Leading the Herd: The Perceived Leadership Styles of the Center Directors of Philippine Carabao Center in Mindanao

Leading the Herd: The Perceived Leadership Styles of the Center Directors of Philippine Carabao Center in Mindanao

Rodolfo T. Valdez Jr^*, Maryjoy S. Bacus, Anecil S. Quijano-Pagutayao

Science Research Analyst, Department of Agriculture-Philippine Carabao Center at University of Southern Mindanao, Kabacan, Cotabato, Philippines

^*Corresponding Author

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.905000508

Received: 24 May 2025; Accepted: 26 May 2025; Published: 25 June 2025

ABSTRACT

This study investigated the perceived leadership styles of Center Directors at DA-PCC regional centers in Mindanao namely: DA-PCC at University of Southern Mindanao (DA-PCC at USM) in Kabacan, Cotabato; DA-PCC at Central Mindanao University (DA-PCC at CMU) in Musuan, Bukidnon; and DA-PCC at Mindanao Livestock Production Center (DA-PCC at MLPC) in Kalawit, Zamboanga del Norte. Utilizing a descriptive-correlational research design, the study involved all permanent employees from various DA-PCC centers in Mindanao who voluntarily participated through a researcher-made survey questionnaire.

Results revealed that the majority of respondents were male (68%), aged 45 and above (79%), and had achieved college-level education or higher (68%). These demographics indicated a mature and experienced workforce. Findings showed that employees perceived their Center Directors to predominantly exhibit laissez-faire leadership style (Mean=3.56), closely followed by participative leadership style (Mean=3.54) and authoritarian leadership style (Mean=3.46). These leadership approaches were found to have a significant positive relationship with employees’ levels of commitment and confidence (p-value=0.002), as they fostered trust, respect, and a sense of value among staff members. Despite the prevalence of positive leadership traits, some inconsistencies in leadership practices were noted. These included unclear communication and limited involvement in decision-making processes, which were observed to affect employee morale and engagement in certain instances.

The study concludes that effective leadership is a critical factor in shaping employee commitment and confidence. It recommends leadership training programs focused on adaptive, transparent, and inclusive leadership styles to better address the diverse needs of the workforce. The findings contribute valuable insights to public-sector leadership practices, especially within the agricultural research and development sector in the Philippines.

Keywords: Leadership Style, Philippine Carabao Center, Organizational Impact, Authoritarian, Laissez-faire, Participative

INTRODUCTION

Leadership in the organization must be owned by all internal members, regardless of its vision and objective. An organization or firm need a leader who can set an example for other internal members of the group. Every leader possesses behavioral approach to influence, motivate, and direct their followers or so called as the leadership style. The right leadership style can inspire employees to be more active in the organization; thus, it becomes more productive.

Leadership style has been emphasized as one of the most important individual influences on corporate innovation, because leaders can quickly decide to introduce new ideas into the organization, set specific goals, and encourage subordinates to innovate (Zacher, H., et al, 2015). Furthermore, a good leadership style can motivate employees to contribute more new ideas and innovate in order to achieve the company’s goals (Elshanti, M., 2017). For decades, academics studying leadership have focused on how leadership affects organizational performance (Al Khajeh, 2018). This is based on the idea that an organization’s leadership style correlates with its success (Rowe, C. et al., 2005). Some scholars believe that the leadership style used is very significant in accomplishing corporate goals and motivating subordinates to succeed (Arif S., et al., 2018).

The Philippine Carabao Center (PCC) is an attached agency of the Department of Agriculture (DA) which is mandated, by the virtue of Republic Act 7307, to conserve, protect, and promote the carabao as a source of milk, meat, hide, and draft power which will eventually affect the lives of rural families. It is envisioned as a leading research and development organization that will drive long-term growth in the carabao sector. The agency has 12 regional centers and three of them are located in Mindanao namely: DA-PCC at University of Southern Mindanao (DA-PCC at USM) in Kabacan, Cotabato; DA-PCC at Central Mindanao University (DA-PCC at CMU) in Musuan, Bukidnon; and DA-PCC at Mindanao Livestock Production Center (DA-PCC at MLPC) in Kalawit, Zamboanga del Norte. The agency’s mission is to improve the overall well-being and competitiveness of livestock industry stakeholders by developing animal biotechnology and technology, disseminating technology and managing knowledge resources, actively involving the private sector, livestock-based enterprises, and implementing policy reforms to sustain the development of livestock enterprises, ensuring socioeconomic empowerment for national development.

Here, Center Director designate as the leaders of every regional centers. Center directors under the DA-Philippine Carabao Center (DA-PCC) are responsible for administering the policies, programs, and projects of the agency within their respective centers, ensuring alignment with national directives and development goals. They are also tasked with recommending the creation of divisions and sections, including proposing staffing patterns to enhance operational efficiency and service delivery. In addition, they prepare the annual budget of their centers, approve corresponding expenditures, and exercise financial oversight in accordance with government accounting and auditing rules. Furthermore, they are authorized to recommend the appointment of personnel or consultants to their respective agency heads to support program implementation. Lastly, they play a strategic role in recommending policies, programs, and projects to the Executive Director of the DA-PCC, thereby contributing to the institution’s overarching mission of promoting carabao-based enterprises and improving rural livelihoods

With these, center director plays an important role in improving the performance of every regional center. The appropriate leadership style of a center director may encourage staff to be more involved in the business, making it more productive. A lack of expertise in the implementation of good leadership styles has long been cited as one of the issues contributing to problems in today’s businesses. Leadership style is described as an individual impact that promotes corporate innovation since a good leadership style may motivate employees to bring in more fresh ideas and innovate in accordance with the company’s aims.

While multiple studies in determining leadership styles in different organization in the Philippines, research topic remains limited in agricultural extension agencies such as the Philippine Carabao Center. Thus, this study is necessary to address the existing research gap and provide an understanding of how center director employ their leadership in different contexts and its organizational impact. It is on this premise that the researcher opted to pursue this study so that the result can be used as the basis for developing a leadership training program that will guide center directors to implement leadership style that is perceived effective in their institutions to promote quality delivery of services.

Research Questions

The study aimed to determine the leadership style of the Center Directors of the three regional centers of DA-Philippine Carabao Center in Mindanao as perceived by their respective permanent employees.

Specifically, the study will attempt to answer the following questions:

• What is the socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents?
• What are the perceived leadership styles of the Center Directors of the three regional centers of DA-Philippine Carabao Center in Mindanao?
• Is there a significant relationship between the socio-demographic profile of the respondents and the perceived leadership styles of the Center Directors of the three regional centers of DA-Philippine Carabao Center in Mindanao?
• Is there a significant relationship between leadership styles and organizational impact?

By addressing these questions, the study will provide insights into the perceived leadership styles of center directors of DA-Philippine Carabao Center in Mindanao.

Scope and Delimitation of the Study

The knowledge generation process was conducted among the three regional centers of the DA-Philippine Carabao Center in Mindanao, namely: the Mindanao Livestock Production Center in Zamboanga del Norte, Central Mindanao University in Bukidnon, and the University of Southern Mindanao in Cotabato Province. The study focused on the perception of permanent employees regarding the leadership styles of their respective Center Directors. While leadership encompasses a wide range of styles and factors, the scope of this study was specifically limited to three primary leadership styles: authoritarian, laissez-faire, and participative.

Operational Definition of Terms

The following concepts and terms are defined and interpreted according to their specific usage throughout the study.

Age refers to a period of human life usually marked by a certain stage or degree of mental or physical development of the respondents.

Autocratic Leaders refer to leaders who are domineering, take full authority and assume full responsibility. In terms of power and decision making the leadership style is centralize.

Center Director refers to the person who is in the position acting as the head of office of DA-Philippine Carabao Center in regional centers and as supervisor to DA-PCC employees, permanent and job order personnel.

Civil status refers to married, widowed or single state of the respondents.

Laissez-faire leaders refer to leaders who avoid power and responsibility. They are the leaders who show little involvement and participation in group activities.

Educational attainment refers to the highest educational attainment by the respondent.

Gender refers to either female or male gender of the respondents.

Impact is the effect on or the impression of the respondents on the study of leadership.

Leadership style is a leader’s style of providing direction, implementing plans, and motivating people. It is the way in which the functions of leadership are carried out, the way in which the manager typically behaves towards members of the group. It is how the leader behaves when they try to influence the performance of someone else. Likewise, it means the supervisors’ pattern of behavior as observed by their subordinates.

Length of Service is the longevity; duration of service or employment. Often used to indicate how long an employee has worked at a company or an individual has belonged to an organization.

Participative Leaders refer to leaders who allow employees to participate in decision making and problem-solving processes. A leader who works with his/her employees.

Perception refers to how the permanent employee views or perceives leadership style of their center director while performing the different leadership functions within the context of the organizational system.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Leadership Style

Leadership is often seen as a dynamic and ongoing process where an individual guide and motivates others to willingly work toward shared goals (Gopal R., et al., 2014). In this context, a leader is not just someone who holds a title, but someone who inspires people to contribute meaningfully to the success of an organization (Koech P., et al., 2012). As organizations face constant change, both internally and externally, the role of leadership becomes even more crucial. Mostashari (2009) emphasizes the importance of leaders in helping organizations adapt by reallocating or reconfiguring resources in ways that allow them to stay competitive and thrive.

Effective leaders are also those who communicate a clear vision and direction, helping employees understand and align with the organization’s goals (Aziz R., et Al., 2013). Different leadership styles can influence outcomes in different ways. According to Obiwuru T., et. al. (2011), organizations are more likely to achieve their objectives when leaders connect employee performance with meaningful rewards and provide the tools and support needed to succeed. Ultimately, the leadership style practiced within an organization can greatly influence its success. It can either inspire commitment and enthusiasm among employees or diminish their drive and involvement (Bhargavi S., et al., 2016).

One of the common leadership styles is authoritarian. Authoritarian leadership is characterized by a high degree of control, where leaders often assert their authority to demand full obedience from their subordinates (Chiang et al., 2020). These leaders typically operate within rigid organizational hierarchies, using their position to centralize power and reinforce the gap between themselves and their team (Schaubroeck et al., 2017). Research has shown that authoritarian leaders tend to push their employees to meet tough goals and adhere strictly to rules and procedures (Karakitapoğlu-Aygün et al., 2021). While this approach might seem counterproductive to fostering a positive work environment or boosting performance, studies have produced mixed results over the years (Shen et al., 2019).

Moreover, authoritarian leadership is often linked to negative outcomes, such as strained relationships between leaders and their teams, reduced motivation, and increased turnover intentions among employees (Schaubroeck et al., 2017). For instance, Chiang et al. (2020) found that the work environment tends to deteriorate when leaders suppress the emotional expression of their staff. Similarly, Schuh et al. (2012) reported that employees may reduce their efforts when led by overly controlling managers. Furthermore, Schaubroeck et al. (2017) highlighted that when team members reject rigid power structures, the negative effects of authoritarian leadership on performance become even more pronounced. As the modern workplace becomes more dynamic, interconnected, and fast-paced, this leadership style often clashes with the needs of today’s organizations.

Secondly, the Laissez-faire Leadership style. The term laissez-faire, a French phrase meaning “let it be,” refers to a leadership style that is often called the “hands-off” approach (Nwokocha I., 2015). This style allows team members to carry out their tasks however they see fit, without strict guidelines, close supervision, or structured processes (Gill, 2014). Bass (1985) describes laissez-faire leadership as a style where the leader lacks confidence in their ability to lead and does not set clear goals or provide direction. Instead of guiding the team or helping with decision-making, the leader leaves much of the responsibility to the employees. According to Puni et al. (2014), these leaders avoid exercising control, often relying only on a few loyal staff members to get the work done. They tend not to invest in employee development, assuming that workers can manage themselves independently. Laissez-faire leaders typically refrain from using their authority and are reluctant to step in, even when intervention is necessary. Overall, laissez-faire leadership is frequently linked to low employee satisfaction, reduced productivity, and organizational inefficiency.

Lastly, participative leadership, often referred to as democratic leadership, is a leadership style where leaders involve their team members in decision-making processes. The goal is to strengthen employees’ sense of ownership and align their personal objectives with the organization’s goals (Jing et al., 2017). Under this style, leaders often delegate authority and create a collaborative environment where employees are encouraged to contribute meaningfully. According to Li et al. (2018), there are two key features of this leadership style: first, employees are involved in solving problems and consulted before decisions are finalized; second, leaders ensure that employees have the necessary resources and support to succeed.

In practice, participative leadership is built on mutual respect and trust. Leaders and subordinates work together as equals to address organizational challenges through open dialogue and democratic processes. While many employees may be involved in discussions, the final decision often still rests with the leader. Huang et al. (2010) highlighted that this leadership style also requires leaders to provide consistent encouragement and to share information and ideas transparently. Ultimately, the essence of participative leadership lies in empowering employees by involving them in key organizational decisions. The leader’s role becomes one of facilitation—consulting the team, gathering input, and fostering a cooperative atmosphere before making informed choices (Benoliel et al., 2014).

Theoretical Framework

This study is grounded in Elton Mayo’s participative management theory, which emphasizes the value of involving employees in decision-making. According to the theory, when people are part of the process, they gain a clearer understanding of the issues at hand and are more likely to follow through with the decisions made. Being included also tends to boost their commitment and encourages a more collaborative, less competitive environment—especially when everyone is working toward shared goals. Simply put, when people make decisions together, they also build stronger social bonds, which deepens their commitment to those decisions.

The study also draws on ideas from Kurt Lewin’s work, particularly his view that the most effective leaders are those who consider input from others. This approach, known as Participative Leadership Theory, promotes open communication and invites team members to contribute to the decision-making process. While the leader still has the final say, this style helps people feel more valued and engaged, which can lead to better outcomes for the whole group.

METHODOLOGY

Research Locale

This study was confined to the three regional centers of DA-Philippine Carabao Center in Mindanao namely: DA-PCC at University of Southern Mindanao (DA-PCC at USM) in Kabacan, Cotabato; DA-PCC at Central Mindanao University (DA-PCC at CMU) in Musuan, Bukidnon; and DA-PCC at Mindanao Livestock Production Center (DA-PCC at MLPC) in Kalawit, Zamboanga del Norte.

Sampling Procedure

The study utilized a complete enumeration method, involving 19 permanent employees of the three selected regional centers. A list of employees was obtained from the Human Resource Offices of each center, along with their organizational structures. Permission to conduct the study was secured from each Center Director. Data collection was carried out through either onsite or online interviews, depending on the availability and convenience of the respondents.

Research Design

This study employed a descriptive-correlational research design. The descriptive aspect was used to present the socio-demographic profile of the respondents and their perceptions of the leadership styles of their Center Directors. The correlational component aimed to identify relationships between socio-demographic characteristics, perceived leadership styles, and organizational impact in the form of commitment and confidence among employees.

Data Analysis

The collected data were encoded, verified, and analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). Descriptive statistics such as means, frequencies, and percentages were used to summarize the data. Based on the type and distribution of the data, appropriate statistical techniques were applied to determine relationships between variables.

Research Instrument

The main tool used for data collection was a structured questionnaire adopted from the study entitled “The Perceived Leadership Styles of the Municipal Agricultural Officers of City Agriculturists Office in Davao City” (Almador, 2015). It consisted of three sections. The first section gathered data on the respondents’ socio-demographic they will be obtained during the process. The second section composed of statements for leadership style. The final part of the tool focus on the organizational impact.

RESULTS

The socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents

Fig. 1 Age of the respondents

The age distribution shows in Figure 1 that the majority of individuals are in the older age brackets, with 6 out of 19 individuals (31.58%) aged 52–58 and 5 individuals (26.32%) aged 59–65. The 45–51 group accounts for 4 individuals (21.05%), while the younger age groups, 31–37 and 38–44, each have only 2 individuals, representing 10.53% each.

Fig. 2 Gender of the respondents

Figure 2 indicates that among the 19 respondents, 68.4% (13) of the respondents are male, while 31.6% (6) are female. Gender is a fundamental socio-cultural factor that influence people’s perception and behaviors significantly.

Fig. 3 Educational Attainment of the respondents

According to the data indicated in Figure 3, 47.4% (9) of the respondents are bachelor’s degree graduates. Meanwhile, 31.6% (6) of them are high school level or graduates, and 21.1% (4) hold a master’s degree.

Fig. 4 Place of assignment of the respondents

According to the data indicated in Figure 4, 47.4% (9) of the respondents are from DA-PCC at CMU, followed by 31.6% (6) from DA-PCC at MLPC, and 21.1% (4) from DA-PCC at USM.

Fig. 5 Length of service of the respondents

According to the data indicated in Figure 5, 47.4% (9) of the respondents have served for 26–31 years, making it the most represented length of service category. This is followed by 26.3% (5) who have served for 2–7 years, 15.8% (3) for 8–13 years, and 10.5% (2) for 14–19 years. Notably, there are no respondents in the 20–25 years range. This indicates a workforce composed mostly of long-serving employees, with fewer individuals in the mid-service range.

Fig. 6 Job position of the respondents

According to the data indicated in Figure 6, the respondents hold various positions, with the most common being Farm Worker I (4), followed by Science Research Specialist II (3) and Senior Science Research Specialist (3). Other positions include Farm Worker II (2), Farm Superintendent II (2), Science Research Analyst (2), Science Research Specialist I (1), Senior Agriculturist (1), and Supervising Science Research Specialist II (1). Among all respondents, 9 of them serve as section heads or program coordinators, while the remaining 10 are section staff or employees, indicating a fairly balanced mix between leadership roles and support personnel within the group.

The perceived leadership styles of the Center Directors of the three regional centers of DA-Philippine Carabao Center in Mindanao

One of the objectives of this study is to determine the leadership style of the Center Director as perceived by the respondents from selected PCC Regional Centers. Thirty (30) statement indicators were used to describe how the Center Director performs supervisory functions. These statements, which measured authoritarian, laissez-faire, and participative leadership styles, were mixed or rumbled in the questionnaire during the conduct of the survey to minimize bias and prevent respondents from easily identifying the leadership category being measured. A five-point Likert scale was used to rate the respondents’ level of agreement with each statement.

Figure 7 Respondent’s perceived scores on authoritarian type of leadership

The respondents moderately agree that the Center Director retains the final decision-making authority within the center, with a mean score of 4.26. They also moderately agree that the Center Director monitors their work closely (3.58), likes the power that the leadership position holds (3.89), and establishes new procedures when existing ones fail (3.53). However, respondents agree that the Center Director does not consider suggestions due to lack of time (2.58) and disagreed that the Center Director directs or threatens with punishment to achieve objectives (2.42). Additionally, the respondents mainly agree that they seek security (3.42). Overall, the authoritarian leadership style received a mean value of 3.457, described as “Agree.”

Figure 8 Respondent’s perceived scores on laissez-faire type of leadership

In figure 8, respondents agree that the Center Director and they vote on major decisions (3.32) and that major decisions require majority approval (3.58). The Center Director rarely calls meetings but allows employees to act on information received (3.16). Employees are allowed to determine what needs to be done (3.68) and to carry out decisions based on their expertise (3.47). Delegation of tasks to implement new processes is moderately agreed upon (3.74), as is the responsibility of individuals to define their jobs (4.00). Sharing leadership power is also agreed upon (3.47), and employees feel they have the right to determine their organizational objectives (3.53). They moderately agree that they can lead themselves as well as the Center Director (3.68). The laissez-faire leadership style scored a mean of 3.563, described as “Moderately Agree.”

Figure 8 Respondent’s perceived scores on participative type of leadership

The respondents moderately agree that the Center Director tries to include employees in decision-making but maintains final authority (3.53). The Center Director regularly asks for employee ideas and input (3.42) and calls meetings for advice when problems arise (3.42). Participation in decision-making and ownership of projects is agreed upon (3.47), as is soliciting employees’ vision for their jobs (3.42) and allowing priority-setting under guidance (3.42). The Center Director works with employees to resolve differences (3.74) and uses leadership power to help subordinates grow (3.79). Respondents also moderately agree that they will show self-direction if committed to objectives (3.53) and that they know how to creatively solve organizational problems (3.63). The participative style had an overall mean of 3.537, described as “Moderately Agree.”

The study reveals that the Center Directors demonstrate a dominant laissez-faire leadership style, closely followed by participative leadership, with authoritarian leadership being less prominent but still present. The results suggest that the Center Director values employee involvement by allowing participation in decision-making and sharing leadership responsibilities. Employees feel empowered and accountable in their roles, indicating a supportive and collaborative work environment.

With respect to fostering autonomy and empowerment among the highly skilled technical personnel, laissez-faire leadership may be strategically utilized in the delivery of the DA-PCC research and extension units. A hands-off approach would encourage workers to take responsibility for their specialized assignments, thereby enhancing job satisfaction and intrinsic motivation (Udin, 2023). In line with DA-PCC’s mission to foster livestock research and development, the freedom to make decisions outside any constraints would stimulate creativity and innovative problem-solving in the changing nature of agricultural challenges and securing technological advancement (Triono et al., 2024). Furthermore, studies show a significant positive correlation between laissez-faire leadership and organizational commitment, especially in scientific and service-oriented institutions, such as DA-PCC, where staff members tend to become more loyal and committed when given responsibility (Pahi et al., 2018). In this sense, less interference from leadership could contribute to an environment with less stress, conducive to employee welfare (Yang, 2015). When working conditions are suited to personal preference, this style of leadership can enhance emotional engagement, coupling it with the perception of overall morale; this approach would thus be effective for a setting that, like DA-PCC, finds a vital balance between structure and professional autonomy (Udin, 2023).

However, some elements of authoritative control remain, particularly in retaining final decision authority and monitoring employee work closely. This mix indicates a balanced approach where employees are trusted to manage their work but still recognize the leadership’s ultimate authority, reflecting a pragmatic leadership style in DA-PCC Mindanao cluster.

Respondents’ organizational impact in terms of commitment and confidence

Figure 9 Respondents’ organizational impact in terms of commitment and confidence

The figure 9 presents the feelings of permanent employee towards working with the organization. Using a 5-point Likert scale, the survey results reflect how employees feel about their work, their engagement in the organization, and their trust in leadership.

The data reveals that respondents moderately agree with most statements relating to their organizational commitment and confidence in leadership. One of the highest-rated items was, “I understand the vision and mission of the organization” (M=4.37), suggesting that employees clearly comprehend the goals set by leadership, particularly by the Center Director.

Furthermore, the strong rating of “I feel a sense of obligation and responsibility to the organization” (M=4.16) and “I am rarely late or absent from work” (M=4.11) indicates a deep sense of personal accountability and work discipline. Employee commitment is further reinforced by high ratings in “I am prepared to go an extra mile for the organization” (M=4.00) and “I feel very committed to the organization” (M=3.95), reflecting a strong motivational environment.

On the dimension of employee confidence, the results reflect a positive yet cautious outlook. Items such as “I feel as a part of the organization” (M=4.21), “The organization and my supervisor motivate me to show my full potential” (M=3.95), and “I am satisfied with the management of the organization” (M=3.68) all point toward a working environment that empowers employees and encourages engagement.

However, it is worth noting that the statement, “I am considering leaving the organization in the next 5–10 years” (M=3.16), although still within the “Agree” range, reveals moderate turnover intentions. This could be indicative of underlying concerns, such as workload distribution (M=3.58), satisfaction with the physical working environment (M=3.42), or career advancement opportunities. These areas may benefit from further attention by leadership to prevent potential attrition.

The relatively strong mean score on trust-related statements, such as “Trust among employees is strong” (M=3.84) and “Employees’ trust in leadership is high” (M=3.74), reinforces the view that the Center Director has cultivated a leadership presence that commands respect and nurtures collaboration.

Organizational commitment is widely accepted in modern management literature as a central influence on workplace effectiveness and stability (Nasir, E., 2010). Committed employees show up on time, avoid absenteeism, and thus contribute to a dependable and productive workforce. Such commitment is further reinforced by organizational cultures that nurture leadership styles capable of engendering commitment in employees (Katper et al., 2020). Leadership, at this point, must also build employee confidence, as this self-confidence helps reinforce commitment, resulting in a highly engaged and loyal workforce (Gusmery & Susanti, 2023).

Relationship between the socio-demographic profile of the respondents and the perceived leadership styles of the Center Directors of DA-Philippine Carabao Center in Mindanao

Figure 10 Relationship between the socio-demographic profile of the respondents and the perceived leadership styles of the Center Directors of DA-Philippine Carabao Center in Mindanao

The figure 10 shows the relationship between the respondents’ demographic profiles and their perception of the leadership style of the Center Directors of the DA-Philippine Carabao Center in Mindanao. It was examined using appropriate correlation tests. Specifically, Spearman Rank Correlation was used for the variables of age and length of service, while Rank-Biserial and Point-Biserial correlations were employed for sex, educational attainment, and position, respectively.

The analysis revealed that age and perceived leadership had a weak negative correlation (r = -0.336), but this relationship was not statistically significant (p = 0.160). This suggests that while older employees tended to view leadership slightly less favorably, age does not have a meaningful influence on leadership perception. Similarly, the correlation between sex and perceived leadership was also weakly negative (r = -0.436), with a p-value of 0.146, indicating that differences in perception between male and female respondents were not statistically significant.

In terms of educational attainment, a very weak negative correlation (r = -0.103, p = 0.758) was observed. This result indicates that the level of education—whether the respondent is a college graduate or not—does not significantly impact their perception of leadership style. Likewise, the position of the respondents within the organization (e.g., staff or section head) showed a weak negative correlation with perceived leadership (r = -0.183, p = 0.454), suggesting that one’s organizational rank does not play a substantial role in shaping perceptions of leadership.

Moreover, the relationship between length of service and perceived leadership showed a moderate negative correlation (r = -0.348); however, this too was not statistically significant (p = 0.144). While the data hints that longer-tenured employees might perceive leadership less favorably, this trend lacks sufficient statistical evidence to support a firm conclusion.

The findings indicate that none of the demographic variables tested—age, sex, educational attainment, position, and length of service—had a statistically significant correlation with how leadership style was perceived by employees. This suggests that perceptions of leadership are relatively uniform across different groups, and are not meaningfully shaped by these background characteristics within the sampled population.

Relationship between organizational impact and the perceived leadership styles of the Center Directors of DA-Philippine Carabao Center in Mindanao

Figure 10 Relationship between organizational impact and the perceived leadership styles of the Center Directors of DA-Philippine Carabao Center in Mindanao

To determine the relationship between the perceived leadership style of Center Directors and the organizational impact among employees, the Spearman-rank correlation was utilized. Results of the analysis revealed a strong positive correlation between perceived leadership and organizational impact (ρ = 0.664, p = 0.002). This correlation is statistically significant at the 0.01 level, indicating that employees who rated their leaders more favorably also reported higher levels of commitment, confidence, and positive engagement within the organization. This finding suggests that effective leadership, whether participative, authoritative, or laissez-faire when perceived positively, plays a significant role in enhancing employees’ sense of responsibility, satisfaction, motivation, and overall contribution to organizational goals. In this context, the leadership style of Center Directors in the Philippine Carabao Center in Mindanao has a meaningful influence on how employees experience and respond to their roles within the organization.

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATION

The research investigated the perceptions of leadership styles of Center Directors at DA-PCC regional centers in Mindanao and how it affected employees’ commitment and confidence. The results indicate that laissez-faire leadership style, closely followed by participative leadership and authoritarian leadership are most frequently perceived among Center Directors, characterized by participatory decision-making, clear communication, and efforts to inspire and motivate subordinates. All these styles show positive correlation with employees’ increased commitment and confidence. The workforces feel more valued and supported when leaders manifest openness, trusting, and a vision congruent with the agency’s mission while leading.

However, the study also highlighted discrepancies in perception, with some employees noting instances of inconsistency, lack of clarity, or minimal consultation. These variations suggest that while positive leadership behaviors are present, there remains a need for more consistent and adaptive leadership approaches to address the needs of a diverse workforce.

Overall, the findings underscore the critical role of effective leadership in fostering employee commitment and confidence. For an institution like DA-PCC, which operates in a dynamic and resource-constrained environment, leadership development must be prioritized. The management through the Human Resource section can create training programs aimed at developing participatory and communicative leadership based on adaptive skills. The agency may deploy their leaders to attend trainings from training providers such as Civil Service Commission that offers series of learning events such as Leadership and Management Certification Program (CPro), Public Service Values Program (PSVP), CSI Leadership Series, Competency-based HR Program (CBHR), Learning and Development (L&D) Programs and Strategic HROD Series. Continuous capacity building for Center Directors in the areas of transformational leadership, inclusive communication, and employee empowerment will be essential to sustaining a committed and confident workforce, ultimately contributing to the agency’s long-term success and impact.

ACKNOWELDGEMENT

The primary author would like to thank the center directors of the three DA-PCC regional centers in Mindanao for the support in the conduct of this study.

Ethical Considerations

The study ensures the ethical treatment of all participants by adhering to key principles such as voluntary participation, informed consent, and the protection privacy. Respondents were clearly informed about the study’s purpose, and their participation is completely voluntary, and individuals may withdraw at any time without any consequences. Informed consent was obtained beforehand and personal identifiers was collected to maintain anonymity and confidentiality. All information, gathered were kept safe and used only for academic purposes, following the guidelines of the Philippine’s Data Privacy Act of 2012. All responses were treated with respect and sensitivity, and findings were presented in a summarized format to prevent the identification of individual participants.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are not publicly available due to organizational confidentiality and internal policy restrictions of the Department of Agriculture–Philippine Carabao Center (DA-PCC). The data include sensitive information regarding employee perceptions and leadership evaluations, which are protected to ensure privacy of the participants. However, aggregated or anonymized data may be made available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request and with permission from the DA-PCC and the primary author.

REFERENCES

1. Al Khajeh, E. H. (2018). Impact of leadership styles on organizational performance. Journal of Human Resources Management Research, 2018, 1–10.
2. Arif, S., & Akram, A. (2018). Transformational leadership and organizational performance. SEISENSE Journal of Management, 1(3), 59–75.
3. Aziz, R., Abdullah, M., Tajudin, A., & Mahmood, R. (2013). The effect of leadership styles on the business performance of SMEs in Malaysia.
4. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. Free Press.
5. Benoliel, P., & Somech, A. (2014). The health and performance effects of participative leadership: Exploring the moderating role of the Big Five personality dimensions. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23, 277–294. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2012.717689
6. Bhargavi, S., & Yaseen, A. (2016). Leadership styles and organizational performance. Strategic Management Quarterly, 4, 87–117.
7. Chiang, J. T. J., Chen, X. P., Liu, H., Akutsu, S., & Wang, Z. (2020). We have emotions but can’t show them! Authoritarian leadership, emotion suppression climate, and team performance. Human Relations, 74, 1082–1111. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726720908649
8. Elshanti, M. (2017). Transformational leadership style and organizational learning: The mediate effect of organizational culture. International Journal of Economics & Management Sciences, 6(6). https://doi.org/10.4172/2162-6359.1000483
9. Gill, E. (2016). What is laissez-faire leadership. How can autonomy drive success?
10. Gopal, R., & Chowdhury, R. G. (2014). Leadership styles and employee motivation: An empirical investigation in a leading oil company in India. International Journal of Research in Business Management, 2(5), 1–10.
11. Gusmery, N., & Susanti, F. (2023). Pengaruh budaya organisasi, gaya kepemimpinan dan kepercayaan diri terhadap komitmen kerja pegawai Dinas Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan Kota Padang. Journal Bintang Manajemen, 1(2), 123–141. https://doi.org/10.55606/jubima.v1i2.1395
12. Huang, X., Iun, J., Liu, A., & Gong, Y. (2010). Does participative leadership enhance work performance by inducing empowerment or trust? The differential effects on managerial and non-managerial subordinates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 122–143. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.636
13. Jing, Z., Jianshi, G., Jinlian, L., & Yao, T. (2017). A case study of the promoting strategies for innovation contest within a company. Scientific Research Management, 38, 57–65. https://doi.org/10.19571/j.cnki.1000-2995.2017.11.007
14. Karakitapoğlu-Aygün, Z., Gumusluoglu, L., Erturk, A., & Scandura, T. A. (2021). Two to tango? A cross-cultural investigation of the leader-follower agreement on authoritarian leadership. Journal of Business Research, 128, 473–485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.02.034
15. Katper, N. K., Chaudhry, N. I., Tunio, M. N., & Ali, M. (2020). Impact of leadership style and organizational culture on organizational commitment. Sukkur IBA Journal of Management and Business, 7(1), 92–106. https://doi.org/10.30537/SIJMB.V7I1.560
16. Koech, P. M., & Namusonge, G. S. (2012). The effect of leadership styles on organizational performance at state corporations in Kenya. International Journal of Business and Commerce, 2(1), 1–12.
17. Lewin, K. (1890–1947). The practical theorist. In D. B. Szabla (Ed.), The Palgrave handbook of organizational change thinkers. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38324-4_13
18. Li, G., Liu, H., & Luo, Y. (2018). Directive versus participative leadership: Dispositional antecedents and team consequences. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 91, 645–664. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12213
19. Mostashari, E. (2009). Impact of organizational leadership on organizational performance: A study on small and medium size private companies in three cities of Tehran, Mashhad, Isfahan, Iran (Doctoral dissertation, The British University in Dubai).
20. Nasir, E. A. (2010). Emerging leaders. Nasir’s Chronicles. http://www.nasirschronicles.com
21. Nwokocha, I., & Iheriohanma, E. B. J. (2015). Nexus between leadership styles, employee retention and performance in organizations in Nigeria. European Scientific Journal, 11(13).
22. Obiwuru, T. C., Okwu, A. T., Akpa, V. O., & Nwankwere, I. A. (2011). Effects of leadership style on organizational 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.
23. Pahi, M. H., Shaikh, S. S., Abbasi, Z. A., Shahani, N. un-N., & Ab Hamid, K. (2018). Effects of laissez-faire leadership on commitment to service quality. Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 4(2), 110–124. https://journal.stic.ac.th/index.php/sjhs/article/download/70/31
24. Puni, A., Ofei, S. B., & Okoe, A. (2014). The effect of leadership styles on firm performance in Ghana. International Journal of Marketing Studies, 6(1), 177.
25. Rivera, M. (2008). Participative management. Academic Leadership: The Online Journal (2003–2012), 6(4), Article 10. https://doi.org/10.58809/DSTX1616
26. Rowe, W. G., Cannella Jr, A. A., Rankin, D., & Gorman, D. (2005). Leader succession and organizational performance: Integrating the common-sense, ritual scapegoating, and vicious-circle succession theories. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(2), 197–219.
27. Schaubroeck, J. M., Shen, Y., & Chong, S. (2017). A dual-stage moderated mediation model linking authoritarian leadership to follower outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102, 203–214. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000165
28. Schuh, S. C., Zhang, X. A., & Tian, P. (2012). For the good or the bad? Interactive effects of transformational leadership with moral and authoritarian leadership behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics, 116, 629–640. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1486-0
29. Shen, Y., Chou, W. J., & Schaubroeck, J. M. (2019). The roles of relational identification and workgroup cultural values in linking authoritarian leadership to employee performance. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 28, 498–509. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432x.2019.1615453
30. Triono, T., Kusmaningtyas, A., & Halik, A. (2024). Enhancing innovative work behavior through laissez-faire leadership, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and work engagement: The moderating role of organizational citizenship behavior in 4-star hotels. Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology, 8(6), 8156–8167. https://doi.org/10.55214/25768484.v8i6.3759
31. Udin, U. (2023). Uncover the white and black box of laissez-faire leadership for organizational sustainability: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of Human, Earth, and Future. https://doi.org/10.28991/hef-2023-04-03-08
32. Yang, I. (2015). Positive effects of laissez-faire leadership: Conceptual exploration. Journal of Management Development, 34(10), 1246–1261. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-02-2015-0016
33. Zacher, H., & Rosing, K. (2015). Ambidextrous leadership and team innovation. Leadership & Organization Development Journal.