Effect of Autocratic and Democratic Leadership Styles on Employee Performance in Dufil Prima Foods Limited

This study examined the effect of autocratic and democratic leadership styles on employee performance in Dufil Prima Foods Limited. The study was motivated by the need to understand how leadership styles influence employee performance and organizational productivity in manufacturing organizations. Specifically, the study examined the effect of autocratic leadership style and democratic leadership style on employee performance. A descriptive survey research design was adopted for the study. The population consisted of employees of Dufil Prima Foods Limited, while a representative sample was selected using Taro Yamane’s formula. Primary data were collected through a structured questionnaire and analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics with the aid of IBM SPSS Statistics. Mean and standard deviation were used to answer the research questions, while multiple regression analysis was employed to test the hypotheses. The findings revealed that autocratic leadership style has a positive and significant effect on employee performance, although excessive managerial control may reduce employee participation and workplace cooperation. The study also found that democratic leadership style positively and significantly influences employee performance through employee participation, teamwork, and open communication. Furthermore, democratic leadership style was found to exert a stronger influence on employee performance than autocratic leadership style. The study concluded that leadership style significantly influences employee performance and recommended greater adoption of democratic leadership practices to enhance employee productivity and organizational performance.

Autocratic Leadership Style, Democratic Leadership Style, Dufil Prima Foods Limited, Employee Performance, Manufacturing Organizations.

1. Agyemang, F., & Ofei, S. B. (2024). Leadership styles and employee performance in manufacturing firms in Ghana. South African Journal of Business Studies, 55(2), 118–132. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAJBS-09-2023-0312 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Ali, R., Anwar, K., & Muhammad, S. (2024). Autocratic leadership style and employee productivity in industrial organizations. Management Science Letters, 14(1), 145–156. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Cahyadi, A., Hendri, M. I., & Suryani, N. K. (2022). Leadership style and employee performance in manufacturing organizations. Journal of Human Resource Management, 10(2), 45–58. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Cahyadi, A., Marwa, T., Hágen, I., Siraj, M. N., Santati, P., Poór, J., & Szabó, K. (2022). Leadership styles, high-involvement human resource management practices, and individual employee performance in small and medium enterprises in the digital era. Economies, 10(7), 162. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2022). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (6th ed.). Sage Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2022). Multivariate data analysis (9th ed.). Cengage Learning. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Hassan, R., Akhtar, S., & Yilmaz, A. (2024). Leadership behaviour and employee engagement in modern organizations. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11(1), 1–12. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Hassnain, A. M. U. (2023). Impact of autocratic and democratic leadership styles on employees’ performance and motivation. Journal of Entrepreneurship, Education and Development, 4(2), 45–58. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Hassnain, M. (2023). Democratic leadership and employee motivation in organizations. Journal of Management and Social Sciences, 9(3), 88–101. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Joshi, A., Kale, S., Chandel, S., & Pal, D. (2021). Likert scale: Explored and explained. British Journal of Applied Science & Technology, 7(4), 396–403. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Khan, I., Abdullah, N., & Hamid, R. (2023). Autocratic leadership and employee workplace behaviour in manufacturing firms. International Journal of Organizational Leadership, 12(4), 355–369. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Mphaluwa, G. (2025). How do leadership styles influence employee engagement and performance? Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 12(1), 1–14. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Musa, A., & Bello, U. (2025). Autocratic leadership and employee productivity in Nigerian manufacturing firms. Lagos Journal of Management Studies, 15(2), 77–91. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Nanjundeswaraswamy, T. S., & Swamy, D. R. (2022). Leadership styles and employee performance: A review perspective. International Research Journal of Business Studies, 15(1), 23–37. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Nwogbo, C., & Okeke, P. (2025). Democratic leadership and organizational productivity in Nigerian manufacturing firms. International Journal of Current Science Research and Review, 8(3), 410–421. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Nwogbo, I. E. (2025). The evaluation of leadership styles and their effects on employee attitude and organizational performance. Quarterly Economics and Management Studies, 8(1), 55–70. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Oh, J., & Jang, H. (2023). The impact of inclusive leadership and autocratic leadership on organizational trust and employee outcomes. Sustainability, 15(4), 3367. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Qalati, S. A., Li, W., Ahmed, N., Ali, S., & Khan, A. (2024). Leadership styles and employee workplace behaviour. Qeios Management and Economics Studies, 5(1), 1–15. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Resnik, D. B. (2020). What is ethics in research and why is it important? National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2023). Research methods for business students (9th ed.). Pearson Education. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Taber, K. S. (2021). The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research in Science Education, 48(6), 1273–1296. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Taherdoost, H. (2021). Validity and reliability of the research instrument: How to test the validation of a questionnaire/survey in research. International Journal of Academic Research in Management, 5(3), 28–36. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Taherdoost, H. (2023). Sampling methods in research methodology. International Journal of Academic Research in Management, 12(1), 18–27. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Wei, L., & Vasudevan, H. L. (2022). Leadership style and company performance in the manufacturing industry. International Journal of Human Capital in Urban Management, 7(3), 1–14. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Yamane, T. (1967). Statistics: An introductory analysis (2nd ed.). Harper and Row. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study