (2006) is based on the expected reward in return that will be received by the followers

with their determinations, productivity and trustworthiness. a set of three question are used to

measure the variable

3.3.1 VARIABLES OF D A T A A N A L Y S I S

Questionnaires will be used in this study to obtain data regarding age, gender education levels

and the length of service in the organisation which helps understanding the respondent’s

background information. The key variables included in the study included independent variable

leadership style-namely; democratic, autocratic and laissez-faire. The scale used for leadership

style in order to measure them is the multi factor leadership questionnaire developed by Avolio

and Bass (1995), modified to fit the content of the study. The second variable in the study, the

dependent variable is employee performance is measure on the basis of their output, motivation

from other employees, ability to meet target output and the ability of an employee to report to

him or her.

3.4 ANALYTICAL TOOL

The technique used to analyse data is SPSS (statistical package for social scientists) however

personal coding and categorizing data will be done manually. Data analysis will be conducted on

respondents’ data in two perspectives: Descriptive data analysis and inferential data analysis.

According to Amin (2005) Descriptive statistics provides us with the techniques of numerically

and graphically presenting information that gives an overall picture of the data collected. The

study uses multiple regression analysis to assess the effects as per the hypothesis of the study

after data will be aggregated to turn categorical data to numerical representation that required

numerical methods. From such, descriptive statistics, frequency tables, graphics, correlation and

regression tables will be developed to help describe the data gathered. Inferential statistics is

obtained and data is present in descriptive statistics of each objective and percentages used to
infer to the data collected. This meant that the researcher will draw generalizations based on

authentic data gotten from the field.

The model for the study is EP= α + β1Χ1 + β2Χ2 + β3Χ3 + β4Χ4 μ where;

EP= Employee performance

Χ1= LFL (Laissez-faire leadership)

Χ2= DL (Democratic leadership)

Χ3= AL (Autocratic leadership)

Χ4= TL (Transitional leadership)

μ= error term.

3.5 Limitation of data and tools

The most important limitation is the fact the population used for the study do not reflect the full

population and thus population not fully measured, and therefore, one cannot be completely sure

that the values/statistics calculated are correct. Regression and correlation has the following

limitations and they include computational method is difficult as compared to other methods

furthermore, there may be variables other than x which are not studied, yet do influence the

response variable, Extreme items affect the value of the coefficient of correlation. Also

regression analysis assures the linear relationship between the two variables, whether such

relationships exist or not.

3.6 Ethical consideration

Ethical issues will be considered by the researcher, throughout the process of data collection, the

problem of persuading the corporate with the researcher is present. The right to their privacy that

is sensitive information about personal information will be highly respected, voluntary

participation that is no one will be force to respond to the questions against their will, anonymity

and confidentiality will be respected. Agreement where reach that no information would be made

public. The questionnaires will not carry names to adhere to confidentiality

 CHAPTER FOUR

PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

4.1 socio-demographic characteristics of respondents

Table 1: socio-demographic characteristics of respondents

Characteristics Frequency Percentage (%)

GENDER

Male 10 33.33

Female 20 66.67

AGE

Less than 20 8 26.67

20-29 years 18 60.0

30-39 years 3 10.0

40-49 years 1 3.33

50 years + 0 0.0

HIGHEST EDUCATIONAL
QUALIFICATION

No formal education 0 0.0

FSLC 0 0.0

GCE O-level 1 3.33

GCE A-Level 6 20.0

HND 10 33.33
 Bachelor’s Degree 13 43.33

Masters and above 0 0.0

PhD 0 0.0

LONGEVITY IN SERVICE

0-3 years 24 80.0

4-7 years 5 16.67

8 + years 1 3.33

STAFF CATEGORY

Management 4 13.33

Senior staff 9 30.0

Junior staff 17 56.67

Source: (Field survey 2023)

Firstly from Table 1 above, it was revealed that the study had more female respondents (66.67%)

than male respondents (33.33%)

Secondly, a majority of the study participants (60%) were 20-29 years old, followed by 26.67%

who were below 20 years. According to the study, there was no respondent above 50 years.

These findings imply that most employees in NJIEFORBI still young adults.

Thirdly, Table 1 above showed that a relative majority of the study participants (43.3%) were

holders of a Bachelors’ degree followed by HND and GCE Advance Level with 33.33% and

20% respectively. There were no respondents with either PhD or Masters’ degree in this study.

Considering that a majority of the respondents had Bachelor’s degree and HND was an
implication that employees in NIEFORBI are educated enough to provide credible responses to

this study on leadership styles and organisational performance.

Furthermore the research investigated the longevity of service of study participants and findings

from Table 1 above showed that most of the respondents (80%) have been in the organisation for

not more than 3 years, implying that the employee turnover in NJIEFORBI is high. However,

16.67% of respondents had been in the company for 4-7 years while just 3.33% had been there

for more than 8 years.

With regards to staff category, most of the respondents (56.67%) were junior staffs while the

least respondents (13.3%) were part the management. However, 30% of the respondents were

senior staffs.

4.2 investigating the Effects of autocratic leadership style on employee productivity

Table 2: Effect of autocratic leadership style on employee productivity

AUTOCRATIC LEADERSHIP STYLE SA A N D SD

My supervisor believes that employees 17 4 2 4 3

need close supervision to perfectly
(56.7%) (13.3%) (6.7%) (13.3%) (10%)
perform their duties

Leadership rules are designed by my 12 12 0 1 5

supervisor
(40%) (40%) (0%) (3.3%) (16.7%)
 My performance is assessed by my 7 11 1 6 5
supervisor alone
(23.3%) (36.7%) (3.3%) (20%) (16.7%)

Performance requirements are designed 9 15 1 0 5

according to needs of my organization.
(30%) (50%) (3.3%) (0%) (16.7%)

My supervisor gives orders and clarifies 20 3 5 1 1

procedures
(66.7%) (10%) (16.7% (3.3%) (3.3%)
)

Source: (Field survey 2023

Findings from Table 2 reveals that, a majority of study participants 21 (70%) were in total

agreement to the fact that their supervisor believes that employees need close supervision to

perfectly perform their duties. However, 7 (23.3%) of respondents were in total disagreement

while 2 (6.7%) were neutral in their views.

Also, the study shows that a majority of 24(80%) of the respondents were in total agreement that

Leadership rules are designed by their supervisor. But nonetheless, 6(20%)of the respondents

were in total disagreement and 0% of them were neutral.

In addition to the study from table a majority of 18(60%) of the respondents were in total

acceptance to the fact that their performance is assessed by their supervisor while 11(36.7%) of

the respondents were in total disagreement and 1(3.3%) of them were neutral.

Furthermore, 24(80%) of the respondents were in total acceptance with the fact that Performance

requirements are designed according to needs of their organization. Meanwhile 5(16.7%) of the

respondents were in total disagreement and only 1(3.3%) were neutral.

Much more, they were 23(76.7%) of the respondents who were in total agreement with the fact

that their supervisor gives orders and clarifies procedures. But however, the study shows that

2(6.6%) of the respondents were in total disagreement and 5(16.7%) of the respondents stood

neutral.

4.3 Investigating the Effect of democratic leadership style on employee productivity

Table 3: Effect of democratic leadership style on employee productivity

LAISSEZ- FAIRE LEADERSHIP SA A N D SD

STYLE

In complex situations, my supervisor 7 11 1 6 5

allows me to work out my solution on
(23.3%) (36.7%) (3.3%) (20%) (16.7%)
my own

My supervisor stays out of my way as I 15 5 3 2 5

execute my job
(50%) (16.7%) (10%) (6.7%) (16.7%)

As a rule, my supervisor allows me to 6 18 2 3 1

appraise my work on my own
(20%) (60%) (6.7%) (10%) (3.3%)

In most case I prefer little input from 23 0 1 5 1

my supervisor
(76.7) (0%) (3.3%) (16.7%) (3.3%)

My supervisor gives complete freedom 9 15 1 0 5

to solve problems on my own
(30%) (50%) (3.3%) (0%) (16.7%)

My supervisor believes that employees 14 7 3 3 3

need close supervision to perfectly
 perform their duties. (46.7%) (23.3%) (10%) (10%) (10%)

Leadership rules are designed by my 9 10 5 5 1

supervisor
(30%) (33.3%) (17.7% (16.7%) (3.3%)
)

Source: (Field survey 2023)

From table 3 above 18(60%) of the respondents were in total agreement to the fact that in case of

complex situations, their supervisor allows them to work out their solution by themselves. But

meanwhile 11(36.7%) of the respondents were in total disagreement and just 1(3.3%) of them

were neutral.

Still, a majority of 20(66.7%) of the respondents were in total agreement with the fact that their

supervisor stays out of their way as they execute their job. But on the other hand, 7(23.4%) of the

respondents were in total disagreement and approximately 3(10%) were neutral.

In addition, 24(80%) of the respondents were in total agreement that as a rule, their supervisor

allows them to appraise their work on their own. Nevertheless, 2(6.7%) of the respondents were

in total disagreement and 4(13.3%) of the respondents were neutral.

Again, a majority of 23(76.7%) were in total acceptance to the fact that in most case they

preferred little input from their supervisor but on the contrary a proportion of 6(20%) were in

total disagreement and a minority respondents of 1(3.3%).

More so, a proportion of 24(80%) respondents were in total agreement to the fact that their

supervisor gives complete freedom to solve problems on their own. but study also shows that,

5(16.7%) were in total disagreement and 1(3.3%).

Much more, a majority of 21(63.3%) of the respondents were in total agreement with respect to

the fact that their supervisor believes that employees need close supervision to perfectly perform

their duties. And also, 6(20%) of the respondents were in total disagreement given the fact that

just 3(10%) were neutral.

But nevertheless, 19(63.3%) of a majority respondents were in total acceptance to the fact that

Leadership rules are designed by their supervisor and 6(20%) of the respondents were in total

disagreement and 5(17.7%) of the respondents were neutral.

4.4 Investigating the effects of laissez-faire leadership style on employee productivity

Table 4: Effect of laissez-faire leadership style on employee productivity

DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP SA A N D SD
STYLE

My supervisor allows employees to 17 4 2 4 3

establish goal
(56.7%) (13.3% (6.7%) (13.3% (10%)
) )

Decisions are made within the team 9 15 1 0 5

(30%) (50%) (3.3%) (0%) (16.7%)

Employees are encouraged to share 21 2 4 1 2

their thoughts, ideas and believes
(70%) (6.7%) (13.2%) (3.3%) (6.7%)

My supervisor recognizes and 10 14 1 5 3

encourages achievement
(33.3%) (46.7%) (3.3%) (16.7%) (10%)
Source: (Field survey 2023)

From the table 4 above, 21(70%) who were the majority respondents, were in total agreement

with the fact that their supervisor allows employees to establish their goals. But, 7(23.3%) of the

respondents were in total disagreement and 2(6.7%) were neutral.

Furthermore, a majority of 24(80%) of the respondents were in total agreement with the fact that

Decisions are made within the team but still, 5(16.7%) of the respondents were in total

disagreement and just 1(3.3%) of them stood neutral.

In addition, 23(76.7%) of the respondents who the majority in the study were in total acceptance

of the fact that Employees are encouraged to share their thoughts, ideas and believes. But

however, 3(10%) of the respondents were in total disagreement and just 4(13.2%) of the

respondents were actually neutral.

However, 24(80%) of the majority respondents were in total acceptance given the fact that their

supervisor recognizes and encourages achievement. However, 8(26.7%) of the respondents were

in total disagreement with only 1(3.3%) of the respondents who were neutral.

4.5 Investigating the Effect of transactional leadership style on employee productivity

Table 5: Effects of transactional leadership style on employee productivity

TRANSACTIONAL LEADERSHIP SA A N D SD
STYLE

Motivates employees by tempting their self 23 0 1 5 1

interest
(76.7) (0%) (3.3%) (16.7%) (3.3%)

leaders do not feel easy to discuss with 9 15 1 0 5

employees about plan
 (30% (50%) (3.3% (0%) (16.7%)
) )

Leader set rewards and punishments for 12 12 0 1 5

employees to accomplish the goal
(40% (40%) (0%) (3.3%) (16.7%)
)

Source: (Field survey 2023)

From table 5, 23(76.7%) of the respondents who were the majority in the study, were in total

agreement that one of the ways of atransactional leadership style on employee productivity was

to Motivate employees by tempting their self-interest while 6(20%) of the respondents were in

total Disagreement but just 1(3.3%) of the others were neutral.

Also, 24(80%) of the majority respondents were in total agreement with the fact that leaders do

not feel easy to discuss with employees about their plans but however 5(16.7%) of the

respondents were in total disagreement that and nonetheless, just about 1(3.3%) were neutral.

Lastly, a majority of 24(80%) of the respondents were in total agreement that Leader set rewards

and punishments in order for employees to accomplish their goals as one of the ways of

atransactional leadership style to enhance on employee productivity. But on the other hand the

rest of 6(20%) of the respondents were in total disagreement and 0(%) were neutral.

4.5 Employees performance

Table

EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE SA A N D SD

I always report at work in time 9 15 1 0 5

 (30%) (50%) (3.3%) (0%) (16.7%)

I am motivated to work 10 9 0 5 6

(33.3%) (30%) (0%) (16.7%) (20%)

I always meet up with my target 12 7 1 5 5

outcome
(40%) (23.3%) (3.3%) (16.7% (16.7%

I always maintain the quality of my 4 17 2 4 3

output
(13.3%) (56.7% (6.7%) (13.3%) (10%)
)

Source: (Field survey 2023)

From table 5, 24(80%) of the respondents who were the majority in the study were in total

agreement to the fact that they always report at work in time which boosted their employee

performance. Meanwhile 5(16.7%) of the respondents were in total disagreement with that but

just 1(3.3%) were neutral.

Also, 19(63.3%) of the respondents were the majority in the study who were in total acceptance

to the fact thatwhen they are motivated to work since it helps to boost their employee

performance. But still 11(36.7%) of the respondents were in total disagreement and 0(0%) were

neutral.

In addition, a majority of 19(63.3%) respondents were in total agreement that they always meet

up with their targeted outcome which improves their employee performance. While 10(33.4%) of

the respondents were in total disagreement and 1(3.3%) were neutral.

Furthermore, 21(70%) of the majority respondents were in total acceptance of the fact that they

always maintain the quality of their output which in turns help to boost their work performance.
But also, 7(23.3%) of the respondents were in total disagreement and 2(6.7%) of the respondents

were neutral.

Hypothesis Testing

Data analysis

Table 7: multiple linear regressions for the effect of internal control system on the

performance of enterprises in Cameroon

VARIABLE COEFFICIENT t-statistics significance 95% CI

Autocratic leadership 0.11 0.82 0.03 (-6.3-7.7)

style

Democratic leadership -0.08 -0.69 0.01 (-0.041-0.20)

style

Transactional leadership 0.57 4.62 0.00 (0.28-0.72)

style

Laissez-faire leadership 0.05 0.45 0.04 (-0.19-0.31)

 style

R² 0.423

R² adjusted 0.37

Fstatistics 8.23

p-value of F 0.00

To determine the the effect of Leadership styles on the performance of employees in

NJIEFORBI, Cameroon a multiple linear regression was performed and results are presented

above. Table reveals that 37.0% of changes in the dependent variable were accounted for by

the predictor variables. The overall model was statistically significant. Its shows that Autocratic

leadership style significantly affects employee performance [0.57(0.28-0.72); p-value=0.00],

Democratic leadership style (0.03), Transactional leadership style (0.04), Laissez-faire leadership

style (0.04) affect the performance of employees in an organisation.

Since significant values for all independent variables is less than 0.05, we Reject all null

hypothesis. This means that, the hypothesis which states that

Autocratic leadership style has no significant influence on employee performance is

REJECTED

Democratic leadership style has no significant influence on employee performance is

REJECTED

Laissez-faire leadership style has no significant influence on Productivity is REJECTED

Transactional leadership style has no significant influence on Productivity is REJECTED

 CHAPTER FIVE

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Summary of Findings

Summary of findings was done as per the research objectives.

5.1.1Summary of findings as per objective one: investigating the Effects of autocratic

leadership style on employee productivity

Findings reveals that, a majority of study participants 21 (70%) were in total agreement to the

fact that their supervisor believes that employees need close supervision to perfectly perform

their duties.

Also, the study shows that a majority of 24(80%) of the respondents were in total agreement that

Leadership rules are designed by their supervisor.

In addition to the study from table a majority of 18(60%) of the respondents were in total

acceptance to the fact that their performance is assessed by their supervisor.

Furthermore, 24(80%) of the respondents were in total acceptance with the fact that Performance

requirements are designed according to needs of their organization.

Much more, they were 23(76.7%) of the respondents who were in total agreement with the fact

that their supervisor gives orders and clarifies procedures.

5.1.2Summary of findings as per objective two: Investigating the Effect of democratic

leadership style on employee productivity

From the findings 18(60%) of the respondents were in total agreement to the fact that in case of

complex situations, their supervisor allows them to work out their solution by themselves.

Still, a majority of 20(66.7%) of the respondents were in total agreement with the fact that their

supervisor stays out of their way as they execute their job.

In addition, 24(80%) of the respondents were in total agreement that as a rule, their supervisor

allows them to appraise their work on their own.

Again, a majority of 23(76.7%) were in total acceptance to the fact that in most case they

preferred little input from their supervisor.

More so, a proportion of 24(80%) respondents were in total agreement to the fact that their

supervisor gives complete freedom to solve problems on their own.

Much more, a majority of 21(63.3%) of the respondents were in total agreement with respect to

the fact that their supervisor believes that employees need close supervision to perfectly perform

their duties.

But nevertheless, 19(63.3%) of a majority respondents were in total acceptance to the fact that

Leadership rules are designed by their supervisor.

5.1.3Summary of findings as per objective three: Investigating the effects of laissez-faire

leadership style on employee productivity

From the findings, 21(70%) who were the majority respondents, were in total agreement with the

fact that their supervisor allows employees to establish their goals.

Furthermore, a majority of 24(80%) of the respondents were in total agreement with the fact that

Decisions are made within the team.

In addition, 23(76.7%) of the respondents who the majority in the study were in total acceptance

of the fact that Employees are encouraged to share their thoughts, ideas and believes.

However, 24(80%) of the majority respondents were in total acceptance given the fact that their

supervisor recognizes and encourages achievement.

5.1.4Summary of findings as per objective four: Investigating the Effect of transactional

leadership style on employee productivity

From the findings it reveals that, 23(76.7%) of the respondents who were the majority in the

study, were in total agreement that one of the ways of atransactional leadership style on

employee productivity was to Motivate employees by tempting their self-interest.

Also, 24(80%) of the majority respondents were in total agreement with the fact that leaders do

not feel easy to discuss with employees about their plans.

Lastly, a majority of 24(80%) of the respondents were in total agreement that Leader set rewards

and punishments in order for employees to accomplish their goals as one of the ways of

atransactional leadership style to enhance on employee productivity.

Hypothesis Testing

Data analysis

To determine the the effect of Leadership styles on the performance of employees in

NJIEFORBI, Cameroon a multiple linear regression was performed and results are presented

above. Table reveals that 37.0% of changes in the dependent variable were accounted for by
the predictor variables. The overall model was statistically significant. Its shows that Autocratic

leadership style significantly affects employee performance [0.57(0.28-0.72); p-value=0.00],

Democratic leadership style (0.03), Transactional leadership style (0.04), Laissez-faire leadership

style (0.04) affect the performance of employees in an organisation.

Since significant values for all independent variables is less than 0.05, we Reject all null

hypothesis. This means that, the hypothesis which states that

Autocratic leadership style has no significant influence on employee performance is REJECTED

Democratic leadership style has no significant influence on employee performance is

REJECTED

Laissez-faire leadership style has no significant influence on Productivity is REJECTED

Transactional leadership style has no significant influence on Productivity is REJECTED

5.2 Conclusion

This researchwas aimed at investigating the effects of leadership style on employee productivity.

From our study, they exist four types of leadership style autocratic leadership style, laissey-faire

leadership, democratic leadership, and transactional leadership. Findings from this study showed

a significant effect of all leadership styles on performance of employees.Autocratic leadership

style, Democratic leadership style and Laissez-faire leadership all had p-values less than 0.025,

hence affect the productivity of employees.

5.3 Recommendations
Based on the study, it could be recommended that different organizations should be careful with

what kind of leadership style to choose the functioning of their business also, the employees

should be forced upon what kind of role to choose in the management of an organization and

furthermore, the employees should be allowed the quantity of work load to choose in order to

boost the employees performance.

QUESTIONNAIRE

Dear Respondents,

I am………… .Public administration student of the University .I am conducting a field research

to assess ‘Effects of leadership style on Employees Performance in Cameroon with Case study of

NTARIKON COOPERATION.’ The information you will provide will be used only for

research purposes which will lead to developing the provided services.

Best Regards
Section A: Demographic information

1. What is your Gender? Male [ ] Female [ ]

2. What is your age bracket less than 20 [] 20-29 [ ] 30-39 [ ] 40-49 [ ] 50+ [ ]

3. what is your highest level of educational qualification?

No formal education [ ], First school[ ] G.C.E. O [] A Level [ ]

HND [ ] Bachelor’s degree [ ] Master’s degree [ ] PhD []

4. How long have been working in (NJEIBORBI BAKERY)?

0 - 3years [ ] 4 - 7years [ ] 8 +years [ ]

5. Staff category? Management [ ] Senior staff [ ] Junior staff [ ]

PART B:

Please read the questions carefully and on a scale of 1-5 (where 1 indicates “strongly agree ” and

5 indicates “strongly disagree ”) please rank the extent to which you agree with given statements.

The questionnaire is designed to know your opinion in general. Please note it is not to test

policies of your Bakery. There is no right or wrong answer. The data is being collected for purely

academic purpose.

[1] strongly agree [2] agree[3] Neutral [4] disagree [5] strongly disagree

SA A N D SD

STATEMENT 1 2 3 4 5
 AUTOCRATIC LEADERSHIP STYLE

1 My supervisor believes that employees need close supervision

to perfectly perform their duties

2 Leadership rules are designed by my supervisor

3 My performance is assessed by my supervisor alone

4 Performance requirements are designed according to needs of

my organisation.

5 My supervisor gives orders and clarifies procedures

LAISSEZ- FAIRE LEADERSHIP STYLE

6 In complex situations, my supervisor allows me to work out

my solution on my own

7 My supervisor stays out of my way as I execute my job

8 As a rule, my supervisor allows me to appraise my work on

my own

9 In most case I prefer little input from my supervisor

10 My supervisor gives complete freedom to solve problems on

my own
11 My supervisor believes that employees need close supervision

to perfectly perform their duties.

12 Leadership rules are designed by my supervisor

DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP STYLE

13 My supervisor allows employees to establish goal

14 Decisions are made within the team

15 Employees are encouraged to share their thoughts, ideas and

believes

16 My supervisor recognizes and encourages achievement

TRANSACTIONAL LEADERSHIP STYLE

17 Motivates employees by tempting their self interest

18 leaders do not feel easy to discuss with employees about plan

19 Leader set rewards and punishments for employees to

accomplish the goal

EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE

SA A N D SD
 STATEMENT 1 2 3 4 5

17 I always report at work in time

18 I am motivated to work

19 I always meet up with my target outcome

20 I always maintain the quality of my output

Thanks for your comprehension

Reference

Achua C.F and Lussier R.N (2013) Effective leadership Canada: south western publishing.

Anyango A.C. (2015) the effect of leadership style on employee performance. Boa Kenya

limited: Tanzania University.

Amin M.E (2005). Social science research concepts; methodology and analysis. Kampala:

Makerere University.

Adair J (2005) not bosses but leaders: how to lead the way to success. Mpg book limited

Avolio, B. J. (2007). Promoting More Integrative Strategies for Leadership T

heory-Building. American Psychologist, 62(1), 25-33.

Bledsoe, R. W. (2008). An Award-Winning School: The Impact of Transformational Leadership

on Teacher Morale in the Middle School. Doctoral dissertation, Capella University,

Minneapolis, MN

Bryman, A. (2007). Effective leadership in higher education: A literature review. Studies in

Higher Education, 32(6), 693-710

Bass(2008)

Bass 1990

Cuadrodo et al (2007)

(Edoka, 2016).Study On Consumer Behaviour. International Journal of Enterprise Computing

and Business Systems, 1(2), 20-21

Gimuguni L., Nandutu j. and Magolo A. (2014). Effect of leadership styles on employees’

performance, international journal of innovation, management and technology, vol.3, No.5

Heresey P, Blanchard K H (1988) management of organisational behaviour, utilizing human

resources pretence hall eagle wood cliffs, New Jersey.

Hackman.J.R&Wageman .R. (2007) asking the rights questions about leadership. American

psychologist, 62, 43-47

House, R. J. & Aditya, R. N. (1997). The Social Scientific Study of Leadership: Quo Vadis?

Journal of Management, 23(3), 409-473..

Ispas A. and Babaita C. (2012). the effect of leadership style on employee’s job satisfaction and

organisational commitment from the hotel industry. Approach in organisational management,

15(16), 254-262.

Iqbal,A., Ijaz.M., Latifa ,F.&Mushtag H. Factors affecting employee’s performance. European

journal of business and social and social science,vol 4, 309-318.

Lustik, C. M. (2008).Distance Education Leadership: Self-Perceptions Of Effective Leadership

Attributes. Doctoral dissertation, Capella University, Minneapolis, MN. McGregor

Lussier R.N. and Achua C.F. (2001). leadership, theory application and skills development.

USA: South- west collage publishing.

Jason A, C., Jeffery A, L. & Wesson, M.J. (2015). Organizational behavior: Improving

performance and commitment in the workplace. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education

Memon K.R. (2014). Strategic role of HRD in employee skill development: An employer

(Mathews, 2010).Management Principles & Strategies, Lagos: Pumak Nigeria Limited

Mehmood and Arif (2011),Essentials of Educational Technology. New Delhi: PHI Learning

Private Ltd.

Nanjudes.T.S&Swamy.D.R. (2012). Leadership styles. Advances in management vol7(2), 5762

Northouse, P. G. (2007). Leadership: Theory and practice (4th Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Nuhu.k (2010) the effect of leadership style on employee performance. Kampala, makerere

university.

Obiwuru, T.C., Okwu, A.T., Akpa, V.O., &Nwankwere, I.A., (2011). Effects of Leadership Style

on Organisational Performance: A Survey of Selected Small Scale Enterprises in Ikosi-Ketu

Council Development Area of Lagos State, Nigeria. Australian Journal of Business and

Management Research, 1(7), 100-111

Prasetya and Kato (2011). The effect of leadership style on employee performance and the

meditating role of job satisfaction study of private schools (educators) Pakistan, global journal of

management and business research, vol.12.

Sarbapriya

Paracha M.U., Qamara.A, Inam-ul- Hassan, and H. Waqas (2012). The effect of leadership style

on employee performance and the meditating role of job satisfaction study of private schools

(educators) Pakistan, global journal of management and

Sougui A.O, Bon.A.T. and Hassan H.M.H (2016). The impact of leadership style on employees’

performance in telecom engineering companies. Vol7(13).

Sunjo W.G. (2016). Influence of organisational leadership on employee performance: a

comparative analysis of republic and private secondary education institutions in Buea sub-

division

Thrash, A.B., (2009), Leadership in Higher Education: An Analysis of the Leadership Styles of

Academics Deans in Ohio’s 13 State-Supported Universities. (Doctoral dissertation, Capella

University

Tetteh .N.E &Brenyah .R.S. (2016). The effect of organisational leadership style and their

impact on employee’s job satisfaction; Evidence from the mobile telecommunication sector in

Ghana. Global journal of human resource management.vol 4(4), 12-24