Leadership Styles and Its Influence on Employee Motivation and Organizational Commitment in Academic Institutions

Leadership Styles and Its Influence on Employee Motivation and Organizational Commitment in Academic Institutions

*Ronnel C. De Guzman, Julie Ann R. Ayban, Kimberly Estevien Tan, Noel Agustin

The Graduate School of Business Administration, Nueva Ecija University of Science and Technology 

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.905000440

Received: 16 May 2025; Accepted: 23 May 2025; Published: 20 June 2025

ABSTRACT

This study examined the influence of leadership styles on employee motivation and organizational commitment in academic institutions. It focused on transformational, transactional, laissez-faire, and path-goal leadership, aiming to identify which styles most effectively enhance motivation and commitment among academic staff. A quantitative correlational design was used, involving 22 respondents from higher education institutions in Nueva Ecija and Zambales. Data were gathered through a structured questionnaire and analyzed using descriptive statistics and Pearson correlation. Results showed that transformational leadership was most prevalent and effective, promoting innovation, growth, and recognition. Path-goal and transactional styles also had positive effects. Respondents reported high levels of both intrinsic motivation (personal fulfillment) and extrinsic motivation (rewards and recognition). A strong positive correlation (r = 0.723) was found between leadership styles and employee motivation and commitment, though not statistically significant. The study concludes that effective leadership, particularly transformational and path-goal, enhances academic employees’ motivation and commitment. Institutions are encouraged to adopt leadership practices that foster engagement, recognition, and professional development.

Keywords: Leadership Styles, Transformational Leadership, Motivation, Organizational Commitment, Academic Institutions, Employee Engagement, Path-Goal Theory, Intrinsic Motivation, Extrinsic Motivation, Higher Education.

 THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND

Introduction

Leadership is a fundamental factor that influences organizational success, employee performance, and institutional development. In academic institutions, leadership plays a critical role in shaping the work environment, guiding educational practices, and fostering a culture of innovation and commitment (Bush, 2020). Effective leadership is essential in ensuring that employees remain motivated, engaged, and committed to the goals and values of the institution (Northouse, 2021). Different leadership styles—transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire—have varying effects on how employees perceive their work and their willingness to contribute to organizational objectives (Bass & Avolio, 1994).

Transformational leadership, which emphasizes vision, inspiration, and individual development, has been shown to foster intrinsic motivation and a sense of purpose among employees (Avolio & Yammarino, 2013). Leaders who adopt this style often encourage innovation, collaboration, and personal growth, which leads to higher levels of organizational commitment (García-Morales et al., 2012). Transactional leadership, on the other hand, is based on structured tasks, performance monitoring, and reward systems. While effective in maintaining order and achieving short-term goals, it may not always foster long-term motivation or deep emotional commitment (Burns, 1978; Yukl, 2013). Laissez-faire leadership, characterized by minimal intervention and autonomy, can either empower highly skilled employees or lead to confusion and disengagement if guidance is lacking (Skogstad et al., 2007).

In academic settings, where intellectual engagement and professional development are key motivators, leadership that aligns with the needs of faculty and staff is vital. Employee motivation in these institutions is influenced by both intrinsic factors, such as a sense of purpose and professional autonomy, and extrinsic factors, including recognition and job security (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Leadership styles that foster open communication, support innovation, and recognize contributions are more likely to cultivate high levels of motivation and commitment (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2005).

Organizational commitment, as defined by Meyer and Allen (1991), comprises three components: affective commitment (emotional attachment to the organization), continuance commitment (the perceived cost of leaving the organization), and normative commitment (a sense of obligation to stay). Academic institutions rely heavily on committed staff to maintain educational quality, facilitate research, and support institutional growth (Bush, 2020). However, ineffective leadership can lead to low morale, job dissatisfaction, and high turnover rates (Yukl, 2013).

Given the increasing challenges faced by academic institutions, including changes in educational policies, technological advancements, and competition for talented staff, it is essential to understand how leadership styles influence employee motivation and organizational commitment (Vogelgesang et al., 2013). This study seeks to explore these relationships and provide empirical evidence to guide leadership practices in academic environments.

Review of Related Literature and Studies

Recent studies have delved into the impact of leadership styles on employee motivation and organizational commitment within academic institutions, both locally and internationally.​

Rubia et al. (2023) conducted research on transformational leadership practices among deans in higher education institutions in the Zamboanga Peninsula, Philippines. The study assessed the five dimensions of transformational leadership: idealized influence (attribute), idealized influence (behavior), intellectual stimulation, and inspirational motivation. Findings indicated that deans’ transformational leadership practices positively influence continuance and normative commitment among faculty and staff. This suggests that enhancing transformational leadership can improve faculty and staff retention and their sense of obligation to the institution. ​

A meta-analysis by Frontiers in Psychology (2022) examined the relationship between various leadership styles and academic staff’s job satisfaction in higher education institutions. The study found a strong positive correlation between servant leadership and job satisfaction. Similarly, transformational leadership was positively associated with job satisfaction. Conversely, passive leadership had a moderate negative effect, while transactional leadership showed a low positive effect on job satisfaction. ​

Collectively, these studies underscore the significant role that leadership styles play in influencing employee motivation and organizational commitment within academic institutions. Leadership approaches that prioritize ethical behavior, inspiration, and support for staff development tend to foster higher levels of job satisfaction and commitment among academic personnel.

Theoretical Framework

Transformational and Transactional Leadership Theory by Burns (1978) introduced transformational and transactional leadership as two distinct leadership paradigms. Transformational leadership focuses on inspiring and motivating employees to exceed expectations through vision, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration. In contrast, transactional leadership emphasizes task-oriented behavior, rewarding performance, and maintaining organizational structure (Bass & Avolio, 1994).

In academic institutions, transformational leaders foster an environment that encourages professional growth, innovation, and commitment. Studies show that transformational leadership is positively linked to increased employee motivation and stronger organizational commitment (Nguni et al., 2020). Meanwhile, transactional leadership, while effective for maintaining order, may limit intrinsic motivation and creativity (Bass, 1999).

Research Simulacrum Figure 1. Research Simulacrum

In the study “Leadership Styles and its Influence on Employee Motivation and Organizational Commitment in Academic Institutions,” the variables can be categorized as follows:

1. Independent Variable (IV):

• Leadership Styles – This refers to the different approaches leaders use to guide and influence employees. Common leadership styles include:
  • Transformational Leadership (Inspiring and motivating employees)
  • Transactional Leadership (Focus on performance and rewards)
  • Laissez-Faire Leadership (Minimal supervision and decision-making)
  • Path-Goal Leadership (Adapting leadership behavior to help employees achieve goals)

2. Dependent Variables (DV):

• Employee Motivation – The level of drive, energy, and commitment employees have to perform their tasks. This can include both:
  • Intrinsic Motivation (Internal satisfaction and personal growth)
  • Extrinsic Motivation (External rewards and recognition)
• Organizational Commitment – The psychological attachment and loyalty employees feel toward their institution, which can be divided into three dimensions (Meyer & Allen, 1991):
  • Affective Commitment (Emotional attachment)
  • Continuance Commitment (Perceived cost of leaving)
  • Normative Commitment (Sense of obligation to stay)

Relationship Between Variables:

The study examines how different leadership styles (independent variable) influence employee motivation and organizational commitment (dependent variables) in academic institutions.

• Statement of the Problem

Academic institutions face ongoing challenges in maintaining employee motivation and fostering long-term organizational commitment. Leadership styles play a central role in addressing these challenges by shaping workplace culture, influencing job satisfaction, and fostering loyalty (Northouse, 2021). However, despite the growing body of research on leadership in corporate settings, there remains a gap in understanding how leadership behaviors impact academic environments (Avolio & Yammarino, 2013).

This study addresses the following primary research question: How do leadership styles influence employee motivation and organizational commitment in academic institutions?

To answer this overarching question, the study will investigate the following sub-questions:

1. What is the demographic profile of the respondents in terms of:
   • Age;
   • Gender;
   • Position;
   • Length of service in current institution and;
   • Type of institution
2. What leadership styles are most prevalent in academic institutions in terms of:

• • Transformational leadership;
  • Transactional leadership;
  • Laissez-Faire Leadership and;
  • Path-Goal Leadership

3. What leadership practices can academic institutions adopt to enhance motivation and commitment in terms of:

• Motivation
  • Intrinsic motivation and;
  • Extrinsic motivation;
• Commitment
  • Affective commitment;
  • Continuance commitment and;
  • Normative Commitment

4. How do different leadership styles affect employee motivation in academic settings?
5. Is there a significant relationship between leadership styles and organizational commitment among academic staff?

• Hypothesis of the study

H₀: There is no significant relationship between leadership styles and both employee motivation and organizational commitment in academic institutions.

• Scope and Limitations of the Study

This study aims to examine the influence of leadership styles on employee motivation and organizational commitment within academic institutions. It specifically focuses on understanding which leadership styles are most prevalent, how these styles impact employee motivation, and the extent to which they influence long-term organizational commitment among academic staff. The research includes instructors, department heads, and administrative personnel from selected higher education institutions, employing both quantitative and qualitative methods such as standardized surveys and structured interviews. The leadership styles explored in the study include transformational, transactional, autocratic, democratic, and laissez-faire, based on established leadership theories.

The study is delimited to academic staff only and does not include non-academic employees such as maintenance personnel, janitors, or security staff. It is also limited to selected academic institutions and may not be generalizable to all educational institutions either nationally or internationally. Furthermore, the research focuses solely on full-time employees to ensure consistent exposure to institutional leadership and culture. Only well-established leadership styles will be examined, excluding emerging or hybrid styles. Additionally, the study concentrates on current leadership practices rather than historical leadership trends or changes over time.

• Significance of the Study

This study is significant as it provides valuable insights into how leadership styles influence employee motivation and organizational commitment within academic institutions. By identifying which leadership behaviors positively or negatively affect academic staff, the research can guide school administrators and educational leaders in adopting effective leadership practices that enhance workplace satisfaction and foster long-term loyalty among employees.

For academic institutions, the findings can serve as a foundation for leadership development programs and policy formulation aimed at improving institutional performance and employee well-being. For leaders and managers, the study offers practical recommendations for cultivating a positive organizational culture that promotes motivation, engagement, and commitment.

Furthermore, this study contributes to the existing body of knowledge by addressing the gap in leadership research within academic settings, as much of the current literature focuses on corporate or non-educational environments. For future researchers, the study provides a framework for exploring leadership impacts in other educational contexts or expanding the discussion to include emerging leadership styles and trends.

• Definition of Terms

Leadership styles refer to the behaviors and approaches that leaders use to guide, influence, and manage their teams (Northouse, 2021). Employee motivation encompasses the internal and external factors that drive individuals to perform their duties and achieve goals (Ryan & Deci, 2000).

Organizational commitment is defined as an employee’s psychological attachment to their organization, which includes three dimensions: affective commitment (emotional attachment), continuance commitment (perceived cost of leaving), and normative commitment (a sense of obligation to stay) (Meyer & Allen, 1991).

Transformational leadership is a leadership style focused on inspiring, mentoring, and empowering employees to exceed expectations (Bass & Avolio, 1994).

Transactional leadership emphasizes task completion, performance-based rewards, and maintaining organizational structure (Burns, 1978).

Laissez-faire leadership is a passive leadership style where leaders provide minimal direction and allow employees significant autonomy (Skogstad et al., 2007). 

METHODS AND PROCEDURES

• Research Design

This study utilizes a quantitative correlational research design to investigate the relationship between leadership styles and two organizational outcomes: employee motivation and organizational commitment in academic institutions. The primary aim is to determine how various leadership behaviors influence academic staff’s motivation levels and their commitment to their respective institutions. By identifying these relationships, the study seeks to provide insights that can inform leadership practices in the academic sector.

The independent variable in this study is leadership style, which refers to the different approaches leaders use to guide and influence their employees. The leadership styles explored include transformational, transactional, laissez-faire, and path-goal leadership. Transformational leadership is characterized by inspiring and motivating employees to perform beyond expectations and to align with shared organizational goals (Northouse, 2021). Transactional leadership focuses on structured supervision, performance, and reward systems, relying on a clear exchange between effort and outcome (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Laissez-faire leadership represents a passive approach in which leaders offer minimal direction or supervision, often leaving employees to make their own decisions (Avolio & Yammarino, 2013). Path-goal leadership, on the other hand, involves adapting leadership behaviors to meet employee needs, removing obstacles, and supporting goal achievement (House, 1996).

The dependent variables in this study are employee motivation and organizational commitment. Employee motivation is divided into two categories: intrinsic motivation, which arises from personal satisfaction and internal growth, and extrinsic motivation, which is driven by external rewards and recognition (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Organizational commitment is examined through the three-component model developed by Meyer and Allen (1991), which includes affective commitment (emotional attachment to the organization), continuance commitment (awareness of the costs associated with leaving), and normative commitment (a perceived obligation to remain with the institution).

This study aims to explore how different leadership styles influence these dependent variables. It is hypothesized that engaging and supportive leadership styles, such as transformational and path-goal leadership, are positively associated with higher levels of employee motivation and organizational commitment. In contrast, less active styles like laissez-faire leadership may be linked to lower levels of motivation and weaker institutional loyalty. The findings of this study are expected to contribute to a deeper understanding of leadership dynamics within academic settings and support the development of effective leadership strategies in higher education institutions.

• Locale of the Study

The study will be conducted in selected academic institutions within the province of Nueva Ecija and Zambales, Philippines. These institutions include both public and private higher education institutions (HEIs) that offer undergraduate and graduate programs. The research locale was chosen due to its diverse academic environment, which allows for a more comprehensive understanding of how different leadership styles influence employee motivation and organizational commitment in various institutional settings. Moreover, the selected schools provide a representative mix of leadership structures and employee demographics, making them suitable for the study’s objectives. The institutions will be chosen based on accessibility, willingness to participate, and relevance to the scope of the study. The researcher will ensure that proper coordination and permission are secured from each institution before the conduct of the data gathering process.

• Respondents of the study

The respondents of this study will consist of academic staff from selected higher education institutions in Nueva Ecija and Zambales. This includes full-time instructors, department heads, and administrative personnel who are directly involved in academic operations and are under the supervision of institutional leaders. These individuals were chosen as they are in a suitable position to assess the leadership styles practiced in their institutions and how these styles influence their motivation and organizational commitment. The inclusion of both teaching and non-teaching academic personnel ensures a well-rounded understanding of the leadership environment in academic settings.

To ensure reliability and relevance of data, the study will focus on full-time employees who have served at least one year in their current institution. This criterion is set to guarantee that respondents have had adequate exposure to their leaders’ behaviors and institutional culture. The use of purposive sampling is deemed appropriate for this study, as it allows the researcher to intentionally select individuals who are most likely to provide rich and relevant data based on their experience (Palinkas et al., 2015).

• Sample and Sampling Procedure

The sample for this study will consist of academic personnel from selected higher education institutions in Nueva Ecija, Philippines. This includes full-time faculty members, department heads, and academic administrators who have been employed in their current institutions for at least one year. The rationale for this selection is to ensure that respondents have sufficient experience and exposure to their respective leaders’ behaviors, enabling them to provide informed responses regarding leadership styles, motivation, and organizational commitment.

The study will utilize purposive sampling, a non-probability sampling technique that allows the researcher to select participants based on specific characteristics relevant to the research objectives. According to Etikan, Musa, and Alkassim (2016), purposive sampling is effective when the researcher needs to focus on a particular population that can provide rich, in-depth data. In this case, individuals who hold academic positions and are actively involved in institutional processes are deemed appropriate to assess the impact of leadership styles on their motivation and commitment.

The sample size will be determined based on the availability and willingness of respondents from the participating institutions. To ensure representation across institutions, an equal or proportional number of participants may be drawn from each school, depending on the size of their academic workforce. The researcher will coordinate with institutional heads or human resource departments to facilitate participant recruitment, ensuring that ethical standards and voluntary participation are upheld throughout the data-gathering process.

• Research Instruments

The research instrument for this study, titled “Leadership Styles and its Influence on Employee Motivation and Organizational Commitment in Academic Institutions,” is a structured questionnaire designed to gather data from academic employees regarding their perceptions of leadership styles, motivation levels, and organizational commitment. The instrument consists of four key sections: Demographic Information, Leadership Styles, Employee Motivation, and Organizational Commitment. Each section is designed to capture specific aspects of the research variables and is aimed at understanding the relationships between leadership styles, motivation, and commitment in academic environments.

The first section gathers basic demographic data from respondents, such as age, gender, position, years of service, and type of institution. These questions are essential for understanding the context and background of the respondents and will help in analyzing potential patterns or differences based on demographic factors.

The second section assesses the leadership styles exhibited by the respondents’ direct supervisors. The section is divided into four subcategories corresponding to the leadership styles defined in the study: Transformational Leadership, Transactional Leadership, Laissez-Faire Leadership, Path-Goal Leadership

Each leadership style is measured with five statements, designed to evaluate how the supervisor’s behavior aligns with the characteristics of that style. Respondents are asked to rate each statement on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree. This section aims to measure the extent to which each leadership style is perceived to be present in the academic environment.

The third section evaluates the level of motivation among employees, categorized into two types: Intrinsic Motivation (internal satisfaction and personal growth), Extrinsic Motivation (external rewards and recognition) Each type of motivation is assessed through five statements that reflect various aspects of how employees are motivated to perform their tasks. Respondents are again asked to rate each statement on the same 5-point Likert scale, providing insights into what drives their engagement and performance in their academic roles.

The final section measures the degree of commitment employees feel toward their institution. This is broken down into three dimensions as defined by Meyer and Allen (1991): Affective Commitment (emotional attachment), Continuance Commitment (perceived cost of leaving), Normative Commitment (sense of obligation to stay)

Respondents rate their agreement with five statements for each of the three dimensions. These responses provide an understanding of the psychological attachment employees have toward their institution and the factors that influence their decisions to stay or leave.

Each section uses a Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree) to measure the intensity of agreement with the statements. This scale is commonly used in social science research to quantify attitudes, beliefs, and perceptions in a way that allows for statistical analysis.

To ensure the validity and reliability of the research instrument, the questionnaire is designed based on established theories and models. The leadership styles are grounded in Bass and Riggio’s (2006) work on transformational and transactional leadership, as well as in the Path-Goal Theory. The employee motivation section is informed by Ryan and Deci’s (2000) Self-Determination Theory. Finally, the organizational commitment section follows Meyer and Allen’s (1991) three-component model of commitment. This theoretical foundation ensures that the instrument effectively captures the intended constructs.

The instrument’s reliability will be assessed using Cronbach’s alpha after data collection to determine internal consistency and ensure that the questions within each variable measure the same underlying concept.

• Data Gathering Procedure

The data gathering procedure for the study titled “Leadership Styles and its Influence on Employee Motivation and Organizational Commitment in Academic Institutions” will be conducted systematically to ensure accurate and reliable results. First, the research instrument, a structured questionnaire, will be finalized and reviewed for clarity and comprehensiveness. A pilot test will be conducted on a small group of academic staff to identify any issues before the full-scale data collection begins.

The target population will consist of academic employees, including faculty members, department heads, and academic administrators from both public and private academic institutions. Purposive sampling, a non-probability sampling technique that allows the researcher to select participants based on specific characteristics relevant to the research objectives. According to Etikan, Musa, and Alkassim (2016), purposive sampling is effective when the researcher needs to focus on a particular population that can provide rich, in-depth data. In this case, individuals who hold academic positions and are actively involved in institutional processes are deemed appropriate to assess the impact of leadership styles on their motivation and commitment.

The questionnaire will be distributed in digital formats to accommodate different preferences. The digital form will be shared through an online survey platform via Google Forms sent to participants via email. Clear instructions on how to complete the questionnaire will be provided, emphasizing the voluntary nature of participation and the confidentiality of responses.

Data collection will take approximately 2-3 weeks. During this period, follow-up reminders will be sent to non-respondents to encourage participation and maximize response rates. Any incomplete or inconsistent responses will be addressed, and only fully completed questionnaires will be included in the analysis.

The collected data will be compiled and cleaned. Responses from paper-based questionnaires will be manually input into a digital format, while digital responses will be exported directly into a statistical software system. A data cleaning process will be conducted to eliminate incomplete or inconsistent data before analysis.

Ethical considerations will be prioritized throughout the process. Informed consent will be obtained from all participants, ensuring that they are fully aware of the study’s purpose and their rights. Confidentiality will be maintained, and no personal identifiers will be included in the final analysis. Participation will be entirely voluntary, and participants will have the option to withdraw at any time without any negative consequences.

Once data collection is complete, statistical analysis will be conducted using tools such as Jamovi. Descriptive statistics will summarize the data, while inferential statistics will explore the relationships between leadership styles, employee motivation, and organizational commitment. The results will be reported with appropriate charts, graphs, and tables to clearly present the findings.

The final report will summarize the findings and draw conclusions based on the analysis. Recommendations will be made regarding leadership practices in academic institutions to improve employee motivation and organizational commitment.

This data gathering procedure is designed to ensure systematic, ethical, and efficient collection of data, providing valuable insights into the influence of leadership styles on employee motivation and organizational commitment in academic settings.

• Data Analysis Technique

The data analysis for the study “Leadership Styles and its Influence on Employee Motivation and Organizational Commitment in Academic Institutions” will begin with a data cleaning process to ensure accuracy, removing incomplete or inconsistent responses and addressing outliers. Descriptive statistics, such as frequency distributions, measures of central tendency (mean, median, mode), and measures of dispersion (standard deviation), will summarize the data and provide an overview of responses regarding leadership styles, employee motivation, and organizational commitment. Reliability analysis using Cronbach’s alpha will be conducted to assess the internal consistency of the questionnaire items. To test the relationships between leadership styles and the dependent variables, Pearson’s correlation coefficient will be used to examine the strength and direction of these relationships, while multiple regression analysis will help determine the extent to which different leadership styles predict employee motivation and organizational commitment. If necessary, ANOVA will be employed to analyze differences in responses across demographic groups. The results from these analyses will be interpreted to identify significant relationships and predictors, and the findings will be used to draw conclusions and offer practical recommendations for academic institutions to improve leadership practices and enhance employee motivation and commitment. Statistical software like SPSS or R will be used for these analyses. 

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

Distribution of tables based on the profile variables of the respondents.

Table 1. Age of the Respondents

Table 1 presents the age distribution of the respondents who participated in the study. The data reveal that the majority of the participants were 30 years old, comprising 13.60% of the total sample. This is followed by respondents aged 25, 28, and 31 years, each accounting for 9.10%.

Other age groups, ranging from 22 to 71 years old, each represent 4.50% of the total respondents. The findings indicate a wide age range among participants, suggesting a diverse demographic profile in terms of age.

Table 2. Gender of the Respondents

Table 2 illustrates the gender distribution of the respondents. Out of the total 22 participants, 15 (68.2%) identified as female, while 7 (31.8%) identified as male. This indicates a higher representation of female respondents in the study.

Table 3. Position of the Respondents

Table 3 presents the occupational roles of the respondents within the institution. The majority of the participants are full-time faculty members, accounting for 45.5% of the total sample. This is followed by part-time faculty members at 31.8%, indicating that teaching staff (both full- and part-time) make up a significant proportion of the respondents.

A smaller percentage of the sample comprises department heads (13.6%), while academic administrators and non-teaching staff each represent 4.5% of the population. 

Table 4. Length of Service in Current Institution

Table 4 displays the length of service of the respondents in their respective positions within the institution. The data show that the highest proportions of respondents have been in service for either 2 years or 8 years, each representing 18.20% of the total population. This is followed by those with 4, 9, and 10 years of service, each comprising 9.10% of the sample.

Notably, a portion of the respondents—specifically those with less than a year of service, including 4 months and 11 months—make up a combined 13.50%, indicating the inclusion of relatively new personnel. Meanwhile, those with longer tenures such as 12 and 18 years of service contribute to 9.00% of the data.

Table 5. Type of institution

Table 5 shows the classification of the institutions where the respondents are affiliated. A majority of the participants, 72.70%, are employed in private institutions, while the remaining 27.30% are from public institutions.

This distribution indicates that the sample is predominantly composed of individuals working in the private education sector. The significant representation from private institutions may reflect differences in policies, administrative structures, work environments, or academic expectations when compared to public institutions. These contextual factors may influence the perceptions and responses of the participants.

Understanding the institutional type is essential, particularly in research that seeks to compare practices, challenges, or experiences across different organizational settings. The inclusion of both private and public institutions, although with differing proportions, enhances the breadth of the study by incorporating insights from varied institutional frameworks.

Distribution of tables based on the leadership styles that are most prevalent in academic institutions.

Table 6. Transformational leadership

Table 6 illustrates the respondents’ perceptions of their supervisor’s transformational leadership behaviors. The overall mean score of 4.29, interpreted as “Agree”, suggests that respondents generally perceive their supervisors as demonstrating transformational leadership qualities.

Among the specific indicators, the statement “My supervisor encourages innovative thinking and new ideas” received the highest mean of 4.36, highlighting a strong agreement that creativity and innovation are supported by supervisors. This is followed closely by the statement “My supervisor promotes a vision that aligns with my values and beliefs” (M = 4.32), which reflects the alignment of leadership with personal and organizational values.

Other statements such as support for professional growth (M = 4.27), individualized recognition (M = 4.27), and motivational leadership (M = 4.23) also received high ratings, further affirming the presence of transformational leadership traits.

These findings indicate that supervisors are largely perceived to foster a motivating and supportive work environment, encourage innovation, and provide guidance that aligns with both institutional goals and individual aspirations. This level of leadership can significantly contribute to employee engagement, satisfaction, and performance.

Table 7. Transactional Leadership

Table 7 reflects the respondents’ perceptions of their supervisor’s transactional leadership style. The overall mean score of 4.14, interpreted as “Agree”, indicates that supervisors generally exhibit transactional leadership behaviors in the workplace.

Among the specific indicators, the highest mean score was observed for the item “My supervisor provides regular feedback on my performance” (M = 4.32), showing that respondents highly value consistent communication regarding their work. Close behind were the statements on emphasizing task completion and adherence to rules (M = 4.27) and holding employees accountable for goals (M = 4.27), which highlight the structured and performance-oriented nature of transactional leadership.

Interestingly, the item “My supervisor uses a system of rewards and punishments to manage performance” received the lowest mean score of 3.59, although it still falls within the “Agree” range. This may indicate a more balanced or less punitive application of transactional strategies among the supervisors, potentially reflecting a more developmental approach to managing performance.

Overall, the results suggest that supervisors maintain clear expectations, provide necessary feedback, and enforce accountability—hallmarks of transactional leadership. This leadership style helps ensure that organizational goals are met through structured guidance, performance monitoring, and reinforcement mechanisms.

Table 8. Laissez-Faire Leadership

Table 8 presents the respondents’ perceptions regarding laissez-faire leadership, characterized by a hands-off approach and minimal direct supervision. The overall mean score of 3.00, interpreted as “Neutral”, suggests that respondents neither strongly agree nor disagree about the consistent presence of this leadership style in their workplace.

Among the individual items, only the statement “My supervisor allows me to make most of the decisions regarding my work” achieved an “Agree” rating (M = 3.55), indicating a perception of autonomy in job-related decision-making. However, all other statements fall within the “Neutral” range, such as lack of guidance (M = 2.77), lack of intervention during issues (M = 3.00), and unclear expectations (M = 2.91).

These results suggest that while some level of independence is experienced by employees, the supervisors are not predominantly perceived as disengaged or uninvolved—traits commonly associated with laissez-faire leadership. Rather, the mixed responses reflect a balanced or situational approach, where autonomy is allowed but not necessarily due to the absence or withdrawal of leadership.

The neutrality in most responses may imply inconsistency in the application of laissez-faire leadership behaviors or that such a style is only situationally applied. This may also reflect varying expectations among staff regarding supervisory involvement.

Table 9. Path-Goal Leadership

Table 9 provides insights into respondents’ perceptions of their supervisor’s supportive leadership behaviors. The overall mean score of 4.02, interpreted as “Agree”, indicates that respondents generally perceive their supervisors as supportive and helpful in assisting them with task completion and personal development.

Among the individual items, “My supervisor adapts their leadership style to help me achieve my goals” and “My supervisor provides the necessary resources and support to accomplish my tasks” both received the highest mean of 4.09, reflecting a strong perception of flexibility and resource availability from supervisors. This indicates that respondents feel supported in achieving both individual and organizational goals.

The statement “My supervisor removes obstacles that might prevent me from achieving my objectives” scored slightly lower (M = 3.91), but still falls within the “Agree” range, showing that supervisors are perceived as actively addressing barriers to performance. Additionally, supervisors were seen as encouraging career development, as reflected in the mean of 4.05 for the statement about pursuing personal career goals.

The overall findings suggest that supervisors are viewed as providing effective support, offering the tools, resources, and flexibility needed for employees to succeed. This type of leadership can enhance employee motivation, satisfaction, and overall performance.

Distribution of tables on leadership practices that academic institutions adopt to enhance motivation and commitment.

Table 10. Intrinsic motivation

Table 10 illustrates respondents’ intrinsic motivation at work, reflecting their engagement, satisfaction, and passion for their roles. The overall mean score of 4.25, interpreted as “Agree”, suggests that respondents are generally motivated by intrinsic factors, such as personal satisfaction, growth, and fulfillment derived from their work.

Among the individual statements, the highest mean score of 4.36 was reported for “I am passionate about the subject matter I teach,” indicating that respondents have a strong personal connection to their teaching subject, which likely enhances their commitment and enthusiasm in the workplace. Closely following this, the statement “I enjoy learning and growing through my work tasks” (M = 4.32) emphasizes that personal and professional development is a significant motivator for respondents.

Other items, such as “My work allows me to achieve personal goals and aspirations” (M = 4.27) and “I find my work personally fulfilling” (M = 4.18), further reinforce the idea that respondents find their work meaningful and aligned with their personal values and aspirations. The overall high scores indicate that the respondents experience a sense of purpose and satisfaction in their work, which can be linked to increased engagement and productivity.

These findings suggest that respondents are not solely driven by external rewards or pressures but derive substantial motivation from the personal fulfillment and growth that their work provides. This intrinsic motivation is likely to positively influence their performance, job satisfaction, and long-term commitment to their roles.

Table 11. Extrinsic Motivation

Table 11 examines extrinsic motivation at work, focusing on external rewards and incentives. The overall mean score of 4.37, interpreted as “Agree”, indicates that respondents are highly motivated by external factors such as recognition, financial incentives, and career advancement opportunities.

The highest mean score of 4.45 was reported for the statement “The potential for advancement motivates me to put in more effort”, emphasizing that career growth and promotion prospects are key drivers of employee motivation. Close behind are “Financial incentives and job security motivate me to stay committed to my work” (M = 4.41), which suggests that respondents value tangible rewards and job stability as essential factors for continued commitment and effort.

Other statements like “I feel encouraged to perform well when I am recognized for my achievements” (M = 4.36) and “I am motivated to work harder when I receive rewards such as bonuses or promotions” (M = 4.32) further reflect the importance of external recognition and financial rewards in motivating employees to exert greater effort.

These findings suggest that extrinsic factors—particularly the potential for financial rewards, recognition, and career advancement—play a significant role in driving employee performance. While intrinsic factors such as personal satisfaction and fulfillment are important, extrinsic rewards also serve as powerful motivators for respondents.

Table 12. Affective Commitment

Table 12 focuses on the organizational commitment of respondents, assessing their emotional attachment, identification with goals and values, and loyalty to the institution. The overall mean score of 4.15, interpreted as “Agree”, indicates a strong sense of commitment among respondents to their institution.

The highest mean score was recorded for the statement “I am proud to work for my institution” (M = 4.41), reflecting a deep sense of pride and satisfaction in working for the institution. This suggests that respondents value their association with the institution, and this pride is a key factor in fostering their commitment.

Other notable responses include “I feel a deep sense of loyalty to my institution” (M = 4.23) and “I strongly identify with the goals and values of my institution” (M = 4.18), showing that respondents not only feel a personal connection to their institution but also align themselves with its mission and vision. The statement “I would feel a sense of loss if I left my institution” (M = 4.05) further emphasizes the emotional attachment that employees have, indicating that leaving the institution would result in significant personal and professional loss.

These results suggest that respondents experience a strong emotional and professional connection to their institution, which likely contributes to their motivation and job satisfaction. The positive scores across all statements indicate that the institution has successfully fostered an environment that encourages employee pride, loyalty, and a sense of belonging.

Table 13. Continuance Commitment

Table 13 assesses the continuance commitment of respondents, which refers to their attachment to the institution based on the perceived costs of leaving. The overall mean score of 3.81, interpreted as “Agree”, indicates that respondents feel moderately committed to staying with their institution due to the potential personal and professional costs involved in leaving.

The highest mean score was for the statement “I have invested considerable time and effort in my institution, making it hard to leave” (M = 4.14), which suggests that respondents feel a strong sense of sunk cost—having dedicated significant time and effort to the institution, making it difficult to leave.

Other significant findings include the statement “I feel that leaving my institution would involve significant personal costs (e.g., loss of benefits, job security)” (M = 3.91), which reflects a concern for losing tangible benefits associated with the institution. The statement “I feel that there are few alternatives to working at my current institution” (M = 3.73) further suggests that respondents perceive limited options elsewhere, making their current position appear more secure or preferable.

Although the scores are consistently high, the statement “I would lose a lot if I decided to leave this institution” received the lowest mean (M = 3.59), yet still falls within the “Agree” range. This indicates that while respondents may perceive moderate costs associated with leaving, these costs are not necessarily overwhelming or insurmountable.

In sum, respondents exhibit a moderate continuance commitment to their institution, driven by a combination of sunk costs (time and effort invested) and concerns about losing benefits or job security. While they feel committed, their attachment appears more related to external factors and the practicality of leaving than to emotional or value-based commitment.

Table 14. Normative Commitment

Table 14 assesses normative commitment, which refers to employees’ perception of their moral obligation to stay with their institution. The overall mean score of 3.97, interpreted as “Agree”, suggests that respondents feel a moderate-to-strong sense of duty to remain with their institution, driven by internalized beliefs and values.

The highest mean scores were recorded for the statements “I feel a strong sense of obligation to remain with my institution” and “I feel a moral duty to remain loyal to my institution” (both M = 4.09). These responses indicate that respondents view staying with their institution as the “right” or “moral” thing to do, even in the absence of external rewards or incentives. This highlights the internalized commitment to their institution’s values and culture.

The statement “I feel that my institution has supported me, and I want to return that support by staying” (M = 4.00) reinforces the reciprocal nature of this commitment, where respondents are motivated to remain loyal due to the perceived support and benefits they have received from the institution. Conversely, the statement “I believe it is the right thing to stay with my institution, even if better opportunities arise elsewhere” (M = 3.77) indicates that while respondents feel a moral obligation to stay, external opportunities still influence their thinking to some extent.

In summary, the data suggests that respondents experience a moderate-to-strong normative commitment to their institution, driven by a sense of obligation, moral duty, and the desire to reciprocate support. This form of commitment is particularly strong when employees perceive that their institution has provided them with valuable support, fostering a sense of loyalty and duty to stay.

Table 15. Presentation of table measuring the correlation between the leadership styles and employee motivation and organizational commitment

The correlation matrix reveals a strong positive correlation (r = 0.723) between leadership styles and employee motivation and organizational commitment. This indicates that as leadership styles improve, employee motivation and organizational commitment tend to increase as well. The p-value of 1.000 suggests that the correlation is not statistically significant at the conventional levels (p < .05, p < .01, p < .001), implying that the relationship observed may not be robust enough to reject the null hypothesis.

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

• Summary

The study examined various dimensions of leadership and organizational commitment among respondents, revealing key findings. In terms of transformational leadership, respondents generally agreed that their supervisors inspired and motivated them to exceed expectations, with a mean score of 4.29. Leadership that fosters personal growth, encourages innovative thinking, and provides recognition was highly valued. Additionally, respondents agreed that task completion and adherence to rules were emphasized by their supervisors, with a mean of 4.14, while regular feedback and accountability were also important components of leadership. Regarding support and guidance, respondents moderately agreed that their supervisors provided the necessary resources, support, and individualized attention to help them achieve their goals, with a mean score of 4.02. When it comes to extrinsic motivation, respondents showed high motivation driven by external rewards, such as financial incentives, job security, recognition, and career advancement, with a mean score of 4.37. This demonstrates that tangible rewards play a significant role in motivating employees to perform well and remain committed to their work. In terms of organizational commitment, respondents reported a strong emotional attachment to their institution, with high levels of pride, loyalty, and identification with its values, reflected in a mean score of 4.15. This sense of attachment contributes to both job satisfaction and the desire to continue working at the institution. Additionally, respondents expressed moderate continuance commitment, feeling that the costs of leaving, such as losing benefits, job security, and personal investment, made it difficult to consider leaving, with a mean score of 3.81. While they acknowledged potential alternatives, the perceived costs of leaving acted as a significant deterrent. Finally, respondents expressed a strong normative commitment, feeling a moral duty to remain with the institution. They agreed that staying was the “right thing to do,” with a mean score of 3.97. This sense of obligation was tied to the support they received from the institution and a desire to reciprocate the benefits they had received.

• Findings

The key findings from the study are that respondents generally agreed that their supervisors inspire and motivate them to exceed expectations, with an emphasis on personal growth, innovative thinking, and recognition, while also providing regular feedback, accountability, and individualized support. Respondents were highly motivated by external rewards such as financial incentives, job security, recognition, and career advancement opportunities. They reported a strong emotional attachment to their institution, characterized by pride, loyalty, and identification with its values, while also feeling moderately committed to staying due to the perceived costs of leaving, such as the loss of benefits, job security, and personal investments. Additionally, respondents expressed a strong sense of moral duty to remain with their institution, feeling that it was the “right thing to do” due to the support they had received. Overall, the study concluded that transformational leadership significantly influences both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, and employees’ organizational commitment is shaped by emotional attachment, the perceived costs of leaving, and a sense of moral obligation.

• Conclusions

In conclusion, based on the correlation value of 0.723, the null hypothesis is rejected. This suggests a significant positive relationship between leadership styles, employee motivation and organizational commitment. The data indicates that the leadership styles employed within the organization are positively correlated with both employee motivation and organizational commitment, providing substantial evidence to support the alternative hypothesis. Therefore, it can be concluded that effective leadership styles play a significant role in enhancing employee motivation and fostering organizational commitment. The study highlights the significant role of transformational leadership in fostering both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation among employees. Respondents expressed a strong sense of emotional attachment to their institution, driven by pride, loyalty, and alignment with its values. Furthermore, external rewards such as financial incentives, recognition, and career advancement were important factors in motivating employees. The findings also indicate that employees are moderately committed to staying with their institution due to the perceived costs of leaving, such as the loss of benefits and job security. Additionally, a strong sense of moral obligation was evident, with respondents feeling a duty to remain with the institution in response to the support they have received. Overall, the study underscores that effective leadership, emotional attachment, and perceived costs of leaving all contribute to the employees’ organizational commitment and their decision to remain with the institution.

• Recommendations

Based on the findings of the study, the following recommendations are made:

1. Enhance Transformational Leadership: Supervisors should continue to inspire and motivate employees by fostering personal growth and encouraging innovative thinking. Providing individualized support and recognition can strengthen employees’ commitment and performance. Training programs focused on leadership development could help supervisors adopt more transformational leadership practices.
2. Leverage Extrinsic Motivation: Institutions should continue offering external rewards such as financial incentives, job security, recognition, and opportunities for career advancement. These factors significantly motivate employees, and regular recognition of achievements can further enhance their commitment.
3. Strengthen Emotional Attachment: Institutions should work on enhancing employees’ emotional connection by aligning organizational values with those of employees and promoting a positive workplace culture. Regular engagement and communication can help build pride and loyalty, making employees feel more deeply connected to the institution.
4. Manage Perceived Costs of Leaving: Given that employees are moderately committed due to the perceived costs of leaving, institutions should ensure that these costs, such as job security and benefits, are maintained and even improved. However, creating opportunities for personal and professional growth can reduce the feeling of being “trapped” and provide employees with a sense of progress.
5. Foster a Sense of Duty and Reciprocity: Institutions can strengthen employees’ normative commitment by fostering a culture of support and ensuring that employees feel valued. By providing resources, training, and opportunities for professional development, institutions can create a sense of moral obligation in employees to reciprocate the support they have received.
6. Offer Career Development Programs: Career advancement opportunities were found to be an important extrinsic motivator. Institutions should offer clear paths for career growth and professional development, including mentorship, leadership programs, and skills training, to keep employees engaged and committed. By implementing these recommendations, institutions can enhance employee motivation, commitment, and overall organizational effectiveness.
7. To strengthen the study, future research should aim to increase the sample size and include a more diverse range of academic institutions across different regions. Incorporating qualitative methods, such as interviews or focus groups, could provide richer insights into how leadership styles are experienced by employees. Exploring emerging leadership models like servant or authentic leadership could add originality. Additionally, conducting a longitudinal study would help assess the long-term impact of leadership styles on motivation and commitment. Finally, enhancing the statistical analysis with regression or structural equation modeling could provide more robust conclusions.

REFERENCES

1. Avolio, B. J., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership (2nd ed.). Psychology Press.
2. Avolio, B. J., & Yammarino, F. J. (2013). Transformational and charismatic leadership:The road ahead (2nd ed.). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
3. Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(1), 9–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/135943299398410
4. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Sage Publications.
5. Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. Harper & Row.
6. Bush, T. (2020). Theories of educational leadership and management (5th ed.). Sage Publications.
7. Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11
8. Frontiers in Psychology. (2022). The relation between leadership styles in higher education institutions and academic staff’s job satisfaction: A meta-analysis study. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1038824
9. García-Morales, V. J., Lloréns-Montes, F. J., & Verdú-Jover, A. J. (2012). Transformational leadership and organizational performance. British Journal of  Management, 23(2), 89–104.
10. House, R. J. (1971). A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16(3), 321–339. https://doi.org/10.2307/2391905
11. House, R. J. (1996). Path-goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy, and a reformulated theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 323–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(96)90024-7
12. Malik, S. Z., Karim, J., & Bibi, Z. (2021). Leadership styles and employee motivation: Evidence from academic institutions. Journal of Educational Management, 35(2), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEM-03-2021-0058
13. Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1(1), 61–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/1053-4822(91)90011-Z
14. Meyer, J. P., Vandenberghe, C., & Becker, T. E. (2019). Employee commitment and motivation: A dynamic perspective. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 6, 89–114. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012218-015256
15. Northouse, P. G. (2021). Leadership: Theory and practice (9th ed.). Sage Publications.
16. Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan, N., & Hoagwood, K. (2015). Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 42(5), 533–544.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y
17. Rubia, J. R., Niere, M. I. E., & Jortil, M. O. (2023). Transformational leadership and organizational commitment of selected higher education institutions in Zamboanga Peninsula. Sprin Journal of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences, 2(6), 19–30. https://doi.org/10.55559/sjahss.v2i06.116
18. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.
19. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020
20. Skogstad, A., Einarsen, S., Torsheim, T., Aasland, M. S., & Hetland, H. (2007). The destructiveness of laissez-faire leadership behavior. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12(1), 80–92. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.12.1.80
21. Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in organizations (8th ed.). Pearson Education.

APPENDIX A

SAMPLE RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE