The Effect of Leadership Styles on Employee Performance in Higher Education: Evidence from a Tertiary Institution in Nigeria

The Effect of Leadership Styles on Employee Performance in Higher Education: Evidence from a Tertiary Institution in Nigeria

Jeremiah S. Daramola

Department of Business Administration, Adekunle Ajasin University, Akungba-Akoko, Nigeria

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.914MG00174

Received: 22 September 2025; Accepted: 30 September 2025; Published: 28 October 2025

ABSTRACT

This study examined the effect of leadership styles on employee performance within higher education, using evidence from a tertiary institution in Nigeria. Specifically, the research investigated the impact of autocratic, democratic, and laissez-faire leadership styles on academic staff performance. The objectives identified prevalent leadership practices, analyzed their relationship with staff motivation, teamwork, and productivity, and assessed their overall contribution to institutional efficiency.

A descriptive survey design was employed, and structured questionnaires were administered to 230 academic staff, yielding 180 valid responses. Descriptive statistics (frequencies, percentages, averages, and standard deviations) and inferential statistics (regression and correlation analysis) were used to analyse the data. The significance level for testing hypotheses was set at 0.05.

Findings revealed that autocratic leadership, though commonly practiced, had a negative and significant effect on staff performance (β = -0.298, p = 0.001), indicating its demotivating tendencies. Democratic leadership showed the most positive and significant relationship (β = 0.389, p = 0.001), as it enhanced participation, teamwork, and communication. Laissez-faire leadership displayed no significant effect (β = 0.102, p = 0.144), largely due to decision-making delays and lack of direction.

The study concludes that democratic leadership is the most effective style for enhancing employee performance in higher education, while autocratic leadership hinders productivity. It recommends promoting participatory management, limiting autocratic tendencies, and applying laissez-faire selectively with highly competent staff. Leadership development programs emphasized inclusivity, emotional intelligence, and institutional growth as suggested.

Keywords: Autocratic, Democratic, Laissez-faire leadership, employee performance, tertiary institution.

INTRODUCTION

Leadership remains one of the most critical determinants of organizational success or failure, as it plays a central role in shaping employee attitudes, behaviors, and performance (Northouse, 2016; Yukl, 2017). It is not merely a function of authority but also involves guiding and influencing individuals toward achieving shared objectives and sustaining institutional effectiveness. Within the context of higher education, leadership assumes heightened importance due to the complexity of universities, which combine teaching, research, and community service while depending on the collective input of academic, administrative, and support staff (Bolden et al., 2012). Effective leadership in such environments extends beyond formal control to the promotion of shared vision, participatory governance, and the safeguarding of academic values (Bryman, 2007; Lumby, 2019).

The Nigerian higher education system illustrates the significance of leadership in navigating persistent challenges. Adekunle Ajasin University, Akungba-Akoko (AAUA), located in Ondo State, is one such institution grappling with funding shortages, infrastructural deficits, rising enrolments relative to staffing levels, and increasing demands from stakeholders (Akinyemi & Bassey, 2012; Okebukola, 2015). These realities place pressure on university leadership to adopt styles that not only mitigate constraints but also enhance employee morale, efficiency, and innovation. Unfortunately, Nigerian universities continue to experience leadership-related issues such as weak staff motivation, recurrent disputes, and inefficiencies in service delivery (Faloye et al., 2023; Ogunyemi, 2013).

Leadership style, understood as the consistent manner in which leaders direct, motivate, and interact with subordinates, is widely recognized as a key mechanism through which leadership affects performance (Iqbal, Anwar, & Haider, 2015). Different leadership styles produce different organizational outcomes. Autocratic leadership, characterized by centralized authority and rigid compliance, may enforce order but often suppresses creativity and undermines loyalty (Bass & Riggio, 2006). In contrast, democratic leadership emphasizes inclusiveness and collaboration, thereby strengthening communication, participation, and organizational effectiveness (Iqbal et al., 2015; Yukl, 2017). Laissez-faire leadership grants autonomy and discretion to subordinates, which can encourage initiative but, if misapplied, may foster inefficiency and lack of accountability (Skogstad et al., 2007).

Scholars argued that effective leadership in higher education requires a flexible balance of these approaches, depending on institutional circumstances and workforce needs (Bolden, Petrov, & Gosling, 2009). Evidence suggested that transformational leadership, which inspires and motivates followers, is associated with creativity, engagement, and improved institutional outcomes (Leithwood & Sun, 2012; Banks et al., 2016). Yet, in the Nigerian context, leadership remained largely shaped by hierarchical and authoritarian traditions, which erode staff morale and weaken performance (Ezeuwa, 2009; Nwagbara, 2010). This gap between leadership practices and employee needs underscores the importance of investigating leadership effectiveness in Nigerian universities.

The specific case of AAUA pinpointed the pressing nature of this inquiry. Despite efforts to improve performance, concerns such as low morale, delays in obtaining the benefits due to promotions, strained union-management relations, and declining job satisfaction persist. Overly authoritarian practices may reduce engagement and innovation, while laissez-faire tendencies could create ambiguity and inefficiency (Iqbal et al., 2015; Skogstad et al., 2007). Although democratic leadership has been associated with job satisfaction and enhanced performance (Northouse, 2016; Yukl, 2017), uncertainty remains about its relative effectiveness in Nigerian higher education.

Globally, leadership styles are acknowledged as significant drivers of employee engagement, organizational citizenship behavior, and institutional performance (Bass & Riggio, 2006; Judge & Piccolo, 2004). In Africa and Nigeria in particular, poor leadership practices have been linked to worker dissatisfaction, recurring strikes, and reduced productivity (Ezeuwa, 2009; Faloye et al., 2023. Ogunyemi (2013) notes that the absence of participatory leadership often fuels mistrust, conflict, and low organizational commitment. Yet, empirical research on the effect of leadership styles on employee performance in Nigerian universities remains limited, with most studies focusing on corporate organizations and small enterprises (Nwagbara, 2010; Adeleke, 2008). This creates a gap in knowledge that must be addressed to strengthen leadership practices in public universities.

Accordingly, this study investigated the effect of autocratic, democratic, and laissez-faire leadership styles on employee performance among academic staff of AAUA. Three research questions serve as the study’s compass: (1) How does an authoritarian leadership style affect employees’ performance? (2) How does the democratic leadership style affect employees’ performance? and (3) How does employee performance relate to a laissez-faire leadership style?

In line with these, the objectives are to determine, examine, and assess the respective effects of the three leadership styles on employee performance. The hypotheses test whether these leadership styles have a significant effect on staff performance.

The significance of this research lies in its provision of fresh empirical evidence on leadership in Nigerian higher education. The findings will be useful to university administrators in identifying leadership practices that foster motivation, commitment, and productivity. Policymakers will benefit from insights that inform leadership development and training initiatives, while employees are expected to gain from strategies that improve job satisfaction and working conditions. Beyond its practical contributions, the study enriched the literature on leadership and employee performance in higher education, offering a valuable reference for scholars and practitioners.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Conceptual Review

Concept of Leadership

Leadership is widely recognized as a critical determinant of organizational performance, sustainability, and long-term growth. It is often described as the process by which an individual influences others to pursue shared goals while providing direction, support, and motivation (Northouse, 2016). According to Yukl (2017), leadership entails not only guiding but also enabling and inspiring individuals to contribute effectively to organizational objectives. Thus, leadership extends beyond the exercise of authority to embody the capacity to mobilize people toward a common purpose.

Modern scholarship presents leadership as both a process and a relationship. As a process, it reflects the application of influence to align organizational members toward collective outcomes. As a relationship, it thrives on trust, communication, and mutual respect between leaders and followers (Antonakis & Day, 2018). This underscores that effective leadership depends less on formal authority and more on the ability to foster collaboration, shared commitment, and credibility.

In higher education, leadership plays a particularly critical role due to the knowledge-intensive and multi-stakeholder nature of universities. These establishments combine non-teaching, academic, and administrative personnel who work together to promote research, teaching, and community service (Bolden, Petrov, & Gosling, 2009; Lumby, 2019). Maintaining academic freedom, accountability, and inclusivity while juggling the frequently conflicting interests of employees, students, administration, and outside stakeholders is necessary for effective leadership in higher education (Bryman, 2007).

Leadership is also instrumental in shaping organizational culture—the values, norms, and practices that influence employee behavior and institutional performance. In the academic environment, organizational culture determines collaboration patterns and how knowledge is created, shared, and applied (Bolden et al., 2012). Leaders with vision, ethical standards, and participatory orientations can foster a culture of innovation and commitment, whereas poor leadership often generates disengagement, conflict, and stagnation (Ogunyemi, 2013).

Furthermore, contemporary studies emphasize that leadership is situational and adaptive. No single style is universally effective; instead, its success depends on the fit between leadership approaches, organizational needs, available resources, and environmental conditions (Dinh et al., 2014). Leaders in higher education must therefore adopt context-sensitive strategies to address challenges such as globalization, technological disruption, funding pressures, and accountability demands.

In the Nigerian context, particularly at Adekunle Ajasin University, Akungba-Akoko (AAUA), leadership has a direct bearing on employee motivation, job satisfaction, and institutional effectiveness. Participatory and inclusive leadership practices have been shown to improve productivity, loyalty, and morale among staff (Faloye et al., 2023; Okebukola, 2015). Conversely, authoritarian tendencies are frequently associated with dissatisfaction, strained relations, and resistance to institutional change (Ezeuwa, 2009; Nwagbara, 2010).

In sum, leadership in universities should be understood not only as an administrative responsibility but as a strategic and relational function that enables institutions to harness employee potential, adapt to environmental shifts, and achieve excellence.

Leadership Styles

The distinctive way that leaders communicate with their followers, make choices, and plan organisational activities is referred to as their leadership style. It embodies the behavioral patterns leaders employ to communicate expectations, exercise authority, and inspire employees toward organizational objectives (Iqbal, Anwar, & Haider, 2015). Although leadership style is partly a reflection of personal traits, it is also shaped by organizational culture, environmental dynamics, and follower needs (Yukl, 2017). Therefore, a key factor in determining how well leaders mobilise material and human resources to accomplish institutional goals is leadership style.

Among the numerous leadership approaches in the literature, three classical styles—autocratic, democratic, and laissez-faire—are particularly relevant in both organizational and educational contexts. These styles highlight contrasting philosophies of control, participation, and autonomy, each with implications for employee motivation, job satisfaction, and institutional outcomes.

Autocratic Leadership

Autocratic leadership is characterized by centralized authority, rigid control, and unilateral decision-making. In this style, leaders dictate policies and establish procedures, expecting compliance with minimal or no consultation from subordinates. Rules are strictly enforced, and dissent is often discouraged (Bass & Riggio, 2006). While autocratic leadership can be advantageous in situations requiring urgency, discipline, and standardization—such as emergencies or high-risk contexts—it is often criticized for stifling creativity and undermining employee commitment (Gandolfi & Stone, 2017).

In the context of Nigerian universities, autocratic leadership has been associated with strained relations between university management and academic staff unions. Such practices frequently escalate into disputes, grievances, and strikes, thereby disrupting academic calendars and institutional stability (Ogunyemi, 2013). Although it may ensure quick decisions in bureaucratic structures, over-reliance on autocratic practices risks alienating employees, reducing morale, and fostering resistance to change.

Democratic Leadership

Democratic, or participatory, leadership is founded on inclusiveness, collaboration, and shared decision-making. Leaders adopting this approach actively solicit input from staff, encourage teamwork, and ensure that transparency and fairness guide decision-making. This style emphasizes dialogue, communication, and respect for subordinate perspectives, thus cultivating a sense of ownership and belonging among employees (Chaudhry & Javed, 2012).

Research indicates that democratic leadership is positively correlated with job satisfaction, organizational trust, and improved performance outcomes (Banks et al., 2016). In higher education, where intellectual autonomy and shared governance are integral, democratic leadership supports institutional innovation, academic freedom, and collegiality (Bryman, 2007). Within Nigerian universities, it has been shown to foster industrial harmony, improve staff–management relationships, and enhance productivity (Faloye et al., 2023). Importantly, democratic leadership aligns with the ethos of universities as knowledge-driven institutions, where creativity and collaboration are essential for fulfilling their teaching, research, and community service mandates.

Laissez-Faire Leadership

Laissez-faire leadership is distinguished by its emphasis on autonomy and minimal direct supervision. Leaders adopting this approach delegate decision-making authority to subordinates, allowing them significant freedom in how they perform their tasks. This style can be effective when dealing with highly skilled, experienced, and intrinsically motivated employees who require little oversight to remain productive (Skogstad et al., 2007). In such contexts, it may foster innovation, independence, and initiative.

However, laissez-faire leadership is not without challenges. Excessive reliance on this style often results in weak accountability, role ambiguity, and inefficiency (Antonakis & House, 2014). In Nigerian universities, laissez-faire leadership sometimes manifests as inadequate administrative oversight, resulting in lapses, underperformance, and frustration among staff (Ogunyemi, 2013). While limited autonomy may be beneficial in encouraging intellectual creativity, the absence of clear direction can hinder coordination and reduce institutional effectiveness.

Leadership in the Nigerian University Context

The Nigerian university system illustrates the practical implications of these leadership styles. Autocratic leadership is frequently linked to conflict, resistance, and dissatisfaction; democratic leadership promotes inclusivity, industrial peace, and stronger institutional performance; while laissez-faire leadership can either encourage autonomy or undermine accountability, depending on the institutional context (Ezeuwa, 2009).

Given the diverse and complex challenges faced by Nigerian universities—including inadequate funding, infrastructural deficits, and strained staff–management relations—a purely rigid leadership style may not suffice. A situational or blended approach, which combines elements of autocratic, democratic, and laissez-faire leadership depending on circumstances, appears most suitable for sustaining institutional effectiveness (Dinh et al., 2014). Such adaptive leadership allows leaders to maintain control when necessary, promote participation when feasible, and provide autonomy when staff competence justifies it.

Concept of Employee Performance

Employee performance is a central determinant of organizational effectiveness, reflecting the extent to which individuals execute assigned tasks efficiently, effectively, and consistently. Pradeep and Prabhu (2011) define performance as the measurable outcomes of employee effort, shaped by knowledge, skills, and contextual factors. Thus, performance encompasses not only task completion but also the quality, timeliness, and relevance of outputs relative to institutional goals.

In the university system, performance has multiple dimensions. For academic staff, it includes teaching quality, research output, student mentorship, and community engagement. For non-teaching staff, it reflects administrative efficiency and operational support (Okebukola, 2015; Bryman, 2007). Effective performance in higher education, therefore, requires alignment of academic and administrative contributions toward institutional objectives.

Leadership strongly influences employee performance. By setting direction, creating enabling conditions, and providing motivation, leaders shape staff commitment, morale, and innovation. Supportive leadership strengthens engagement and productivity, while ineffective leadership fosters dissatisfaction, conflict, and low performance (Yukl, 2017; Ezeuwa, 2009; Ogunyemi, 2013). For example, Faloye et al. (2023) observed that participatory leadership enhanced productivity and morale in Nigerian universities, whereas authoritarian practices eroded staff engagement.

In addition to leadership, other contextual factors—such as workload, infrastructure, funding, and policy environment—also affect staff performance (Akinyemi & Bassey, 2012). The Nigerian higher education system faces challenges such as resource shortages, large student populations, and inadequate facilities, which intensify the importance of effective leadership in sustaining performance (Okebukola, 2015).

Contemporary research emphasizes that leadership not only drives task performance but also aligns individual contributions with institutional missions. Transformational leadership, for instance, promotes creativity and innovation, while laissez-faire often leads to inefficiency and weak accountability (Banks, McCauley, Gardner, & Guler, 2016; Skogstad et al., 2007).

At Adekunle Ajasin University, Akungba-Akoko (AAUA), staff performance is critical to fulfilling its teaching, research, and community service mandate. Leadership that promotes inclusiveness, fair recognition, and supportive work conditions is more likely to sustain motivation and enhance institutional effectiveness. Conversely, neglectful or authoritarian leadership risks conflict, disengagement, and diminished performance outcomes.

In summary, employee performance is both a reflection of individual competence and a product of the organizational climate shaped by leadership. This underscores the need to explore the interplay between leadership styles and performance in Nigerian universities.

THEORETICAL REVIEW

Trait Theory of Leadership

The Trait Theory represents one of the earliest systematic efforts to explain what differentiates leaders from non-leaders. Its central claim is that leadership is tied to enduring personal qualities that individuals are either born with or develop early in life. Intelligence, drive, confidence, sociability, and integrity are characteristics that continually set leaders apart, according to Stogdill’s (1948) seminal review. Within this perspective, leadership is viewed less as a learned skill and more as the expression of inherent personal attributes that predispose individuals to positions of influence.

As the theory developed, scholars searched for “universal traits” that could predict leadership effectiveness across different contexts. Attributes such as decisiveness, self-confidence, strong communication, and charisma were repeatedly highlighted as critical for successful leadership (Northouse, 2016). More recent work has expanded this framework, noting the importance of qualities such as resilience, adaptability, and emotional intelligence in navigating the complexities of modern organizations (Banks, McCauley, Gardner, & Guler, 2016).

Despite its intuitive appeal, trait theory has been criticized for overlooking the role of environmental and situational dynamics in shaping leadership outcomes (Yukl, 2017). A leader may possess charisma and intelligence but fail in turbulent contexts if they lack flexibility or crisis management skills. Furthermore, organizations at different stages of growth often require distinct leadership capabilities, underscoring the limitations of attributing leadership solely to traits (Antonakis, Fenley, & Liechti, 2012).

Nevertheless, the theory remains influential, particularly with the integration of personality psychology into leadership research. In leadership studies, the Big Five model—conscientiousness, agreeableness, extraversion, emotional stability, and openness—has been used extensively. Research indicates that conscientiousness and extraversion are closely linked to the development and efficacy of leadership (Judge, Bono, Ilies, & Gerhardt, 2002). Similarly, emotional intelligence has been linked with improved relationship management, communication, and follower satisfaction (Miao, Humphrey, & Qian, 2018).

In higher education, trait theory sheds light on the personal qualities that enhance the effectiveness of university leaders. Administrators who exhibit confidence, integrity, resilience, and strong communication skills are more likely to gain trust, manage conflicts constructively, and inspire staff commitment to institutional goals. However, given the participatory and knowledge-driven nature of universities, leadership effectiveness cannot be fully understood through traits alone. It is most meaningful when integrated with situational and behavioral approaches, offering a more holistic understanding of leadership in institutions such as Adekunle Ajasin University, Akungba-Akoko (AAUA).

Behavioral Theories

Behavioral theories of leadership emerged in the mid-20th century as a corrective to the limitations of trait-based explanations. While trait theorists emphasized the personal attributes leaders are born with, behavioral scholars shifted attention to the actions and practices leaders exhibit in guiding their teams. The central question became not “Who is a leader?” but “What do leaders actually do?” (Northouse, 2016). This reorientation suggested that leadership effectiveness is not restricted to innate characteristics but can be cultivated through learning, observation, and deliberate practice.

Two pioneering research traditions provided the foundation for this approach—the Ohio State University studies and the University of Michigan studies. The Ohio State program, led by Stogdill and Coons (1957), identified two key dimensions of leadership behavior: consideration, which refers to people-oriented actions such as building trust, showing concern for employees, and fostering supportive relationships; and initiating structure, which emphasizes task-related actions such as setting clear goals, defining roles, and monitoring performance. Around the same period, Rensis Likert and colleagues at the University of Michigan (1961) distinguished between employee-centered leadership, which values participation and human relations, and production-centered leadership, which prioritizes efficiency and task accomplishment. Both schools of thought emphasized that effective leadership requires striking a balance between these two orientations.

The Managerial Grid (later called the Leadership Grid) was created by Blake and Mouton (1964) based on these observations. It mapped leadership styles along two axes: concern for people and concern for productivity. They proposed five leadership types, ranging from impoverished management (low concern for both) to team management (high concern for both). Team management was regarded as the most effective style, as it fostered employee motivation, collaboration, and high performance.

The behavioral perspective has been widely adopted in business, government, and education because it provides a practical framework for leadership development. By identifying desirable behaviors, organizations can design training programs to cultivate them (Derue, Nahrgang, Wellman, & Humphrey, 2011). Nonetheless, critics point out that the behavioral approach does not fully explain why some behaviors succeed in one context but fail in another. Situational demands, such as crisis management or resource constraints, often dictate whether task-oriented or people-oriented leadership is more effective (Yukl, 2017).

In higher education, behavioral theories have been particularly relevant for explaining how leadership influences academic productivity, staff morale, and institutional harmony. Bryman (2007) observed that behaviors such as open communication, participatory decision-making, and the demonstration of trust are crucial for academic leadership. Nigerian studies (Ogunyemi, 2013) also reveal that balancing concern for people with attention to tasks reduces conflicts between management and staff unions while enhancing teaching, research, and service delivery.

For Adekunle Ajasin University, Akungba-Akoko, the behavioral framework is useful in assessing how leadership actions affect staff performance. Leaders who combine consideration (attention to staff welfare and inclusiveness) with initiating structure (clear task definition and accountability) are more likely to strengthen staff commitment, boost efficiency, and enhance institutional stability.

Contingency Theory

The Contingency Theory of leadership, introduced by Fred Fiedler in 1967, shifted the discussion on leadership effectiveness by emphasizing that no single leadership style is universally effective. Instead, the success of a leader depends on the alignment between their dominant style and the specific circumstances they face. While trait theory focused on innate leader qualities and behavioral theory highlighted observable actions, contingency theory underscored the decisive role of situational factors in determining outcomes (Fiedler, 1967).

Fiedler identified two broad leadership orientations. Task-oriented leaders place greater emphasis on structuring activities, setting clear goals, and monitoring performance outcomes. Relationship-oriented leaders, on the other hand, concentrate on interpersonal trust, collaboration, and maintaining positive workplace relations. The effectiveness of these orientations is contingent upon three contextual dimensions: the quality of leader–member relationships, the extent to which tasks are clearly structured, and the level of authority or power the leader can exercise through rewards or sanctions.

The model suggests that task-oriented leadership is most effective when situations are either highly favorable—where conditions already support strong performance—or highly unfavorable—where decisive action is required to maintain control. In contrast, relationship-oriented leadership is better suited to moderately favorable conditions, where mutual trust and cooperation play a central role in achieving results. This framework highlights the importance of adaptability and situational awareness, suggesting that leaders must align their approach with contextual demands rather than rely on a single, fixed style (Yukl, 2017).

This theory has particular relevance for universities such as Adekunle Ajasin University, which operate within volatile environments shaped by government policies, inconsistent funding, union activities, and growing pressures from students and stakeholders. In such contexts, a single leadership approach may not always yield positive outcomes. For instance, a task-oriented approach may be critical during periods of industrial action to ensure continuity of essential operations, while relationship-oriented leadership may be more effective in stable periods to build trust, foster collaboration, and stimulate innovation among staff.

Empirical research supports this situational perspective. Peters, Hartke, and Pohlmann (1985) found leadership effectiveness to vary significantly with situational favorableness, confirming Fiedler’s propositions. Bryman (2007) noted that higher education leaders often need to adjust their styles to accommodate diverse stakeholder expectations. In Nigeria, Faloye et al., 2023 and Ogunyemi (2013) reported that the success of university leaders frequently depends on contextual factors such as staff relations, funding levels, and policy changes.

Therefore, contingency theory provides a valuable framework for the present study. It reinforces that leadership styles—whether autocratic, democratic, or laissez-faire—cannot be universally applied across all circumstances. Instead, effective leadership at Adekunle Ajasin University requires flexibility, situational sensitivity, and the ability to adapt strategies to prevailing institutional realities to enhance staff performance and organizational stability.

Transformational and Transactional Leadership Theories

James MacGregor Burns established the concepts of transformational and transactional leadership in his 1978 groundbreaking study on leadership. Burns distinguished between two distinct leadership styles. When leaders inspire followers to put aside their own interests in favour of a common goal, greater purpose, or organisational mission, this is known as transformational leadership. It is typically characterized by charisma, the ability to inspire, intellectual stimulation, and attention to the unique needs of individuals. Transactional leadership, by contrast, is grounded in a system of exchanges where followers comply with leaders’ directives in return for rewards or the avoidance of sanctions (Burns, 1978).

Bernard Bass (1990) extended Burns’ work by providing a more structured framework for assessing and measuring these leadership approaches. Bass argued that transformational leadership has a greater long-term impact than transactional leadership because it cultivates stronger commitment, creativity, and innovation among employees. He created the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) to assess various approaches, and it revealed four essential components of transformative leadership: intellectual stimulation, idealised influence, inspirational motivation, and personalised concern. Transactional leadership was defined mainly through contingent rewards and management by exception, which focuses on performance monitoring and corrective interventions.

Within higher education, transformational leadership has been closely associated with improved institutional performance. Leaders who communicate an inspiring vision, encourage innovation, and support the professional growth of staff often enhance teaching quality, research productivity, and organizational cohesion (Leithwood & Sun, 2012). Transactional leadership, although important for ensuring compliance with rules and procedures, is often less effective in driving long-term commitment, collaboration, and innovation in academic environments (Bass & Riggio, 2006).

Empirical research supports these conclusions. Leithwood and Sun (2012), through a meta-analysis, found that transformational leadership positively influences teacher motivation, organizational learning, and student achievement. Banks, McCauley, Gardner, and Guler (2016) also reported that transformational leadership strongly predicts employee engagement and overall organizational success. Bryman (2007) emphasized that in higher education, transformational leaders foster trust, collaboration, and a positive institutional culture that contributes significantly to academic excellence.

In Nigeria, both leadership approaches have been documented in universities. Ogunyemi (2013) observed that transformational leadership practices were linked to improved staff morale, reduced conflict, and higher productivity. In contrast, Faloye et al., 2023 noted that excessive reliance on transactional methods—especially authoritarian practices—often resulted in dissatisfaction, labor disputes, and strained relations between staff and management. These findings suggest that institutions such as Adekunle Ajasin University may gain more from emphasizing transformational leadership while applying transactional mechanisms selectively to maintain accountability.

For this study, the transformational–transactional leadership framework offers a useful lens to evaluate leadership effectiveness in Adekunle Ajasin University. Transformational leadership is particularly valuable in the face of resource constraints and competitive pressures, as it promotes innovation, collaboration, and employee commitment. Leaders who articulate clear visions, engage staff in decision-making, and support professional growth are more likely to enhance motivation and productivity. Transactional leadership, though narrower in focus, remains relevant for clarifying expectations, enforcing compliance, and ensuring administrative efficiency.

Path–Goal Theory

The Path–Goal Theory of leadership was first articulated by Robert House in 1971 as a framework for explaining how leaders influence subordinate motivation and performance. The theory is built on the premise that effective leaders define clear routes to goal attainment, eliminate barriers that hinder progress, and provide both encouragement and resources to support their followers. Unlike earlier theories that emphasized innate traits or rigid behaviors, the path–goal model views leadership as adaptive and context-driven, arguing that leaders must adjust their style in line with subordinates’ needs and the demands of the work environment (House, 1971).

House identified four principal leadership styles under this theory. The directive style involves giving precise instructions, clarifying expectations, and setting standards, which is particularly useful when tasks are ambiguous or complex. The supportive style emphasizes concern for the welfare of employees and the creation of a friendly climate, making it effective when staff face monotonous or stressful tasks. The participative style stresses involving subordinates in decision-making, thereby enhancing ownership, trust, and commitment. Finally, the achievement-oriented style challenges employees with ambitious goals while expressing confidence in their ability to succeed (House, 1996).

The key strength of the path–goal theory is its flexibility. It does not advocate for one universally effective leadership approach but rather highlights the importance of aligning leader behavior with both situational demands and follower characteristics. For example, directive leadership may be most suitable for new staff members who require guidance, while supportive or participative leadership may better serve experienced staff who value autonomy and collegiality (Northouse, 2016).

In higher education, this adaptability makes the theory particularly relevant. Universities operate with a mix of structured administrative responsibilities and flexible academic tasks. Directive leadership may be required to ensure compliance with regulatory or accreditation standards, whereas supportive leadership is essential to boost morale among staff coping with scarce resources. Participative leadership reflects the culture of shared governance in academia, while achievement-oriented leadership motivates staff to pursue excellence in teaching, research, and community engagement despite institutional challenges.

Empirical studies reinforce these insights. Wofford and Liska (1993) found that leaders who aligned their styles with subordinates’ needs achieved higher satisfaction and performance outcomes. In education, Griffith (2004) showed that supportive and participative leadership behaviors fostered positive climates and enhanced productivity. Bryman (2007) also observed that leaders who blended directive and supportive strategies were more effective in navigating the complexities of universities.

In Nigeria, where universities often grapple with underfunding, inadequate infrastructure, and recurring industrial disputes, the path–goal theory provides a practical framework for leadership. Supportive and participative approaches improved relations between management and staff unions, while Ogunyemi (2013) found that achievement-oriented leadership helped academic staff remain resilient and innovative under resource constraints.

For Adekunle Ajasin University, the theory is particularly instructive. Leaders must not only communicate institutional objectives but also align them with staff aspirations. By flexibly adopting directive, supportive, participative, or achievement-oriented behaviors, university leaders can motivate employees, remove obstacles, and foster stronger institutional performance.

Recommended Anchor for the Study

This research is anchored primarily on Contingency Theory and Transformational–Transactional Leadership Theory, as these frameworks provide complementary perspectives for analyzing leadership effectiveness in Nigerian universities, particularly at Adekunle Ajasin University, Akungba-Akoko.

The Contingency Theory highlights that there is no one ideal way to lead; rather, a leader’s performance is determined by how their style interacts with the circumstances at hand. For AAUA, whose leadership must react to shifting government policies, scarce resources, staff-management relationships, and student demands, this makes it extremely pertinent. The idea offers a basis for comprehending the situational flexibility necessary to maintain staff performance and institutional stability.

The Transformational–Transactional Leadership Theory adds a behavioral and motivational dimension. Transformational leadership highlights the role of vision, inspiration, and intellectual stimulation in enhancing staff morale, professional growth, and commitment, while transactional leadership underscores the importance of structure, compliance, and accountability through reward and sanction mechanisms. This duality captures how leadership influences both motivation and institutional outcomes.

Anchoring the study on these two theories is particularly strong because it integrates situational adaptability (from Contingency Theory) with leadership influence on performance (from Transformational–Transactional Leadership Theory). Together, they provide a robust framework for examining how leaders at AAUA can balance context-specific demands with leadership practices that drive staff motivation, productivity, and organizational effectiveness.

EMPIRICAL REVIEW

A considerable body of empirical research, both internationally and within Nigeria, underscores the critical influence of leadership styles on employee performance and broader organizational outcomes. Leadership has been consistently linked to staff motivation, job satisfaction, productivity, creativity, and institutional sustainability.

Globally, Iqbal, Anwar, and Haider (2015), in their study of small and medium-sized enterprises in Pakistan, reported that democratic leadership exerts a strong positive impact on employee performance. By fostering participation, teamwork, and inclusiveness, democratic leaders enhance motivation and sustain productivity. Conversely, autocratic leadership was shown to erode morale and diminish intrinsic motivation, weakening long-term performance. Similarly, Skogstad, Einarsen, Torsheim, Aasland, and Hetland (2007) conducted a large-scale study and found that laissez-faire leadership is strongly associated with workplace dysfunction. Their results indicated that this style often breeds role ambiguity, interpersonal conflict, and heightened stress, which collectively reduce employee performance and increase dissatisfaction.

Within the higher education sector, leadership has also been shown to play a decisive role in staff performance and institutional outcomes. Bryman (2007), in his comprehensive review of UK universities, observed that successful academic leadership is characterized by effective communication, clear vision, collegiality, and fairness. Leaders who build trust and respect academic freedom were found to generate stronger commitment and institutional effectiveness. In a related study, Bolden, Petrov, and Gosling (2009) highlighted the importance of distributed leadership in universities. Their findings indicated that the complexity of academic institutions requires shared responsibility, and collaborative leadership approaches foster collective ownership, although accountability remains a persistent challenge.

Evidence from Nigeria largely mirrors these global patterns. Autocratic leadership within Nigerian universities is frequently counterproductive, leading to low staff morale, dissatisfaction, and recurrent industrial disputes arising from centralized authority and the exclusion of staff from decision-making. Conversely, democratic leadership practices were associated with improved trust, stronger staff–management relations, and higher productivity. Similarly, Ogunyemi (2013) reported that laissez-faire leadership often worsens inefficiency and lack of direction in Nigerian higher education, particularly in contexts where scarce resources demand strong coordination.

Other Nigerian studies emphasize the strategic role of leadership in overcoming systemic challenges. Akinyemi and Bassey (2012) argued that effective leadership is essential for addressing issues such as inadequate funding, weak governance, and insufficient staff development in Nigerian universities. They contended that visionary and strategic leadership is critical for maintaining institutional competitiveness amid infrastructural and financial constraints. Nwagbara (2010) further noted that authoritarian and hierarchical leadership models have historically contributed to inefficiency, low staff commitment, and persistent labor disputes within Nigerian higher education.

Taken together, these empirical studies demonstrate that leadership style is a decisive determinant of employee performance across organizational settings. Democratic and transformational leadership are consistently linked to higher levels of motivation, collaboration, and innovation, whereas autocratic and laissez-faire approaches often undermine morale, productivity, and institutional cohesion. In the Nigerian university context, where challenges such as limited funding, infrastructural deficits, and strained staff–management relations remain, the quality of leadership is especially consequential. For institutions such as Adekunle Ajasin University, Akungba-Akoko, adopting participatory and adaptive leadership models appears crucial for enhancing staff performance, minimizing conflict, and promoting long-term institutional effectiveness.

Conceptual Framework    

METHODOLOGY

The study adopted a descriptive survey research design. The design was appropriate because it allows for the systematic collection of data from a relatively large population to describe existing conditions and examine the relationship between leadership styles and employee performance. The academic employees of Adekunle Ajasin University, Akungba-Akoko (AAUA) made up the study’s population. According to records obtained from the university’s Personnel Division (August 2025), the academic staff strength was 540 as of August 2025. The sample size was determined using Yamane’s (1967) formula:

Thus, the sample size for the study is 230 academic staff. Utilising the Statistical Packages for Social Scientists (SPSS), data were examined.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS

Table 4.1: Questionnaire Administration and Response Rate

Interpretation: The decision to administer 230 questionnaires was informed by the need to ensure a sufficiently large and representative sample size for statistical validity. In survey-based research, particularly within social and organizational studies, a response rate above 70% is considered highly acceptable (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Mugenda & Mugenda, 2003). Thus, the achieved 78.3% response rate enhances the reliability of the findings and reduces the risk of non-response bias. The 180 valid responses provided adequate data for both descriptive and inferential analyses. According to Krejcie and Morgan’s (1970) sample size determination table, a sample of approximately 180 is statistically sufficient for populations exceeding 400, ensuring the generalizability of results. This justifies that the number of usable responses was not only adequate but also consistent with standard sampling procedures in educational and management research.

Respondents’ Demographic Characteristics

In order to provide context for the analyses that followed, this section included demographic data in terms of gender, age, academic rank, and years of service.

Gender Distribution

Interpretation: The majority of respondents are male (66.7%), while female respondents constitute 33.3%, indicating a gender imbalance with men dominating the AAUA academic workforce.

Age Distribution

Interpretation: Staff aged 41–50 years form the largest group (50%), followed by 31–40 years (22.2%). Those above 50 years constitute 16.7%, and the youngest group (<30) is 11.1%. This indicates a workforce dominated by middle-aged, experienced staff, which may enhance stability and productivity.

Academic Rank Distribution

Interpretation: Assistant Lecturers and Lecturer II are estimated to be 44.4% combined. Professors are 11.1%, and Associate Professors are 5.6%, indicating relatively fewer senior staff.

Years of Service Distribution

Interpretation: The majority of the responding staff have 11–15 years (33.3%) and above 15 years (33.3%) of service, indicating high institutional loyalty and accumulated experience. Staff with less than 5 years represent 11.1%, and those with 5–10 years are 22.2%.

Descriptive Analysis of Leadership Styles and Employee Performance

Autocratic Leadership

Interpretation: Autocratic leadership is strongly perceived. 66.7% of staff strongly agree that rules are imposed without question, and 50% strongly agree that decisions are made without consultation, indicating possible negative effects on motivation.

Democratic Leadership

Interpretation: Democratic leadership is positively perceived. Staff strongly agree on participation (63.9%) and teamwork promotion (51.7%), indicating effective participative leadership.

Laissez-Faire Leadership

Interpretation: Laissez-faire leadership is moderately practiced. Autonomy is high (53.3% strongly agree), but delays in addressing issues (44.4% agree) may limit performance improvements.

Employee Performance

Interpretation: Overall employee performance is high. Motivation in teaching (50% strongly agree) and career growth (44.4% strongly agree) are top-rated, while efficiency in academic responsibilities is lower (33.3% agree / 33.3% strongly agree).

Combined Regression Summary

• R² = 0.582, F(3,176) = 81.26, p < 0.001
• Democratic leadership is the strongest predictor, autocratic leadership negatively affects performance, and laissez-faire leadership has a limited effect.

CONCLUSION

The study investigated the effect of leadership styles on employee performance within a Nigerian tertiary institution, focusing on autocratic, democratic, and laissez-faire approaches. The results showed that although autocratic leadership was common, it impaired institutional performance by having a detrimental effect on workers’ motivation, collaboration, and productivity. Democratic leadership, on the other hand, proved to be the most successful approach, greatly increasing communication, teamwork, and engagement, all of which increased employee loyalty and institutional effectiveness. Despite being linked to increased autonomy, laissez-faire leadership had no discernible impact on performance because of its propensity to cause role ambiguity and delays in decision-making.
In general, the study came to the conclusion that democratic leadership provided the strongest foundation for fostering employee performance in higher education, while autocratic leadership should be minimized to prevent reduced morale and productivity. Laissez-faire leadership may only be beneficial in contexts where staff are highly skilled, self-driven, and capable of independent decision-making.

RECOMMENDATIONS

In light of these observations, the following suggestions are put forth:

1. Promote Democratic Leadership Practices: Management of organizations should institutionalize participatory and transparent decision-making processes, ensuring that academic staff are actively involved in shaping policies and strategic directions.
2. Minimize Autocratic Leadership Tendencies: Leaders should reduce excessive centralization of authority and rigid enforcement of rules, as these practices undermine creativity, innovation, and staff morale.
3. Apply Laissez-Faire Selectively: Autonomy should be granted only to highly competent and experienced staff who can work effectively with minimal supervision, while proper guidance should be maintained for less experienced academics.
4. Implement Leadership Development Programs: Regular training workshops should focus on emotional intelligence, inclusivity, conflict resolution, and collaborative management to equip leaders with the skills needed to effectively engage staff and enhance institutional performance.
5. Promote an Inclusive Institutional Culture: To foster trust, lessen conflict, and foster workplace harmony, policies should prioritise collaboration, candid communication, and shared governance.
6. Promote Ongoing Feedback Systems: To guarantee responsiveness to institutional difficulties and academic demands, leadership should establish organised avenues for staff input.

By prioritizing democratic leadership, limiting authoritarian tendencies, and strategically applying autonomy, higher education institutions in Nigeria can enhance employee motivation, boost productivity, and ensure long-term institutional effectiveness.

REFERENCES

1. Adeleke, A. (2008). Leadership and management effectiveness in small enterprises. Lagos, Nigeria: Concept Publications.
2. Akinyemi, S., & Bassey, I. (2012). Planning and funding of higher education in Nigeria: The challenges. International Education Studies, 5(4), 86–95. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v5n4p86
3. Antonakis, J., & Day, D. V. (Eds.). (2018). The nature of leadership (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
4. Antonakis, J., Fenley, M., & Liechti, S. (2012). Learning charisma: Transform yourself into the person others want to follow. Harvard Business Review, 90(6), 127–130.
5. Antonakis, J., & House, R. J. (2014). Instrumental leadership: Measurement and application of transformational-transactional leadership theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(4), 746–771. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.04.005
6. Banks, G. C., McCauley, K. D., Gardner, W. L., & Guler, C. E. (2016). A meta-analytic review of authentic and transformational leadership: Testing the robustness of the full-range leadership theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(4), 634–652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.02.006
7. Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-2616(90)90061-S
8. Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership (2nd ed.). Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410617095
9. Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial grid: The key to leadership excellence. Gulf Publishing.
10. Bolden, R., Gosling, J., O’Brien, A., Peters, K., Ryan, M., & Haslam, S. A. (2012). Academic leadership: Changing perceptions, identities, and experiences in UK higher education. London, UK: Leadership Foundation for Higher Education.
11. Bolden, R., Petrov, G., & Gosling, J. (2009). Rhetorical and practical aspects of distributed leadership in higher education. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 37(2), 257–277. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143208100301
12. Bryman, A. (2007). Effective leadership in higher education: A literature review. Studies in Higher Education, 32(6), 693–710. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070701685114
13. Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. Harper & Row.
14. Chaudhry, A. Q., & Javed, H. (2012). Impact of transactional and laissez-faire leadership styles on motivation.
15. Derue, D. S., Nahrgang, J. D., Wellman, N., & Humphrey, S. E. (2011). An integration and meta-analytic investigation of the relative validity of trait and behavioural leadership theories. Personnel Psychology, 64(1), 7–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01201.x
16. Dinh, J. E., Lord, R. G., Gardner, W. L., Meuser, J. D., Liden, R. C., & Hu, J. (2014). Leadership theory and research in the new millennium: Current theoretical trends and changing perspectives. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 36–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.005
17. Ezeuwa, L. (2009). Issues in educational management. Enugu, Nigeria: University Trust Publishers.
18. Faloye, O.D., Daramola, J.S., Owoeye, I., & Chukwuka, B.P. (2023). Perceived Organizational Support and Employees’ Performance: Tertiary Institution’s Non-Teaching Staff in Ondo State. Akungba Journal of Management, 5(2), 1-16
19. Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. McGraw-Hill.
20. Gandolfi, F., & Stone, S. (2017). Clarifying leadership: High-impact leaders in a time of leadership crisis. Review of International Comparative Management, 18(3), 212–224.
21. Griffith, J. (2004). Relation of principal transformational leadership to school staff job satisfaction, staff turnover, and school performance. Journal of Educational Administration, 42(3), 333–356. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230410534667
22. House, R. J. (1971). A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16(3), 321–339. https://doi.org/10.2307/2391905
23. House, R. J. (1996). Path-goal theory of leadership: Path-goal leadership theory: Lessons, legacy, and a recast theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 323–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(96)90024-7
24. Iqbal, N., Anwar, S., & Haider, N. (2015). Effect of leadership style on employee performance. Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review, 5(5), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.4172/2223-5833.1000146
25. Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 765–780. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.765
26. Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational versus transactional leadership: A meta-analytic assessment of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 755–768. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.755
27. Leithwood, K., & Sun, J. (2012). The nature and impact of transformative school leadership: A meta-analysis of unpublished research. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(3), 387–423. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X11436268
28. Likert, R. (1961). New patterns of management. McGraw-Hill.
29. Lumby, J. (2019). Leadership and diversity: Theory and research. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 47(5), 643–658. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143217717285
30. Miao, C., Humphrey, R. H., & Qian, S. (2018). A cross-cultural meta-analysis of how leader emotional intelligence influences subordinate task performance and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of World Business, 53(4), 463–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2018.01.003
31. Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice (7th ed.). SAGE Publications.
32. Nwagbara, U. (2010). Towards a paradigm shift in the Niger Delta: Transformational leadership change imperative in Nigeria. Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa, 12(3), 160–175.
33. Ogunyemi, B. (2013). Leadership and crisis management in Nigerian universities. Nigerian Journal of Educational Administration and Planning, 13(1), 73–87.
34. Okebukola, P. (2015). Quality assurance in Nigerian universities: The role of leadership. Nigerian Higher Education Review, 7(1), 1–15.
35. Peters, L. H., Hartke, D. D., & Pohlmann, J. T. (1985). Fiedler’s contingency theory of leadership is applied using Schmidt and Hunter’s meta-analysis methodologies. Psychological Bulletin, 97(2), 274–285. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.97.2.274
36. Pradeep, D. D., & Prabhu, N. R. V. (2011). The correlation between successful leadership and employee performance. International Conference on Advances in Information Technology, 20:198-207.
37. 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
38. Stogdill, R. M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of the literature. Journal of Psychology, 25(1), 35–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1948.9917362
39. Stogdill, R. M., & Coons, A. E. (Eds.). (1957). Leader behavior: Its description and measurement. Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University.
40. Wofford, J. C., & Liska, L. Z. (1993). Path-goal theories of leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 19(4), 857–876. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639301900410
41. Yukl, G. (2017). Leadership in organizations (8th ed.). Pearson Education.