INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025
Page 3299
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://doi.org/10.51244/IJRSI.2025.120800299
Received: 27 Aug 2025; Accepted: 04 Sep 2025; Published: 07 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
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025
Page 3300
www.rsisinternational.org
empirical evidence, identify 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
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025
Page 3301
www.rsisinternational.org
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
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
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025
Page 3302
www.rsisinternational.org
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-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
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025
Page 3303
www.rsisinternational.org
elements with clear reward structures to address both intrinsic and extrinsic drivers (Judge & Piccolo, 2004;
Buil, Martínez, & Matute, 2019).
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).
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025
Page 3304
www.rsisinternational.org
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’
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
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025
Page 3305
www.rsisinternational.org
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.
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
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025
Page 3306
www.rsisinternational.org
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.
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
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025
Page 3307
www.rsisinternational.org
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).
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
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025
Page 3308
www.rsisinternational.org
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 &
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
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025
Page 3309
www.rsisinternational.org
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
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),
207–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375
39. Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. (1988). The new leadership: Managing participation in
organisations. Prentice Hall.
40. 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
41. 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–https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221141234
42. Xue, H., Luo, Y., Luan, Y., & Wang, N. (2022). A meta-analysis of leadership and intrinsic
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue IX September 2025
Page 3310
www.rsisinternational.org
motivation: Examining relative importance and moderators. Frontiers in Psychology, 13,
941161. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.941161
43. Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in organisations (8th ed.). Pearson
