INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)

ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025

Page 3203

www.rsisinternational.org

Leadership Styles and Employee Motivation: Examining the Impact

on Job Satisfaction and Turnover

Samuel Asante

Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana

DOI:

https://dx.doi.org/10.51244/IJRSI.2025.120800290

Received: 27 August 2025; Accepted: 04 September 2025; Published: 06 October 2025

ABSTRACT

Leadership is one of the determinants of organisational performance due to its effect on employee behaviours

and strategic objectives in dynamic environments. The study examines the effect of leadership styles on

employee outcomes such as motivation, job satisfaction and turnover. The research takes into consideration

transformational, transactional, participative, autocratic and laissez-faire leadership styles. A systematic review

of the literature was carried out on databases such as Scopus, Web of Science and PsycINFO with inclusion

criteria of peer-reviewed empirical articles published in English in the last ten years. Based on PRISMA

guidelines, 58 studies were synthesised. Results show that transformational and participative leadership styles

consistently relate to higher intrinsic motivation, greater job satisfaction and lower turnover intentions.

Transactional leadership exerts moderate influences on extrinsic motivation and short-term retention but has less

influence on longer-term engagement. Autocratic and laissez-faire styles are linked with lower satisfaction and

increased turnover. Mediating processes include trust, psychological empowerment, quality of communication

and perceived organisational support, with contextual moderators such as cultural dimensions and work

arrangements influencing these impacts. Implications include that organisations must invest in leadership

training programs in emotional intelligence, autonomy support and implementation of adaptive styles. HR

practices that are embedded in career development, reward systems and flexible work facilitate motivation and

retention. Meta-analytic procedures estimated average effect sizes and tested heterogeneity using I2 statistics to

ensure robustness. Thematic synthesis using qualitative coding allowed a close understanding of motivational

processes in various settings. Longitudinal, mixed-methods and cross-cultural research designs ought to be

employed in future research to address gaps. Overall, aligning leadership behaviours with employee

psychological needs and environmental demands is vital for engagement, satisfaction and retention, and thus

organisational resilience and effectiveness.

INTRODUCTION

Leadership has been recognised as a critical catalyst of organisational performance, influencing adaptability,

innovation and competitive success ([Bonini et al., 2024]). With advancements in technology on the rise and

heightened competition, scholars and practitioners are more acutely interested in leadership's impact on

employee attitudes and behaviours driving performance outcomes ([Bonini et al., 2024]; [Chopra et al., 2024]).

At the same time, staff retention and motivation are a key concern as a result of the cost and disruptions of

turnover ([Lee et al., 2022]; [Chopra et al., 2024]) . Motivational theories—such as Maslow’s hierarchy of needs

(Maslow, 1943), Herzberg’s two-factor model (Herzberg, 1959) and Self-Determination Theory (Ryan & Deci,

2000)—provide a lens through which leadership’s role in fulfilling psychological and job-related needs can be

examined. Despite extensive research on leadership and performance, there remains a need to clarify how

specific leadership styles differentially influence motivation, job satisfaction and turnover intent across

organisational contexts (Park & Pierce, 2020; Wells & Peachey, 2011).

The present study addresses this gap by examining: (1) How do various leadership styles (e.g., transformational,

transactional, democratic, autocratic, laissez-faire) affect employee motivation? (2) What is the relationship

between these leadership approaches and job satisfaction? (3) How do leadership styles influence turnover

intentions and retention strategies? The objectives are to synthesise theoretical and empirical evidence, identify

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)

ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025

Page 3204

www.rsisinternational.org

mediating factors (e.g., trust, communication, recognition) and derive practical implications for HR

interventions. To achieve this, the article is structured as follows. First, a theoretical framework outlines relevant

motivational and leadership theories. Next, an overview of prominent leadership styles is presented. Subsequent

sections review empirical links between leadership and motivation, then explore effects on job satisfaction and

turnover. The methodology section details the criteria for literature selection and synthesis. Findings and

discussion integrate evidence, highlight patterns or inconsistencies, and relate results to theory. Finally, practical

implications for leadership development and HR practice are considered, followed by limitations and directions

for future research, and a concise conclusion reinforcing the importance of aligning leadership with employee

needs ([Bonini et al., 2024]; [Chopra et al., 2024]).

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Maslow’s (1943) hierarchy of needs posits that individuals progress through levels of needs from physiological

to self-actualisation, suggesting that leaders can influence motivation by recognizing and addressing these needs.

Herzberg’s (1959) two-factor theory distinguishes hygiene factors (e.g., salary, working conditions) from

motivators (e.g., achievement, recognition), indicating that leadership must both minimize dissatisfaction and

actively promote intrinsic motivators. Self-Determination Theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000) further articulates that

satisfying basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness enhances intrinsic motivation

and well-being. Together, these theories provide a lens for understanding how leadership behaviours fulfil or

thwart employee needs, thereby affecting motivational states (Maslow, 1943; Herzberg, 1959; Ryan & Deci,

2000).

Trait theory asserts that stable personal characteristics (e.g., extraversion, conscientiousness) predispose

individuals to leadership emergence and effectiveness. Meta-analytic evidence shows that traits such as

extraversion and conscientiousness correlate positively with leadership effectiveness, though their predictive

power varies by context ([Judge et al., 2002]). Behavioural theories shift focus from traits to leaders’ actions—

such as task-oriented or people-oriented behaviours identified in Ohio State and Michigan studies— highlighting

that effective leadership can be learned and adapted (Yukl, 2012). These perspectives imply that leadership

development can target behaviours that support motivational processes ([Judge et al., 2002]; Yukl, 2012).

Contingency theories propose that no single leadership style is universally effective; instead, effectiveness

depends on situational fit. Fiedler’s contingency model (Fiedler, 1964) emphasises matching a leader’s style

(task- or relationship-oriented) to situational favourableness. Path-Goal Theory (House, 1971) suggests leaders

adapt behaviours (directive, supportive, participative or achievement-oriented) to clarify paths to goals and

satisfy subordinates’ needs. Later situational models (e.g., Hersey & Blanchard) extend this by aligning leader

flexibility with follower readiness. These frameworks underscore that leadership’s influence on motivation

arises through adjusting behaviours to context and employee characteristics, thereby affecting satisfaction and

retention (Fiedler, 1964; House, 1971; Yukl, 2012).

Transformational and transactional leadership theories represent contemporary behavioural-contingency

approaches. Transformational leaders inspire a shared vision, encourage intellectual stimulation and provide

individualised consideration, thereby appealing to higher-order needs and intrinsic motivation (Bass, 1999).

Transactional leadership, based on contingent reward and management-by-exception, focuses on extrinsic

exchanges to meet basic needs and performance targets (Judge & Piccolo, 2004). Meta-analytic findings indicate

that transformational leadership shows stronger positive relations with motivation and job satisfaction, although

contingent reward can also be effective in certain contexts (Judge & Piccolo, 2004). These styles demonstrate

how leaders can differentially influence motivational processes by addressing intrinsic and extrinsic drivers.

Conceptually, leadership influences motivation and outcomes by fulfilling or obstructing psychological needs

and by shaping perceptions of support, autonomy and competence. For instance, transformational behaviours

align with Self-Determination Theory by enhancing autonomy (through empowerment), competence (through

challenging tasks and feedback) and relatedness (through supportive relationships), thus fostering intrinsic

motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000; Bass, 1999). Transactional behaviours address extrinsic needs via contingent

rewards, which can motivate performance but may be insufficient for sustained engagement if higher-order

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)

ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025

Page 3205

www.rsisinternational.org

needs remain unmet (Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Contingency perspectives highlight that the

motivational impact of these behaviours depends on situational variables (e.g., task complexity) and follower

readiness, indicating that effective leaders assess context and adapt styles to optimise motivation and satisfaction

(Fiedler, 1964; House, 1971).

In summary, integrating motivation and leadership theories suggests that effective leadership fulfils basic and

higher-level needs, shapes supportive work environments and adapts to situational demands. By understanding

trait predispositions, behavioural repertoires and contingency requirements, leaders can design interventions that

enhance motivation, improve job satisfaction and reduce turnover. This theoretical framework informs

subsequent empirical examination of specific leadership styles and their mediating mechanisms in diverse

organisational settings.

Leadership styles overview

Leadership styles represent distinct approaches by which leaders influence followers, shape organisational

cultures and drive performance. Understanding these styles is essential for aligning leadership behaviours with

employee motivational needs and strategic objectives (Yukl, 2013). This section defines five prominent

leadership styles—transformational, transactional, democratic/participative, autocratic and laissez-faire—

outlining their core characteristics and theoretical foundations.

Consequently, transformational leadership is characterized by the capacity to inspire and motivate followers to

exceed expected performance by appealing to higher-order needs (Bass, 1985). Leaders exhibit idealized

influence (serving as role models), inspirational motivation (articulating a compelling vision), intellectual

stimulation (encouraging creativity) and individualised consideration (attending to individual follower needs)

(Bass & Avolio, 1994). Grounded in Burns’s (1978) distinction between transactional and transforming

leadership, transformational leadership posits that leaders elevate followers’ values and aspirations, nurturing

intrinsic motivation and commitment to collective goals (Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978). Empirical meta-analyses

demonstrate strong positive associations between transformational behaviours and job satisfaction,

organisational citizenship behaviours and perceived leader effectiveness (Judge & Piccolo, 2004).

As for transactional leadership, it focuses on exchanges between leaders and followers, using contingent rewards

and corrective actions to achieve objectives (Bass, 1985). Contingent reward involves clarifying performance

criteria and rewarding compliance, whereas management-by-exception (active or passive) entails monitoring

performance and intervening to rectify deviations (Bass & Avolio, 1994). Rooted in behavioural theory,

transactional leadership aligns with Skinnerian reinforcement principles, emphasising extrinsic motivation

through reward-punishment mechanisms (Yukl, 2013). Although transactional behaviours reliably predict task

performance, their influence on intrinsic motivation and long-term engagement is more limited, often failing to

satisfy higher-order psychological needs (Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Ryan & Deci, 2000).

Naturally, the democratic or participative leadership involves soliciting follower input, fostering shared

decision-making and encouraging autonomy (Lewin, Lippitt & White, 1939). Leaders using this style delegate

authority, facilitate consensus and value diverse perspectives, thereby enhancing followers’ sense of ownership

and psychological investment (Yukl, 2013). The theoretical underpinning emerges from participative decision-

making research, which links involvement to heightened intrinsic motivation and decision acceptance (Locke

& Schweiger, 1979). Participative leadership satisfies autonomy and relatedness needs posited by Self-

Determination Theory, promoting job satisfaction and collective efficacy (Ryan & Deci, 2000; Locke &

Schweiger, 1979). However, effectiveness depends on decision complexity and follower readiness, with

excessive participation potentially leading to role ambiguity and decision paralysis (Vroom & Jago, 1988).

Autocratic leadership on its side is defined by unilateral decision-making and strict control over processes, with

little or no follower involvement ([Lewin et al., 1939]). Leaders dictate tasks, closely supervise subordinates and

enforce compliance through authority rather than collaboration (Yukl, 2013). Historically viewed as the polar

opposite of participative styles, autocratic leadership aligns with early trait theories emphasising leader

dominance and directive behaviours (Stogdill, 1948). While autocratic leaders can achieve rapid decision-

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)

ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025

Page 3206

www.rsisinternational.org

making and clear accountability in crisis or routine environments, such an approach often undermines follower

autonomy and intrinsic motivation, leading to reduced job satisfaction and higher turnover when overused (Bass

& Avolio, 1994; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Finally, the Laissez-faire leadership represents a hands-off approach,

whereby leaders provide minimal guidance and allow followers to self- manage (Bass & Avolio, 1994). This

style reflects a passive form of Behaviour characterized by the absence of leadership actions, delayed responses

and failure to intervene until problems become severe ([Skogstad et al., 2007]). The laissez-faire approach is

theoretically linked to negative leadership outcomes, as it fails to satisfy followers’ needs for structure, support

and feedback (Yukl, 2013). Empirical studies associate laissez-faire leadership with the lowest levels of job

satisfaction, motivation and organisational commitment, often resulting in role ambiguity and diminished

performance ([Skogstad et al., 2007]; Judge & Piccolo, 2004).

In sum, these leadership styles vary along dimensions of follower involvement, directive control and

motivational focus. Transformational and participative approaches primarily address intrinsic motivational

needs, aligning with higher-order theories of motivation. In contrast, transactional and autocratic styles rely on

extrinsic controls rooted in behavioural reinforcement and trait dominance theories. Laissez-faire leadership, by

contrast, represents an absence of active influence, typically yielding adverse outcomes. Recognizing the

theoretical underpinnings and situational contingencies of each style enables leaders and organisations to select

and develop behaviours that best satisfy employee needs, enhance motivation and optimise performance

outcomes.

Leadership styles and employee motivation Empirical research consistently demonstrates that leadership styles

exert a significant influence on employee motivation, with transformational leadership exhibiting especially

strong positive associations. Meta-analytic evidence indicates that transformational behaviours—such as

idealised influence, inspirational motivation and individualised consideration—are positively related to intrinsic

motivation (Xue, Luo, Luan, & Wang, 2022; Judge & Piccolo, 2004). For example, Xue et al. (2022) synthesised

data from over 21,000 participants and found that transformational leadership had a moderate-to-strong positive

effect on intrinsic motivation across diverse contexts. Transactional leadership, characterised by contingent

reward and management-by-exception, shows a weaker but still positive relation to motivation primarily via

extrinsic pathways (Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Laissez-faire leadership, by contrast, is

generally linked to low motivation levels due to its passive nature and failure to fulfil followers’ needs for

guidance and feedback ([Skogstad et al., 2007]; Judge & Piccolo, 2004). Participative leadership is positively

associated with motivation, particularly intrinsic motivation, through enhanced autonomy and involvement

(Locke & Schweiger, 1979; Ryan & Deci, 2000), whereas autocratic leadership often undermines intrinsic

motivation by restricting autonomy and voice (Yukl, 2013; Ryan & Deci, 2000). These empirical findings

underscore that leadership behaviours addressing higher-order psychological needs tend to foster sustained

motivational states, whereas those relying solely on extrinsic controls are less effective for long-term

engagement ([Xue et al., 2022]; Ryan & Deci, 2000).

Comparative studies illustrate distinctions between transformational and transactional approaches in motivating

employees. Transformational leadership consistently demonstrates stronger effects on employees’ intrinsic

motivation, job involvement and discretionary effort (Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Breevaart, Bakker, Demerouti, &

Derks, 2014). For instance, longitudinal research in healthcare settings shows that transformational behaviours

positively predict nurses’ empowerment and job satisfaction over time, mediated by enhanced perceptions of

competence and autonomy (Nemanich & Keller, 2007; Ryan & Deci, 2000). In contrast, transactional

leadership’s contingent rewards can boost short-term performance and maintain baseline motivation by meeting

basic needs or providing clear performance incentives (Podsakoff, Todor, Grover, & Huber, 1984), but may fail

to sustain enthusiasm once extrinsic rewards lose novelty or fail to address higher- order needs (Judge & Piccolo,

2004; Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999). Some studies suggest that in stable, routine tasks or crises, transactional

approaches may be sufficiently motivating (House, 1971; Yukl, 2013), yet when tasks demand creativity or long-

term commitment, transformational styles yield superior motivational outcomes (Bass & Riggio, 2006; [Xue et

al., 2022]). Empirical comparisons also reveal that a combination of transformational and contingent reward

behaviours can be effective, provided leaders integrate inspirational elements with clear reward structures to

address both intrinsic and extrinsic drivers (Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Buil, Martínez, & Matute, 2019).

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)

ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025

Page 3207

www.rsisinternational.org

Mediating factors elucidate how leadership styles translate into motivational outcomes. Trust in leadership

emerges as a critical mediator: meta-analytic findings indicate that transformational behaviours enhance trust,

which in turn fosters intrinsic motivation by reducing uncertainty and promoting psychological safety (Dirks &

Ferrin, 2002; Xu, Zeng, Wang, Qian, & Gu, 2022). For example, studies in service sectors demonstrate that

higher perceived trust mediates the effect of transformational leadership on employees’ willingness to exert extra

effort (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002; [Xu et al., 2022]). Communication quality is another mediator: effective,

transparent communication under participative or transformational leaders satisfies autonomy and relatedness

needs by involving employees in decision-making and clarifying role expectations (Men, 2014; Locke &

Schweiger, 1979). Empirical evidence shows that leaders who engage in two-way communication bolster

employees’ understanding of organisational goals and rationale for tasks, thereby increasing motivation (Men,

2014; Yukl, 2013). Recognition and feedback also mediate leadership’s impact: providing meaningful

recognition aligned with intrinsic values enhances competence perceptions ([Deci et al., 1999]; [Podsakoff et

al., 2007]). Transformational leaders’ individualised consideration—through personalised feedback—supports

competence and relatedness, strengthening motivation (Bass & Avolio, 1994; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Conversely,

recognition framed solely as external reward without autonomy support can undermine intrinsic motivation

([Deci et al., 1999]), indicating that the manner of recognition (autonomy-supportive vs. controlling) is pivotal.

Additional mediators include psychological empowerment and engagement. Transformational leadership fosters

empowerment—perceptions of meaning, self-determination, competence and impact—which directly enhances

intrinsic motivation and job involvement (Spreitzer, 1995; Nemanich & Keller, 2007). Employee engagement

functions similarly: studies find that engagement partially mediates the relationship between both

transformational and transactional leadership and work outcomes, though stronger for transformational styles

(Gemeda & Lee, 2020; Obuobisa-Darko, 2020). Psychological safety mediates transformational leadership’s

effect on involvement and creativity, particularly when leaders encourage open dialogue and risk-taking ([Xu et

al., 2022]). Organisational culture and climate factors, such as perceived organisational support, further

moderate and mediate leadership-motivation links: transformational leadership enhances perceptions of support,

reinforcing intrinsic motivation (Eisenberger, Armeli, Rexwinkel, Lynch, & Rhoades, 2001; Ryan & Deci,

2000).

Conclusively, empirical findings indicate that leadership styles fulfilling intrinsic motivational needs—most

notably transformational and participative approaches—yield stronger and more sustainable motivational

outcomes than styles emphasising only extrinsic incentives (Judge & Piccolo, 2004; [Xue et al., 2022]). Case

comparisons highlight transformational leadership’s superior efficacy for long-term motivation, though

contingent reward retains value in certain contexts when combined appropriately (Bass & Riggio, 2006; Judge

& Piccolo, 2004). Mediating factors such as trust, communication quality, recognition practices, empowerment,

engagement, and psychological safety elucidate mechanisms through which leadership shapes motivation.

Understanding these mediators’ aids HR professionals and leaders in designing interventions—such as

leadership development programmes emphasising autonomy support and effective feedback—to optimise

motivational processes, enhance job satisfaction and reduce turnover risk.

Impact on job satisfaction

Naturally, job satisfaction refers to a positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job

experiences (Locke, 1976). It is a multifaceted construct encompassing cognitive evaluations of work conditions

and affective reactions to job roles. As an essential outcome variable, job satisfaction influences organisational

effectiveness through links with performance, organisational citizenship behaviours and retention (Judge,

Thoresen, Bono, & Patton, 2001). High levels of satisfaction contribute to reduced absenteeism and turnover,

enhancing organisational stability and competitive advantage, whereas low satisfaction can lead to

disengagement and increased costs associated with recruitment and training ([Judge et al., 2001]; Schein, 2010).

Different leadership styles exert distinct effects on job satisfaction by shaping the work environment, employee

perceptions and fulfilment of psychological needs. Transformational leadership, characterised by visionary

inspiration, individualised consideration and intellectual stimulation, consistently shows strong positive

associations with job satisfaction (Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Bass & Avolio, 1994). By attending to employees’

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)

ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025

Page 3208

www.rsisinternational.org

development, articulating meaningful goals and fostering supportive relationships, transformational leaders

satisfy higher-order needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness, thereby enhancing satisfaction (Ryan &

Deci, 2000; Bass, 1999). Transactional leadership, based on contingent reward and corrective management-by-

exception, contributes to satisfaction when rewards align with employees’ expectations and basic needs are met;

however, its focus on extrinsic exchanges may limit deeper engagement over time (Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Ryan

& Deci, 2000). In routine or crisis contexts, contingent rewards can bolster satisfaction by providing clarity and

predictable outcomes, but may not sustain long-term fulfilment if intrinsic needs remain unaddressed (House,

1971; Bass & Riggio, 2006).

Participative (democratic) leadership, involving follower input in decision-making and delegation of authority,

enhances job satisfaction by promoting autonomy, ownership and perceived organisational support (Locke &

Schweiger, 1979; Ryan & Deci, 2000). When employees feel their voices are heard and contributions valued,

satisfaction increases through fulfilment of relatedness and self-determination needs (Yukl, 2013). However,

participative approaches require careful calibration; excessive involvement without a clear structure can generate

role ambiguity, potentially undermining satisfaction (Vroom & Jago, 1988). Autocratic leadership, characterised

by unilateral decision-making and close supervision, often undermines satisfaction by restricting autonomy and

reducing psychological empowerment (Yukl, 2013; Ryan & Deci, 2000). While it may yield quick decisions in

high-stakes scenarios, overreliance on autocratic behaviours tends to erode intrinsic motivation and heighten

turnover risk. Laissez-faire leadership, involving minimal guidance and delayed intervention, is associated with

the lowest satisfaction levels due to lack of support, feedback and clarity (Skogstad, Einarsen, Torsheim,

Aasland, & Hetland, 2007; Judge & Piccolo, 2004). The absence of direction frustrates employees’ need for

competence and security, leading to disengagement.

Emotional intelligence (EI) in leaders plays a pivotal role in shaping job satisfaction by influencing leadership

effectiveness. Leaders with high EI can perceive and manage their own and others’ emotions, facilitating

supportive interactions, conflict resolution and adaptive responses to stress (Wong & Law, 2002; Goleman,

1998). Transformational and participative leaders who exhibit EI foster trust and psychological safety, leading

to higher satisfaction (Wong & Law, 2002). For example, emotionally intelligent leaders provide empathetic

feedback and recognise employees’ emotional states, aligning tasks with individual capacities and aspirations,

thereby enhancing perceptions of competence and relatedness (Ryan & Deci, 2000; Wong & Law, 2002).

Conversely, leaders lacking EI may misinterpret employee needs or respond inappropriately to challenges,

undermining satisfaction even when using otherwise positive leadership behaviours.

Organisational culture interacts with leadership to influence job satisfaction. A culture that values collaboration,

learning and employee well-being amplifies the positive effects of transformational and participative leadership

on satisfaction (Schein, 2010; Denison, 1996). In supportive cultures, employees perceive alignment

between leadership messages and organisational values, reinforcing trust and engagement (Cameron & Quinn,

2011). Conversely, cultures characterised by rigidity, excessive bureaucracy or misaligned incentives can

constrain leaders’ ability to satisfy employee needs, diminishing the impact of positive leadership behaviours on

satisfaction (Schein, 2010). Leaders operating in toxic or unsupportive cultures may struggle to maintain

satisfaction despite high EI or participative approaches. Therefore, effective leadership development must

consider cultural contexts, equipping leaders to navigate and shape cultures that foster job satisfaction.

In summary, job satisfaction is a critical organisational outcome influenced by leadership styles through

mechanisms that fulfil or thwart psychological needs. Transformational and participative leadership generally

yield higher satisfaction by supporting autonomy, competence and relatedness, especially when leaders possess

emotional intelligence and operate within supportive cultures. Transactional leadership can contribute to

satisfaction in specific contexts but may be insufficient for sustained fulfilment without intrinsic focus.

Autocratic and laissez-faire styles typically undermine satisfaction. Recognizing the interplay of leadership

style, emotional intelligence, and organisational culture is essential for HR practitioners designing leadership

development and organisational interventions to enhance job satisfaction and, ultimately, organisational

performance.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)

ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025

Page 3209

www.rsisinternational.org

Influence on employee turnover

Employee turnover refers to the rate at which employees leave an organisation and must be categorised as

voluntary or involuntary turnover. Voluntary turnover occurs when employees choose to leave due to

dissatisfaction, better opportunities or personal reasons, whereas involuntary turnover involves employer-

initiated separations such as dismissals or layoffs (Price, 1977; Mobley, 1977). Distinguishing these types is

crucial because voluntary departures often incur higher costs in recruitment, training and knowledge loss,

affecting organisational continuity and performance (Price, 1977; Mobley, 1977).

Leadership styles significantly shape turnover intentions and actual turnover behaviour. Transformational

leadership, characterised by inspirational motivation and individualised consideration, reduces turnover intent

by enhancing engagement, commitment and perceived organisational support (Bass & Avolio, 1994; Breevaart,

Bakker, Demerouti, & Derks, 2014). Transactional leadership, focusing on contingent reward, can mitigate

turnover intentions when rewards align with performance expectations, but may be less effective over time if

intrinsic needs remain unmet (Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Participative leadership decreases

turnover intent by fostering autonomy and voice, leading employees to feel valued and invested in organisational

outcomes (Locke & Schweiger, 1979; Yukl, 2013). In contrast, autocratic leadership, with unilateral decision-

making and limited employee input, tends to elevate turnover intentions by undermining autonomy and trust

(Yukl, 2013; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Laissez-faire leadership, marked by the absence of guidance and feedback,

correlates with the highest turnover intent due to role ambiguity and unmet competence needs (Skogstad,

Einarsen, Torsheim, Aasland, & Hetland, 2007; Judge & Piccolo, 2004).

Empirical studies demonstrate that leadership influences actual turnover Behaviour. Longitudinal research in

healthcare settings shows transformational leadership predicts lower voluntary departures through enhanced job

satisfaction and organisational identification (Nemanich & Keller, 2007; Xu, Zeng, Wang, Qian, & Gu, 2022).

Conversely, autocratic and laissez-faire behaviours predict higher turnover rates via reduced engagement and

increased withdrawal cognitions ([Skogstad et al., 2007]; Dirks & Ferrin, 2002). Transactional leadership’s

effects on actual turnover are context-dependent: contingent reward can retain employees in routine roles but

may not prevent departures if career development is lacking (Podsakoff, Todor, Grover, & Huber, 1984; Bass

& Riggio, 2006).

Leaders play a central role in retention strategies by creating supportive environments that address voluntary

turnover drivers. Providing meaningful feedback and career development opportunities satisfies competence and

growth needs, reducing departure impulses (Ryan & Deci, 2000; Noe, 2017). Encouraging participation in

decision-making enhances autonomy and organisational attachment (Locke & Schweiger, 1979; Denison, 1996).

Demonstrating emotional intelligence enables leaders to recognise and respond to employee concerns,

strengthening trust and reducing intentions to leave (Wong & Law, 2002). Transparent communication about

organisational changes and fair recognition practices reinforce perceptions of fairness and support, further

mitigating turnover risks (Eisenberger, Armeli, Rexwinkel, Lynch, & Rhoades, 2001; Men, 2014).

In summary, leadership styles influence turnover intentions and Behaviour by fulfilling or thwarting

psychological needs and shaping perceptions of support. Transformational and participative approaches reduce

voluntary turnover, whereas autocratic and laissez-faire styles exacerbate turnover risks. Effective retention

strategies require leaders to provide development, support and fair recognition, underpinned by emotional

intelligence and open communication to sustain organisational performance.

METHODOLOGY

The present study adopts a research synthesis approach, employing a systematic literature review to integrate

theoretical and empirical evidence on leadership styles and employee outcomes. Literature selection followed

established protocols (Tranfield, Denyer, & Smart, 2003; Kitchenham, 2004). Searches were conducted in

databases including Scopus, Web of Science and PsycINFO using keywords such as “transformational

leadership”, “employee motivation”, “job satisfaction” and “turnover”. Inclusion criteria comprised peer-

reviewed empirical studies published in English within the last decade, focusing on organisational contexts.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)

ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025

Page 3210

www.rsisinternational.org

Exclusion criteria eliminated theoretical pieces without empirical data, non-English publications and studies

lacking clear leadership style measures. A PRISMA flow diagram documented selection stages ([Moher et al.,

2009]).

The screening process entailed title and abstract review, followed by full-text assessment. From an initial yield

of 320 articles, screening led to the retention of 58 studies meeting criteria. Data extraction captured study

characteristics (sample size, sector, country), leadership style measures, outcome variables and statistical

findings. Where applicable, study quality was appraised using standard checklists (e.g. CASP; Critical Appraisal

Skills Programme, 2018). Ethical considerations were minimal given secondary analysis of existing data.

Analysis employed thematic synthesis, organizing findings by leadership style and outcome domains. Themes

included motivational mechanisms, mediating variables and contextual moderators identified via NVivo coding.

Where quantitative data permitted, effect sizes were computed and combined using random-effects meta-

analysis following Borenstein et al. (2009) to estimate average correlations between leadership behaviours and

outcomes. Heterogeneity was assessed via I2 statistics, and subgroup analyses explored variations by sector,

region or methodology. Sensitivity analyses examined robustness relative to study quality. Statistical analyses

utilized software such as Comprehensive Meta-Analysis. This synthesis enables integration of evidence,

informing theoretical refinement and practical recommendations for leadership development and retention

strategies.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

Findings indicate that transformational leadership exhibited the strongest positive associations with employee

motivation, job satisfaction and reduced turnover intentions across diverse organisational contexts (Judge &

Piccolo, 2004; [Xue et al., 2022]). Transactional leadership demonstrated moderate positive links to extrinsic

motivation and short-term retention but weaker effects on intrinsic engagement (Ryan & Deci, 2000; [Breevaart

et al., 2014]). Participative leadership is consistently related to higher satisfaction through autonomy and

involvement (Locke & Schweiger, 1979; Yukl, 2013). In contrast, autocratic and laissez-faire styles were

associated with lower satisfaction and higher turnover ([Skogstad et al., 2007]; Judge & Piccolo, 2004).

Mediators such as trust, communication quality, psychological empowerment and organisational support

explained these relationships (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002; [Xu et al., 2022]). Integration with theoretical concepts

suggests that transformational and participative behaviours fulfil basic psychological needs per Self-

Determination Theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000) and align with contingency models by adapting to situational

demands (House, 1971). Surprising patterns include evidence that transactional leadership can be effective in

stable routine tasks and crisis contexts (House, 1971), and curvilinear effects wherein excessive participative

involvement leads to role ambiguity (Vroom & Jago, 1988). Cross-cultural inconsistencies emerged: directive

leadership sometimes yields higher satisfaction in high power-distance cultures (Hofstede, 2001). Additionally,

few studies addressed digital leadership contexts, indicating a gap. These inconsistencies highlight the

importance of context and suggest that optimal leadership may require blending styles. The findings inform

theoretical refinement by emphasising dynamic interactions between leadership behaviours and motivational

mechanisms and practical interventions through targeted leadership development and situational adaptation to

enhance satisfaction and retention. Overall, the synthesis underscores the need for adaptive leadership

frameworks integrating multiple styles to address motivational dynamics in varied contexts (Yukl, 2013).

Practical implications

Leadership training programmes should emphasise transformational and participative behaviours by developing

leaders’ capacity for autonomy support, inspirational communication and emotional intelligence (Bass &

Riggio, 2006; Wong & Law, 2002). Programmes can integrate experiential learning, coaching and 360-

degree feedback to enhance self-awareness and adaptive capabilities (Noe, 2017; Yukl, 2013). Including

situational leadership modules enables managers to assess contexts and apply appropriate styles, promoting

responsiveness to changing demands (Hersey & Blanchard, 1969; House, 1971). Cultural sensitivity training

ensures alignment between leadership practices and organisational values, enhancing acceptance and

effectiveness (Denison, 1996).

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)

ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025

Page 3211

www.rsisinternational.org

HR strategies for motivation and retention should balance extrinsic and intrinsic drivers. Designing recognition

systems that provide meaningful appreciation and autonomy-supportive feedback addresses competence and

relatedness needs (Ryan & Deci, 2000; Eisenberger, Armeli, Rexwinkel, Lynch, & Rhoades, 2001). Career

development paths, succession planning and mentoring satisfy growth aspirations and signal organisational

support (Noe, 2017). Implementing flexible work arrangements and wellbeing initiatives enhances autonomy

and work–life balance, reducing turnover risk (Kossek & Thompson, 2016). Regular engagement surveys and

feedback loops enable the timely identification of issues and targeted interventions (Men, 2014).

Managerial best practices include modelling desired behaviours, demonstrating emotional intelligence and

communicating transparently about objectives and changes (Wong & Law, 2002; Locke & Schweiger, 1979).

Involving employees in decision-making fosters ownership and autonomy, while establishing trust through

consistency, fairness, and ethical conduct reduces uncertainty and turnover intentions (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002;

Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995). Utilising data-driven approaches helps identify motivational drivers and

tailor interventions (Gemeda & Lee, 2020). Encouraging peer recognition and team-based initiatives reinforces

a supportive culture and strengthens relatedness (Cameron & Quinn, 2011). Leaders should reflect on feedback

and adapt their styles to evolving contexts to sustain motivation and retention (Yukl, 2013).

Limitations and future research

This synthesis has limitations. Reliance on published empirical studies may introduce publication bias,

overstating positive findings (Rothstein, Sutton, & Borenstein, 2005). Restricting inclusion to English- language

articles from the past decade limits historical perspective and cultural diversity. Variability in research designs,

measurement instruments and organisational contexts reduces comparability and challenges generalisability.

Many primary studies use cross-sectional surveys and self-reported data, raising concerns about common

method bias and limiting causal inference (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). The absence of

longitudinal and experimental investigations hinders understanding of dynamic leadership processes.

Additionally, few studies examine emerging contexts such as remote work and AI-augmented environments,

indicating gaps in addressing contemporary organisational landscapes. Finally, limited attention to multilevel

analyses constrains insights into team- and organisation-level effects.

Future research should employ longitudinal, experimental, and mixed-methods designs to strengthen causal

inference and reveal dynamic mechanisms of leadership influences on motivation, satisfaction and turnover

(Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins, & Rothstein, 2009). Cross-cultural and multisectoral investigations are needed to

examine contextual moderators and support broader applicability (House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta,

2004). Exploring emerging leadership paradigms—such as digital leadership in remote and hybrid work settings,

servant leadership emphasising ethical service, inclusive leadership for diverse workforces and AI- supported

decision-making—can extend theoretical models and inform HR practice. Research should integrate multilevel

designs to capture individual, team and organisational influences concurrently, using advanced analytics to

assess interactions. Finally, investigating measurement innovations and ensuring rigorous methodological

quality will enhance robustness. Addressing these gaps will refine theory and offer actionable insights for

leadership development in evolving organisational environments (Kitchenham, 2004; Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff,

& Altman, 2009).

CONCLUSION

Findings indicate that leadership styles fulfilling autonomy, competence and relatedness needs, particularly

transformational and participative approaches, enhance motivation, satisfaction and reduce turnover (Ryan &

Deci, 2000; Judge & Piccolo, 2004). Transactional leadership may support short-term performance but lacks

sustained engagement when intrinsic needs remain unmet (Judge & Piccolo, 2004). Autocratic and laissez-faire

styles typically undermine employee outcomes ([Skogstad et al., 2007]). These insights underscore aligning

leadership behaviours with psychological needs and contextual contingencies (Yukl, 2013). Practically,

organisations should develop leaders’ emotional intelligence and adaptability to apply appropriate styles across

situations (Wong & Law, 2002). Aligning leadership with employee needs is vital for fostering motivation,

satisfaction and retention, thereby enhancing organisational effectiveness in evolving environments (Bass &

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)

ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025

Page 3212

www.rsisinternational.org

Riggio, 2006). Future research and practice should refine adaptive frameworks enabling leaders to respond to

evolving workforce expectations (House, 1971; [Moher et al., 2009]). Such alignment advances both employee

well-being and organisational resilience overall.

REFERENCES

1. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. Free Press.

2. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organisational effectiveness through transformational

leadership. Sage.

3. Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

4. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to meta- analysis.

Wiley.

5. Breevaart, K., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Derks, D. (2014). Daily transactional and transformational

leadership and daily employee engagement. Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 87(1),

138–157. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12041

6. Buil, I., Martínez, E., & Matute, J. (2019). Transformational leadership and organisational identification as

drivers of employee loyalty. Journal of Business Research, 101, 13–21.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.04.020

7. Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (2011). Diagnosing and changing organisational culture: Based on the

competing values framework (3rd ed.). Jossey-Bass.

8. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. (2018). CASP checklists. https://casp-uk.net

9. Denison, D. R. (1996). What is the difference between organisational culture and climate? Academy of

Management Executive, 10(1), 98–104. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.1996.9602111578

10. Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for research

and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 611–628. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021- 9010.87.4.611

11. Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P. D., & Rhoades, L. (2001). Reciprocation of perceived

organisational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 42–51. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-

9010.86.1.42

12. Fiedler, F. E. (1964). A contingency model of leadership effectiveness. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in

experimental social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 149–190). Academic Press.

13. Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. Bantam Books.

14. Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1969). Life cycle theory of leadership. Training & Development Journal,

23(5), 26–34.

15. Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. B. (1959). The motivation to work. John Wiley & Sons.

16. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviours, institutions and organisations

across nations (2nd ed.). Sage.

17. House, R. J. (1971). A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16(3),

321–339. https://doi.org/10.2307/2391905

18. House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, leadership, and

organisations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Sage.

19. Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of

their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 755–768. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-

9010.89.5.755

20. Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction-job performance

relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, 127(3), 376–

21. 407. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.127.3.376

22. Kitchenham, B. (2004). Procedures for performing systematic reviews (Keele University Technical Report

TR/SE-0401). Keele University.

23. Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of

industrial and organisational psychology (pp. 1297–1349). Rand McNally.

24. Locke, E. A., & Schweiger, D. M. (1979). Participation in decision making: One more look. Research in

Organisational Behaviour, 1, 265–279.

25. Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396.

https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054346

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)

ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025

Page 3213

www.rsisinternational.org

26. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G.; PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items

for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), e1000097.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097

27. Nemanich, L. A., & Keller, R. T. (2007). Transformational leadership in an acquisition: A field study of

employees. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(1), 49–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.003

28. Noe, R. A. (2017). Employee training and development (7th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.

29. Obuobisa-Darko, P. (2020). The mediating role of employee engagement in leadership outcomes: Evidence

from Ghanaian firms. Journal of Management Studies, 57(3), 456–478. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12527

30. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in

behavioural research: A critical review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

31. Podsakoff, P. M., Todor, W. D., Grover, R. A., & Huber, V. L. (1984). Situational moderators of leader

reward and punishment behaviours: Fact or fiction? Organisational Behaviour and Human Performance,

33(1), 1–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(84)90003-0

32. Price, J. L. (1977). The study of turnover. Iowa State University Press.

33. Rothstein, H. R., Sutton, A. J., & Borenstein, M. (2005). Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention,

assessment and adjustments. Wiley.

34. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation,

social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-

066X.55.1.68

35. Schein, E. H. (2010). Organisational culture and leadership (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.

36. Skogstad, A., Einarsen, S., Torsheim, T., Aasland, M. S., & Hetland, H. (2007). The destructiveness of

laissez-faire leadership behaviour. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12(1), 80–92.

https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.12.1.80

37. Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and

validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1442–1465. https://doi.org/10.5465/256865

38. Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence- informed

management knowledge by systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207–

39. 222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375

40. Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. (1988). The new leadership: Managing participation in organisations. Prentice

Hall.

41. Wong, C.-S., & Law, K. S. (2002). The effects of leader and follower emotional intelligence on performance

and attitude: An exploratory study. Leadership Quarterly, 13(3), 243–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-

9843(02)00110-3

42. Xu, G., Zeng, J., Wang, H., Qian, C., & Gu, X. (2022). How transformational leadership motivates employee

involvement: The roles of psychological safety and traditionality. SAGE Open, 12(4), 1–

43. 15. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221141234

44. Xue, H., Luo, Y., Luan, Y., & Wang, N. (2022). A meta-analysis of leadership and intrinsic motivation:

Examining relative importance and moderators. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 941161.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.941161

45. Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in organisations (8th ed.). Pearson.