INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study

Leadership style plays a vital role in an organization. It affects the

employees job satisfaction and performance, according to Jalagat, and
Dalluay (2016) when the correlation coefficient was used to assess leadership
style as a single independent variable coefficient to worker job performance,
the findings indicated a substantial connection between the two elements.
This implies that, irrespective of the leadership style employed, the
relationship is evident. Lussier (2013) also said that the qualities of a leader
and his effective leadership style has a big role to play to attain individual and
organizational performance.

Globally, Leadership strategist Benjamin Laker (2020) writes that while

the abilities to set a vision and execute a strategy remain, in the future,
leaders will need “a new arsenal of skills and mindsets to lead effectively.”
Leaders are not accomplishing their aims by using similar styles. The
leadership style, according to Mitonga-Monga & Coetzee, (2012), is viewed as
a combination of different characteristics, traits and behaviors that are used
by leaders for interacting with their subordinates. They also considered
leadership as the pattern associated with managerial behavior, which is
designed to integrate the organizational or personal interest and effects for
achieving particular objectives.

Locally, in Cavite, Philippines from the study of Jalagat, and Dalluay

(2016) concluded that unequivocally, a leader's approach has a favorable and
beneficial effect on the performance of their team members. They also added
that The manager's approach of open communication and staff involvement in
establishing objectives, making choices and resolving issues, and working
with other departments in reaching organizational objectives enhances worker
performance and job satisfaction.

There are several types of leadership styles such as transformational

leadership, transactional leadership, autocratic, democratic leadership,
participative leadership style, etc. The leadership styles chosen for the study
are the six styles of leadership according to Goleman (2000) that includes
affiliative, democratic, coercive (commanding), pacesetting, authoritative and
coaching. The reason behind choosing these leadership styles is the fact that
it was extracted from a research done on 3,871 executives, and if any new
ideology is developed through the research, it can improve these leadership
styles further and bring further success to organizations. Therefore, the
survey was designed to focus on these six leadership styles only.

Thus, the impact of leadership style on employee’s job satisfaction

used by the Head of office becomes significant.

Objectives of the study

Generally, the study focuses on the impact of leadership style on

employee’s job satisfaction used by the Head of Schools Division Office of
Kidapawan. Specifically, it aims to;

1. Determine the profile of the employee’s in terms of:

a. Age
b. Sex
c. Civil Status
2. Identify the leadership style commonly used by the Head of Schools
Division Office of Kidapawan.
3. Determine the level of satisfaction of the employees on the leadership
style used by the Head of Schools Division Office of Kidapawan.
Conceptual Framework

The focus of this study circulates on the impact of leadership style on

employee’s job satisfaction and performance used by the Head of Schools
Division Office of Kidapawan. Be able to determine the profile of the employee’s
in terms of age, sex and civil status; Identify the leadership style commonly used
and determine the level of job satisfaction of the employees on the leadership
style used by the Head of Schools Division Office of Kidapawan.

Spector (2008), Positive attitudes towards one's job and the leadership
style displayed in the workplace both play a role in influencing job satisfaction.
Unpleasant work environments can result in dissatisfaction due to stress. He
concluded that leaders have a significant role to reduce stressful conditions.
These changes concern specific gains and losses in individuals’ affectivity
(Watson & Naragon, 2012). The researcher will assume that the leadership style
has a great contribution on determining the level of job satisfaction of the
employees of Schools Division Office of Kidapawan.

Fig.1. Schematic Diagram of the Study

Respondent’s Profile
1.1 sex
1.2 age Measured level of
1.3 civil status respondent’s profile
Data gathering
procedure using survey Job satisfaction &
Leadership Styles tool performance of the
commonly used by the employees on the
Head of Schools Division leadership style used by
Office of Kidapawan the Head of Schools
Division Office of
Kidapawan
Significance of the Study

The results of this study are of great importance to the following;

Office/organization: This study serves as a reference to strengthen and better

offer quality leadership that will meet the needs of the employees through the use
of different leadership styles.

Head of Office/Organization: for them to improve and develop their leadership

styles that will cater to the job satisfaction and needs of the employees.
Employees: for them to have knowledge about the leadership style used by their
heads.

Future leaders/managers: this research will be a big help to those who wants to
pursue managerial courses that could be a reference on what leadership style is
effective in handling employees to attain employees job satisfaction and achieve
organizational goals.

Future Researchers: for them to have a reference on their research about

leadership style.

Scope and Limitations of the Study

This study focuses only on the impact of leadership style on employee’s

job satisfaction and performance used by the Head of Schools Division Office of
Kidapawan. Specifically, it includes leadership styles such as affiliative,
democratic, coercive (commanding), pacesetting, authoritative and coaching.
This study considers 50 non-teaching employees only of Schools Division Office
of Kidapawan.
Definition of Terms

The following terms used were given definitions lexically for better
understanding of the study:

Head of Office - the senior person in an office and the office manager.
Operationally, it refers to the Schools Division Superintendent of Kidapawan City.

Leadership Styles- leader's method of providing direction, implementing plans,

and motivating people. Operationally, it refers to affiliative, democratic, coercive
(commanding), pacesetting, authoritative and coaching.
 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Rationale

This chapter cited literatures that are related to this study on the impact of

leadership style on employee’s job satisfaction and performance used by the

Head of Schools Division Office of Kidapawan. Some literatures cited do not

directly correlate with the leadership style of the head of office but discussed the

relationship of leading, governing and managing of a leader with some variables

that affects the level of satisfaction of the employees.

Numerous theoretical frameworks exist to describe the intricacies of the

leadership process, according to a survey of literature on the subject. To start,

Northouse (2010) defined leadership as the process by which one person

persuades a group of people to pursue a single objective (p. 3). Although they

are not the same, management and leadership are similar.

According to Northouse (2010) the function of the management is to

provide order and consistency to organizations, and the function of leadership is

to produce change and movement. Using the phrase managerial leadership,

Darling and Heller (2009) indicated that both are necessary for successful

organizational development and that they complement each other. The definition

of manage according to Darling and Heller is to bring about, accomplish, and

have accountability. The definition of leadership is to guide or influence in

direction, course, action, or viewpoint. Organizations require both skillful

leadership and competent management to function well (Kotter, 1996;

Northouse, 2010).

Developing and building situations that enable the employees to unite and

have camaraderie will lead to a quality results and outcomes. Many authors have

recognized the fact that, there is strong relationship between leadership style and

job satisfaction and performance (Laohavichien et al., 2009, Chen et al., 2005,

Bolden, 2004). According to the Goleman Leadership Styles (2000), each style

has a different impact on the team of an organization. Therefore, it is important to

acknowledge that there is no right or wrong leadership style. The leadership style

of Goleman (2013) can apply excellent for a particular situation, but it might

function horribly in some cases. The capacity to use the appropriate leadership

style and the knowledge of various leadership philosophies are prerequisites for

a leader. The six Goleman Leadership Styles are as follows: The Affiliative

Leader, The Democratic Leader, The Commanding Leader, The Pacesetting

Leader, The Authoritative Leader, and The Coaching Leader.

Affiliative
The affiliative leader of the Goleman Leadership Styles is focused

bringing the team together when there is a negative atmosphere within the

organization. By trying to get everyone to work along, the leader in this

leadership style attempts to resolve issues inside the group. Establishing a team

environment where each member feels appreciated and integrated into the group

is the aim of the affiliative leader. Because of this, it is crucial to prioritize the
team. The ideal time to apply this strategy is, for instance, when a lack of

cooperation prevents the team from achieving its goals. The leader can only do

this effectively when he or she understands and value the emotions of others.

Among the six emotional leadership styles that prioritize people, it is also the

most suitable one. According to Goleman (2002), maintaining and fostering

strong relationships is hence the role's top task. Affiliative leaders foster

harmony, build team trust, and maintain employee satisfaction (Xie et al., 2011).

Democratic/Participative

The democratic style is known for its freedom of the workers to express

their views and participates in the decision making process as it is most known

as bureaucracy with bureaucratic view. Specifically, every choice made by

management should take into account input from the workforce, who can offer

solutions to issues or participate in the decision-making process, even though the

leader still has the final word in those decisions.

The Democratic leader of the Goleman Leadership Styles apprehended the

contribution of each team member, including their participation in decision-

making processes. Before using a democratic leadership style, a leader needs to

be certain that there is a high level of staff participation. When proactive

decisions need to be made, the democratic leader of Daniel Goleman Leadership

Styles can best employ this style. Management is usually the best person to

make hasty judgments because the team may not have access to all relevant

facts that could affect the choice according to Goleman (2002). Xie et al. (2011)
state that a democratic leader requests input from staff members but retains final

say in decision-making.

Democratic leadership, also known as participative leadership or shared

leadership is a type of leadership style the members of the group are more likely

to participate in the process of decision-making. This type of leadership can work

with any organization, from private businesses to schools to government.

Everyone has the opportunity to participate, exchanged ideas freely, and

encouraged discussions. The group leader is still in place to provide direction

and control, even though democratic processes typically emphasize group

equality and the free exchange of ideas. The democratic leader is in charge of

selecting group members and allowing them to participate in decision-making.

Democratic leadership is one of the most successful styles, according to

research, and it boosts morale among the group, productivity, and member

contributions (Stanley et al., 2015).

Democratic leadership is characterized by a number of key elements,

according to Khoshhal and Guraya (2016): Members of the group feel more

involved in the process; creativity is encouraged and rewarded; and members

are encouraged to share ideas and opinions, even though the leader has the final

say over decisions.

Coercive

The coercive (commanding) leader of the six emotional leadership styles

can also be referred to as the carrot and stick approach. Which means, when a

certain leader tells a worker to do a particular task, it is expected that the worker

completes the assignment without asking questions and without complaining. It is

only effective for a short period of time when this type of leadership style is

utilized most of the time. Sometimes leaders must perform their job as the

commanding leader because it could be that the previous assignments failed.

Another reason for performing this leadership style could be because of an

urgent organizational transformation for which there is no time for discussion, or

when specific procedures must be executed under local rules and regulations,

Goleman (2002). To Xie et al. (2011), the coercive (commanding) leader has

clear perception and requires their employees to do what they are exactly told.

Thus, the leader’s extreme top-down decision making skills put new ideas on the

vine (Goleman, 2000).

The coercive style also has the damaging effect on the reward system that

highest performing workers are motivated by more than money-they seek the

satisfaction of work well done. More so, Goleman (2000) suggested that a

leader's most effective weapon for inspiring followers is demonstrating to them

how their work fits into a larger, common goal. This is undermined by the

coercive style. People experience a loss of clarity and dedication that causes

them to become estranged from their own occupations. To Goleman, the

coercive style is the least effective among all the six styles as applied in most

situations.

Leadership Style and Job Satisfaction

Everyone needs work since there are numerous reasons why it is

necessary. According to Furnham (2005), people work because of the

advantages it can provide, including financial compensation, timely task

management, a source of self-actualization and fulfillment, and the opportunity to

network with others. A person's favorable feelings about their work will contribute

to their job satisfaction, which is a crucial aspect of their career. Also Spector

(2008) stated that positive attitudes towards one's job and the leadership style

displayed in the workplace both play a role in influencing job satisfaction. Stress

from unpleasant work situations might lead to unhappiness. Leaders can

significantly lessen stressful situations. Study conducted by Mullins (2008)

determined that workers are more likely to perform well when they are pleased

and happy with the leadership and approach exhibited by their leader.

Assumption of the study

 The study assumed that there is no impact between leadership styles

(affiliative, democratic, coercive (commanding), pacesetting, authoritative and

coaching) on the employees’ job satisfaction.

METHODOLOGY

This chapter presents the activities to be done in order to complete the

study. Specifically, it includes the research design, research locale, research

respondents, research instruments, sampling technique, data gathering

procedure and statistical tools used in this study.

Research Design

A descriptive research design will be used to determine the profile of

employees in terms of age, sex and civil status, Identify the leadership style

commonly used and determine the level of job satisfaction of the 50 non-teaching

employee on the leadership style used by the Head of Schools Division Office of

Kidapawan.

Research Locale

The study will be conducted at Schools Division Office of Kidapawan,

Brgy. Poblacion, Kidapawan City.

Research Respondents
 The respondents of this study will be the 50 non-teaching employee of

Schools Division Office of Kidapawan.

Research Instrument

The instrument used will be adopted from the University of Minnesota,

Vocational Psychology Research, Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire Shorter

Version and from the study of George Litwin and Richard Stringer,psychologists

from Harvard University that considers the same six distinct styles of leadership

as Daniel Goleman but a few modifications will be done by a researcher to fit the

needs of the research.

The first part of the questionnaire is about the profile of 50 non-teaching

employee of Schools Division Office of Kidapawan. The second part is the

leadership style used by their head of office and the third part is the survey

questionnaire about the job satisfaction of the employees. A Likert scale method

is used in the survey questionnaires to specify the leadership style used by the

head of office and the level of job satisfaction of the respondents to the

statement.

Sampling Design and Selection of Respondents

 A purposive sampling will be used in the selection of respondents wherein

50 of the non-teaching employee of the Schools Division Office of Kidapawan will

be given questionnaires.

In this research, the sampling technique will be used to take sample is

purposive sampling. According to Arikunto (2010), purposive sampling is the

process of selecting sample by taking subject that is not based on the level or

area, but it is taken based on the specific purpose. Purposive sampling involves

identifying and selecting individuals or groups of individuals that are especially

knowledgeable about or experienced with a phenomenon of interest (Cresswell &

Plano Clark, 2011).

Data Gathering Procedure

The researcher will prepare a letter address to the Head of Schools

Division Office of Kidapawan to ask permission to conduct a study among the 50

non-teaching employee, about the impact of leadership style on employee’s job

satisfaction used by the Head of Schools Division Office of Kidapawan

Upon approval, the data will be gathered through a survey questionnaire

which will be administered and retrieved personally by the researcher for

tabulation, analysis and interpretation.

Statistical Tools

The entire data will be analyzed and interpreted using frequency count

and weighted mean

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Respondents’ Profile

This section presents the profile such as Sex, Age and Civil status to

describe the respondents.

Table 1.1 shows that majority (72%) of the respondents are female and minority

(28%) are male with a total percentage of 100.

Table 1.1 Sex of the Respondents

Sex Frequency Percent
Male 14 28
Female 36 72
Total 50 100

Table 1.2 shows that most of the respondents with a frequency count of 15 (30%)

are 25 to 28 years of age.

Table 1.2 Age of the Respondents

Age Frequency Percent
21 – 24 5 10
 25 – 28 15 30
29 – 32 8 16
33 – 36 8 16
37 – 40 3 6
41 – 44 2 4
45 – 48 6 12
49 – 52 0 0
53 – 56 3 6
57 – 60 0 0
60 – and above 0 0
Total 50 100

Table 1.3 shows that most of the respondents are Married with frequency count

of 37 (74 %) and least are single with frequency count of 13 (26 %).

Table 1.3 Civil Status of the Respondents

Civil Status Frequency Percent
Single 13 26
Married 37 74
Separated 0 0
Widow/er 0 0
Total 50 100

Assessing Leadership Style

Table 2 shows that among the leadership style used by the Head of office

of Schools Division Office of Kidapawan. It was assessed that the common

leadership style used by the head of office is “Democratic” with a highest

weighted mean of 4.22 as “always true” and considered as Rank 1 among the

leadership style that was rated by the employees. It implies that the employees

assessed this type of leadership style towards the head of Schools Division

Office of Kidapawan, according to Stanley et.al,(2015) democratic leadership has

been described as the most effective leadership style. Because as Goleman

(2002) stated, a democratic leader appreciates the contributions of each

member, it includes their participation in decision-making process and dependent

on the team’s expertise. This is being supported by Xie et al. (2011) that it asks

to participate employees on decision-making process but the leader will make the

final decision. It only shows that the employees are more engage and given the

opportunity to participate, exchanged ideas and encourage discussions.

According to Khoshhal and Guraya (2016), some of the primary characteristics of

democratic leadership include: Group members are encouraged to share ideas

and opinions, even though the leader retains the final say over decisions;

Members of the group feel more engaged in the process and creativity is

encouraged and rewarded. According to the study of Stanley et.al, (2015),

Because group members are encouraged to share their thoughts, democratic

leadership can lead to better ideas and more creative solutions to problems.

Group members also feel more involved and committed to projects, making them

more likely to care about the end results. Research on leadership styles has also

shown that democratic leadership leads to higher productivity among group

members.

Next in rank is the affiliative leadership style which has the mean of 3.87

as “often true”. In his research, Goleman (2000) observed that having a high

level of emotional intelligence (EI) unites all successful leaders. As a matter of

fact, even with the highest education and the sharpest mind in the world, a

person lacking emotional intelligence may not be a successful leader (Goleman,

2000). Those who are skillful in dealing with emotions are referred to as having

high emotional intelligence. It implies that aside from being democratic leader,

the head of SDO – Kidapawan used or had also this type of leadership style.

Goleman (2000) found that the components of EI included (a) self-awareness, (b)

self-regulation, (c) motivation, (d) empathy, and (e) social skill. According to his

definition, emotional intelligence is the capacity of leaders to effectively guide

followers toward achieving the objectives of the organization by having a

thorough understanding of both their own and others' emotional makeup. It

implies that the leader also has the empathy towards his employees. The

affiliative leader of the Goleman Leadership Styles is concerned with

harmonizing the team when there is a negative ambiance. In this leadership

style, the leader tries to solve conflicts within the group by attempting to make

them collaborate. The goal of the affiliative leader is to create a team where

everyone feels valued and feels part of the team. For this reason, it is essential to

put the team in the first place. The leader can only do this effectively when he or

she understands and value the emotions of others. In addition, it is the most

appropriate style of the six emotional leadership styles that put people first.

Therefore, the priority in this role is to maintain and develop positive relationships

(Goleman, 2002). The affiliative leaders keep their employees happy, develop

team trust, and create harmony among them (Xie et al., 2011)

After affiliative is coaching that has a mean of 3.82. This result is in

accordance of Berg & Karlsen (2016) research, stating that Coaching Leadership

style is a valuable leadership theory that “supports and challenges colleagues,

intending to help them achieve individual development goals. Such leadership is

highly valued in today’s workplace, which is often flatter and less hierarchical. It

replaces the “I say; you do” approach that is largely unsuited to the modern

environment encompassing hot desks, remote work, and flexibility (Eden Project,

2018)

The leadership style that got the least is commanding or coercive with a

weighted mean of 2.59. it implies that the head of SDO – Kidapawan largely

untrue of using this type of leadership style. To Goleman (2000), the coercive

style is the least effective among all the six styles as applied in most situations.

According to him it is a carrot and stick approach, it means that when a leader

tells an employee to execute a specific task, it is expected that the employee

completes the assignment without asking questions and without complaining. Xie

et al(2011) also stated that the coercive (commanding) leader has clear

perception and requires their employees to do what they are exactly told.

Table 2 Commonly used Leadership Style by the Head of Office of SDO -

Kidapawan
Leadership Style Mean Qualitative Equivalent Rank
Commanding 2.59 Largely untrue 6
Pacesetting 3.77 Often true 5
Democratic 4.22 Always true 1
Coaching 3.82 Often true 3
Affiliative 3.87 Often true 2
Authoritative 3.78 Often true 4

Mean Qualitative Equivalent

1.00 – 1.80 totally untrue
1.81 – 2.60 Largely untrue
2.61 – 3.40 True 50% of the time
3.41 – 4.20 Often true
4.21 – 5 Always true
Level of employees’ job satisfaction

Table 3 revealed that the employees of SDO – Kidapawan are satisfied with the

leadership style used by the head of office which is “Democratic”, with a grand mean of

3.7. According to Spector (2008), Positive attitudes towards one's job and the

leadership style displayed in the workplace both play a role in influencing job

satisfaction. It implies that the leadership style has an important role to influence the job

satisfaction of the employees. From the study conducted by Mullins (2008), determined

that workers are more likely to perform well when they are pleased and happy with the

leadership and approach exhibited by their leader. It implies that employees of SDO –

Kidapawan are satisfied with the leadership style used by the head of office.

Table 3 Level of employees’ job satisfaction on the Leadership Style used By The

Head Of Schools Division Office Of Kidapawan

Mea Qualitative
Description
n Equivalent
Being able to keep busy all the time 3.82 Satisfied
The chance to work alone on the job 3.76 Satisfied
The chance to do different things from time to time 3.78 Satisfied
The chance to be "somebody" in the community 3.86 Satisfied
The way my boss handles his/her workers 3.92 Satisfied
The competence of my supervisor in making decisions 3.72 Satisfied
Being able to do things that don't go against my 3.86 Satisfied
conscience
The way my job provides for steady employment 3.92 Satisfied
The chance to do things for other people 4.14 Satisfied
The chance to tell people what to do 4 Satisfied
The chance to do something that makes use of my 3.62 Satisfied
abilities
The way company policies are put into practice 3.82 Satisfied
My pay and the amount of work I do 3.9 Satisfied
The chances for advancement on this job 3.86 Satisfied
The freedom to use my own judgment 3.84 Satisfied
The chance to try my own methods of doing the job 3.48 Satisfied
The working conditions 3.86 Satisfied
The way my co-workers get along with each other 2.52 Dissatisfie
d
The praise I get for doing a good job 3.68 Satisfied
The feeling of accomplishment I get from the job 3.54 Satisfied
Grand Mean 3.7 Satisfied

Mean Qualitative Equivalent

1.00 – 1.80 Very dissatisfied
1.81 – 2.60 Dissatisfied
2.61 – 3.40 Neutral
3.41 – 4.20 Satisfied
4.21 – 5 Very Satisfied
 SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

This chapter contains the summary, conclusion and recommendations based on

the result of the study.

Summary

This study was conducted among the 50 non-teaching employee of

Schools Division Office of Kidapawan at SDO – Kidapawan, Poblacion,

Kidapawam City. The study aimed to: Identify the leadership style commonly used

by the Head of Schools Division Office of Kidapawan. Determine the level of

satisfaction of the employees on the leadership style used by the Head of Schools

Division Office of Kidapawan.

A purposive sampling was used in the collections of data from the

respondents and retrieved personally by the researcher. The statistical

treatments used were frequency count and weighted mean.

Gathered data shows that among the leadership style assessed by the

employees, it found out that the “Democratic” style of Leadership was used by

the Head of SDO – Kidapawan with a weighted mean of 4.22 having a qualitative

equivalent of always true. This implies that the head of SDO – Kidapawan always

true of using this type of leadership style. Moreover, the level of employees’ job

satisfaction revealed that they are satisfied with the leadership style used by the

head of SDO – Kidapawan with a grand mean of 3.7. it implies that It implies that

the leadership style has an important role to influence the job satisfaction of the
 employees. The study also revealed that the leadership style having the lowest

weighted mean of 2.59 is Commanding (Coercive) style of leadership with a

qualitative equivalent of largely untrue. This implies that the Head of SDO –

Kidapawan largely untrue of using this style of leadership.

Conclusion

Based on the findings of the study, it can be concluded that the Democratic

Leadership style was commonly used by the Head of Schools Division Office of

Kidapawan and the level of employees’ job satisfaction on the leadership style used by

the Head of schools’ division office of Kidapawan is satisfied. Therefore, the assumption

of the study will not be accepted as it clearly shows that there is an impact between the

leadership style of the Head of office and on the employees’ job satisfaction.

Recommendation

The researcher recommends that the same study will be conducted and include

the difference between the Leadership style of a Man and a Woman in an

institution/organization. Consider the significance of leadership style towards job

satisfaction and performance of the employees to further strengthen the study.