Job Satisfaction and Leadership Qualities in Government and Private Sectors

Parush
Department of psychology, Sri Aurobindo College(Evening)
DSC 13: Essentials of organization psychology
Ms. Suruchi Singh

AIM - To study the level of job satisfaction and leadership qualities among government and
private sectors
Introduction
Public sector and Private sector
The private sector and public sector are two essential components of an economy, each with
distinct purposes and structures. The private sector consists of businesses and organizations
owned by individuals or corporations, with a primary focus on profit generation. These entities
operate across a wide range of industries, from small businesses to large multinational
companies like Apple and Amazon. Private sector organizations are typically funded through
private investments, revenue from sales, and sometimes loans. They thrive on competition and
innovation, constantly seeking to improve services and products to maintain profitability and
market relevance.
In contrast, the public sector includes government-controlled institutions and services
designed to serve the public good rather than generate profit. Its primary focus is on providing
essential services such as healthcare, education, public safety, infrastructure, and welfare.
Public sector organizations include public schools, hospitals, police departments, and
government agencies like the Department of Education or local city councils. Funded by taxes
and government revenue, the public sector ensures access to critical services, especially in
areas where the private sector may not operate profitably.
While the private sector is driven by profit and market forces, the public sector aims to
promote equity and societal welfare. Public sector activities are often guided by long-term goals
and societal needs, while the private sector responds quickly to market demands and consumer
behavior. Both sectors are interconnected, as governments often regulate private businesses to
ensure compliance with laws and standards, while private companies may rely on public
infrastructure and services. Ultimately, the private sector drives economic growth and
innovation, while the public sector ensures that essential services are available to all,
maintaining societal stability and well-being.
Job Satisfaction
Job satisfaction refers to the degree of contentment individuals feel toward their work,
reflecting how much they enjoy their job and its various aspects. It is influenced by a range of
factors, including the work environment, compensation, career growth opportunities, and work-
life balance. A positive and supportive workplace, where employees have good relationships
with colleagues and managers, contributes significantly to job satisfaction. Additionally, feeling
that one's work is meaningful, challenging, and aligned with personal skills can increase this
satisfaction. Fair compensation, along with benefits like health insurance, bonuses, and flexible
working arrangements, also plays a key role. Opportunities for career advancement and skill
development further enhance job satisfaction, as employees appreciate the chance to grow
within the organization. Work-life balance is another important factor, as maintaining harmony
between professional and personal life is essential for long-term contentment. Strong
management and leadership, characterized by open communication, support, and fairness, can
also positively impact how employees feel about their jobs. Ultimately, job satisfaction benefits
both employees and organizations, leading to higher productivity, increased loyalty, and better
workplace morale, while dissatisfaction can result in poor performance and higher turnover.
Leadership
Leadership in the context of organizations refers to the ability of individuals in
managerial or executive roles to guide, motivate, and influence their teams toward achieving
organizational goals. Effective leadership is crucial for the success of any organization, as it
shapes the company’s culture, drives strategic decision-making, and impacts employee
performance and morale.
In an organizational setting, leadership involves setting clear visions, communicating
goals, and aligning the efforts of employees with the broader objectives of the company.
Leaders provide direction by defining what needs to be done, who will do it, and how it will be
accomplished. A key element of organizational leadership is motivation—leaders inspire
employees to perform at their best by fostering a positive and motivating work environment. This
can be achieved through recognition, support, opportunities for growth, and setting an example
of dedication and accountability.
Moreover, leadership is not just about managing tasks but also about building
relationships within the organization. Good leaders communicate effectively, listen to employee
concerns, and encourage collaboration and innovation. They play a critical role in developing
talent, empowering employees to take on new challenges, and creating pathways for career
advancement.
Leadership styles can vary depending on the organization's culture and needs. Some
leaders take a more authoritative approach, making decisions unilaterally, while others prefer a
democratic style, involving employees in decision-making processes. Still, others may adopt a
transformational approach, focusing on inspiring change and encouraging employees to think
creatively and embrace new ideas.
In essence, leadership in organizations is about more than just management—it’s about
inspiring, guiding, and developing people to achieve collective success. Effective leaders not
only help organizations meet their strategic objectives but also foster a work culture that attracts
and retains talented employees, driving long-term organizational growth and success.
Leadership Styles
Autocratic Leadership
Autocratic Leadership is characterized by a leader who makes decisions independently with
little to no input from team members. In this style, leaders have complete control, set clear
expectations, and provide specific instructions. It is effective when quick decisions are required,
or in situations where strict oversight is necessary, such as during crises or with inexperienced
team members. However, the lack of team involvement in decision-making can lead to low
morale and reduced creativity among team members, who may feel undervalued or overlooked.
Democratic Leadership
Democratic Leadership, also known as participative leadership, involves the leader encouraging
team members to contribute ideas and feedback during the decision-making process. This
inclusive approach fosters a sense of ownership and belonging among team members, often
leading to higher levels of motivation and satisfaction. It’s effective for building strong team
relationships, increasing creativity, and promoting engagement. However, this style can be time-
consuming, especially when consensus is needed, making it less ideal for situations requiring
swift action.
Laissez-faire Leadership
Laissez-faire Leadership takes a hands-off approach, providing team members with a high level
of autonomy to make decisions and manage their work. Leaders offer guidance and resources
when needed but generally allow individuals the freedom to determine their paths. This style
works well with highly skilled, self-motivated teams that require minimal oversight. However, it
can lead to confusion, lack of direction, and decreased productivity if team members are not
sufficiently experienced or lack the discipline to manage their responsibilities effectively.
Review of literature
Correlational Studies Between Leadership style and Job Satisfaction
1. Belias & Koustelios

The review explores the relationship between leadership styles and job
satisfaction among employees. It highlights how leadership significantly impacts
employee satisfaction, which in turn is influenced by factors like workplace
culture and superior-subordinate relations. Various leadership styles, including
autocratic, democratic, and laissez-faire, are discussed, with an emphasis on
transformational leadership, which tends to yield better job satisfaction and
employee commitment. Leadership also plays a key role in shaping
organizational culture, which affects employee behavior and attitudes.

The paper notes that leadership's influence on job satisfaction is most

effective when it involves open communication, mutual respect, and employee
engagement. Flexible and participative management styles are generally
associated with higher employee satisfaction. Demographic factors such as age,
gender, and educational level also appear to influence how leadership styles are
perceived and their effects on job satisfaction, although more research is
required for definitive conclusions. In sum, effective leadership that is
participative and attentive to employee needs is crucial for enhancing job
satisfaction and overall organizational success.

2. Bogler
 The literature review in "The Influence of Leadership Style on Teacher Job
Satisfaction" by Ronit Bogler examines the impact of principals' leadership styles
(transformational and transactional) and decision-making approaches (autocratic
versus participative) on teacher job satisfaction. The study suggests that
transformational leadership, which inspires and motivates teachers, has a
stronger positive effect on job satisfaction compared to transactional leadership,
which relies more on rewards and maintaining the status quo.

Teachers who perceive their principals as transformational leaders tend to

report higher satisfaction, both directly and indirectly, through an improved
perception of their occupation. The review also highlights that participative
decision-making, where principals involve teachers in decision-making
processes, contributes to job satisfaction by fostering a sense of empowerment
and professional respect. Overall, the review emphasizes that teachers' job
satisfaction is influenced not only by leadership style but also by their perception
of the teaching profession's status, autonomy, and opportunities for professional
growth.

3. Pool

The study examines the factors influencing job satisfaction among 125
adult Americans aged 20 to 46, focusing on substitutes of leadership, leadership
behaviors, and work motivation. Results indicated that all but subordinate
substitutes were significant predictors of job satisfaction. Task substitutes,
organizational substitutes, consideration leadership behavior, initiating structure
leadership behavior, and work motivation collectively accounted for 54% of the
variance in job satisfaction. Notably, work motivation—based on expectancy
theory—and consideration leadership style had the most substantial impact on
satisfaction levels.

Consideration leadership behavior, which emphasizes concern for

subordinates and supportive relationships, significantly enhanced job
satisfaction, while initiating structure behavior provided clarity on tasks and
expectations. The study also analyzed responses across different occupational
groups—assembly workers, middle managers, and executives—highlighting
variations in how these factors predicted job satisfaction. Overall, the findings
underscore the importance of adapting leadership styles to specific roles,
demonstrating that effective leadership behaviors and motivational strategies are
essential for improving job satisfaction.

4. Mohammad Mosadegh Rad & Hossein Yarmohammadian

The study investigates the relationship between managers' leadership

styles and employees' job satisfaction at Isfahan University Hospitals in Iran.
Utilizing a descriptive and cross-sectional design, data were collected through
two questionnaires distributed to 814 employees, including first-line, middle, and
 senior managers, using stratified random sampling. The findings indicate that the
dominant leadership style among managers was participative, with mean scores
for the employee-oriented dimension of 52, 54, and 54 (out of 75) for first-line,
middle, and senior managers, respectively. In terms of the task-oriented
dimension, the scores were higher, at 68, 69, and 70 (out of 100).

Employee job satisfaction was measured on a 6-point scale, yielding a

mean score of 3.26 ± 0.56, indicating moderate satisfaction. The distribution of
job satisfaction levels revealed that only 7.3% of employees reported high
satisfaction, while a significant portion reported very low to moderate satisfaction,
particularly regarding salary, benefits, work conditions, promotions, and
communication. Conversely, employees expressed greater satisfaction with job
nature, co-workers, and supervision styles. A statistically significant correlation (p
< 0.001) was found between leadership behaviors and employee job satisfaction.

The study suggests that while participative leadership is generally

beneficial, it may not always be the best approach. Managers are encouraged to
choose leadership styles that align with the organizational culture and the
maturity of their employees. Although this research was conducted in Iran, the
findings may have broader implications, suggesting that similar studies in diverse
contexts could contribute to developing new leadership models and techniques
that are adaptable across cultures.

5. Brooke

The research aims to explore the impact of leadership style on employee

job satisfaction within nonprofit child care settings, highlighting the significance of
effective leader-employee relations in these organizations. High turnover rates in
child care centers contribute to substantial costs associated with separation,
vacancy, and training (Vickers, 2002). Consequently, the study emphasizes that
enhancing job satisfaction through targeted leadership strategies can foster a
more stable environment for both children and their families, as well as promote
positive relationships between leaders and staff, thereby strengthening the
overall organizational climate.

Leadership style plays a critical role in shaping employee satisfaction,

making this research particularly relevant for facilitating social change in a sector
that has received limited scholarly attention. Nonprofit child care agencies
represent a unique context where understanding the dynamics of leadership can
have profound implications. By investigating how different leadership styles
influence job satisfaction, the study aims to provide actionable insights that can
lead to improved employee morale and retention, ultimately benefiting the quality
of care provided to children.

This research fills a gap in the literature by focusing on a relatively

underexplored area, thereby contributing to the broader discourse on leadership
 effectiveness in nonprofit organizations. The findings could offer valuable
strategies for leaders in child care settings to enhance job satisfaction, reduce
turnover, and create a more supportive and productive work environment.

Correlational studies between sector of employment and job satisfaction

1. Kumari & Pandey

The debate between public and private sectors has been widely studied,
focusing on efficiency, job security, compensation, and working conditions. Public
sector employees are often motivated by intrinsic values, such as societal
contributions, while private sector employees are driven by extrinsic rewards like
higher salaries and career growth (Perry & Hondeghem, 2008). Public
organizations are typically more bureaucratic, impacting motivation and job
satisfaction compared to the more flexible private sector (Boyne, 2002; Rainey &
Bozeman, 2000). Public sector jobs offer greater job security and work-life
balance, while private sector roles provide higher remuneration and promotion
opportunities, making a direct comparison complex (Buelens & Van den Broeck,
2007).

Job satisfaction is influenced by factors unique to each sector. In the

public sector, intrinsic rewards such as a sense of accomplishment are
significant, while in the private sector, extrinsic factors like pay and recognition
play a larger role (Judge et al., 2000). Job ambivalence, the coexistence of both
positive and negative attitudes toward a job, is gaining attention as it affects job
performance. Ambivalence can lead to fluctuating motivation and productivity,
resulting in inconsistent performance (Kaplan et al., 2009). This effect can be
influenced by work environment and managerial support, and understanding
these factors can help mitigate ambivalence’s negative impact (Wright & Bonett,
2007).

In conclusion, both sectors offer distinct advantages and challenges

concerning job satisfaction and performance. Public sector employees often
value job security and societal contributions, while private sector employees are
motivated by higher pay and growth opportunities. Future research should
explore these findings across diverse samples to better understand sectoral
differences and their impact on job satisfaction and performance.

2. Wang, Yang, & Wang

The literature on job satisfaction and turnover intentions highlights key

differences between public and private sector employees, particularly in Taiwan.
Studies generally show that public sector employees tend to have lower turnover
intentions and are more satisfied with intrinsic job factors, such as job security
and societal contributions, while their private sector counterparts report higher
extrinsic satisfaction related to salary and promotion opportunities (Perry &
 Hondeghem, 2008; Boyne, 2002). These factors result in distinct patterns of
employee retention and motivation between the two sectors.

Research specific to Taiwan shows that public employees exhibit lower

extrinsic job satisfaction but also lower turnover intentions compared to private
sector employees, which indicates the importance of intrinsic motivators in
retaining public employees (Chen et al., 2020). Moreover, the negative
relationship between job satisfaction and turnover intention is weaker among
public employees, suggesting that extrinsic rewards play a less significant role in
their decision to stay in or leave their jobs.

To address these issues, public sector managers in Taiwan are advised to

improve extrinsic job satisfaction and promote workforce mobility by helping
unsatisfied employees transition to more fulfilling roles. Such strategies could
enhance employee motivation and prevent overly low turnover rates, which can
limit the introduction of new talent and ideas into the organization (Wright &
Bonett, 2007). Overall, understanding the dynamics of job satisfaction and
turnover intentions can help public and private sector managers develop tailored
strategies to motivate and retain their employees effectively.

3. Chauhan & Solanki

The literature on job satisfaction between government and private sector

employees often reveals varying results based on the region and context of
study. While intrinsic factors such as job security and work-life balance are
typically seen as contributing to higher satisfaction among government
employees, private sector workers often report greater satisfaction due to
extrinsic rewards like salary and career growth (Perry & Hondeghem, 2008;
Boyne, 2002).

In the context of this study, which used the Generic Job Satisfaction Scale
developed by Macdonald and MacIntyre (1997), data was collected from a
sample of 60 male and female employees from Anand district through face-to-
face interviews. The analysis showed that there is no significant difference in job
satisfaction between government and private employees. This finding suggests
that, in this region, both sectors may offer comparable levels of satisfaction,
potentially due to similar working conditions or benefits offered by employers.

These results highlight the importance of considering local context and

specific factors influencing job satisfaction, as it may vary significantly across
different regions and industries. It also suggests that strategies aimed at
enhancing employee satisfaction should be tailored to the specific needs and
motivations of both government and private sector employees rather than
assuming universal differences between the two sectors.

4. Andrade & Westover

 The literature on job satisfaction suggests numerous benefits, including
increased productivity, performance, creativity, innovation, motivation, and
involvement. Studies have often shown that job satisfaction is influenced by
factors such as work-life balance, intrinsic and extrinsic rewards, and workplace
relations (Locke, 1976; Judge et al., 2000). However, these factors may impact
employees differently depending on whether they work in the public or private
sector.

The current study, which examines data from 37 countries collected

through the International Social Survey Program, finds significant differences in
job satisfaction determinants between public and private sector employees.
Public sector workers tend to report higher job satisfaction in many of the study's
key variables, indicating that factors like job security, work-life balance, and
social contributions may play a larger role in these settings (Perry & Hondeghem,
2008). The regression analysis also reveals that a one-size-fits-all approach to
job satisfaction does not apply globally, as context plays a crucial role in shaping
employee experiences and outcomes.

The study’s findings highlight specific actionable items for managers, such
as tailoring strategies to enhance job satisfaction based on sector-specific needs
and cultural context. It also points to the importance of future research that
focuses on more detailed country-specific variations and explores sectoral
determinants on a global level, recognizing the complex interplay of factors
affecting job satisfaction in different environments.

5. Mihajlov & Mihajlov

The literature on job satisfaction and turnover intentions between public

and private sector employees highlights differences influenced by organizational
context and cultural factors. Studies generally suggest that public sector
employees often experience greater job satisfaction due to intrinsic rewards like
job security and social contribution, while private sector employees are motivated
more by extrinsic factors such as pay and career growth (Perry & Hondeghem,
2008; Boyne, 2002).

This study, focused on Serbia, used questionnaires to compare job

satisfaction and turnover intentions between private- and public-sector
employees. Results indicated that public employees in Serbia report higher
extrinsic job satisfaction and lower turnover intentions compared to their private-
sector counterparts. Key contributors to public employee satisfaction include
interpersonal relationships, work organization, and effective communication
within the organization. These factors are influenced by cultural aspects, such as
a high degree of collectivism, which emphasizes close, harmonious relationships
and a need for information to reduce uncertainty and foster identification with the
organization.
 The findings suggest that Serbian public employees' satisfaction is deeply
tied to social cohesion and organizational communication. Future research could
further explore the cultural and organizational dynamics that impact job
satisfaction and turnover intentions, especially how such factors vary across
different contexts and sectors. Managers can use these insights to create
strategies that enhance workplace relationships and information flow to improve
job satisfaction and retention, particularly in collectivist cultures.

Correlational studies between leadership styles and sectors of employment

1. Hansen & Villadsen

The literature on public and private management often compares
leadership styles, yet there are relatively few empirical studies focusing on these
differences. Leadership style has traditionally been linked to factors such as the
manager's characteristics, employee traits, and the nature of their work (Rainey
& Bozeman, 2000). However, this study approaches leadership by focusing on
the job context of managers, including factors like job complexity, role clarity, and
job autonomy.

Using survey data from 949 public and private managers in Denmark, the
study found significant differences in job context between public and private
sector managers. Public sector managers experience higher job complexity and
lower role clarity, which contributes to their preference for participative
leadership, involving employees in decision-making processes to navigate the
complexities and uncertainties of their roles. In contrast, private sector managers,
facing clearer role definitions and greater autonomy, tend to adopt more directive
leadership, focusing on achieving specific outcomes efficiently.

These findings highlight that differences in job context, such as the degree
of role clarity and autonomy, significantly influence the leadership styles
employed in the public and private sectors. Public managers, dealing with a more
ambiguous work environment, are inclined toward collaborative leadership, while
private sector managers, with a clearer scope of responsibility, prefer directive
approaches. Understanding these dynamics can help managers across sectors
develop leadership strategies that align with their specific job contexts and
optimize their teams' effectiveness. Future research could further explore how
other contextual factors impact leadership styles across different countries and
organizational settings.

2. Andersen
The literature on managerial behavior often seeks to understand the
distinctions between public and private sector managers, focusing on aspects
such as leadership style, decision-making, and motivation. Traditionally, public
and private sector managers have been viewed as differing fundamentally due to
 the nature of their organizational environments (Boyne, 2002; Rainey &
Bozeman, 2000).

This article investigates behavioral differences between public and private

sector managers, focusing on leadership style, decision-making, and motivation.
Data from 459 managers, including two groups of public managers (social
insurance agency managers and public school principals) and two samples of
private managers in Sweden, reveal significant behavioral differences between
public and private managers. Public managers showed similarities in leadership
styles, regardless of their specific organization, indicating a more consistent
approach to task, relationship, and change-oriented leadership across the public
sector. On the other hand, private sector managers differed in leadership
behaviors, likely influenced by varied organizational contexts and goals.

Differences between public and private managers were also observed in

decision-making styles and motivational profiles. Public managers tended to
adopt a more relationship-oriented and collaborative approach, while private
managers often leaned toward task and achievement-oriented behavior. These
variations could be explained by the different values, objectives, and operational
demands inherent in public and private organizations. Understanding these
behavioral differences can help tailor leadership development programs and
decision-making strategies suitable for each sector. Future research could further
explore how organizational culture and specific contextual factors influence
managerial behavior in both public and private settings.

3. Anastasiou & Garametsi

The literature on job satisfaction and leadership styles often highlights the
impact of organizational conditions on employee morale, particularly in the
context of public versus private sectors. This study investigates the perceived
leadership styles and job satisfaction among teachers in public and private
schools in Epirus, Greece, amid the ongoing financial crisis that has led to
deteriorating work conditions, erratic funding, and low staff morale in public
administration.

Using the Warr-Cook-Wall job satisfaction scale to measure job

satisfaction and the MLQ 5X-Short to assess leadership perception, the study
found that private school teachers reported higher job satisfaction levels than
their public school counterparts. Both sectors demonstrated a predominance of
transformational leadership, which emphasizes inspiration and motivation,
followed by transactional leadership, which focuses on reward-based
performance. However, private schools showed a significantly higher prevalence
of transformational leadership, which may contribute to their teachers’ greater job
satisfaction.

The findings suggest that the higher job satisfaction levels among private
school teachers can be attributed, at least in part, to more favorable
 environmental factors, such as better work conditions and motivational support
from school principals. This study underscores the importance of leadership style
and environmental factors in shaping job satisfaction, particularly in times of
financial strain. Future research could explore the specific aspects of leadership
and organizational conditions that most significantly impact job satisfaction
across various educational settings, especially in regions facing economic
challenges.

4. Mathew, Rajam & Nair

The debate surrounding the effectiveness of human resource practices in
public versus private sector organizations has long been contentious, particularly
following the push for public sector entities to adopt practices from their private
counterparts. However, empirical evidence to support the notion that private
sector practices are inherently superior remains limited. This study aims to fill
that gap by comparing work engagement levels between public and private
sector firms in India, while also examining the influence of dominant leadership
styles on these engagement levels.

Using a structured questionnaire, data were collected from 240

managerial employees across both sectors, ensuring equal representation. The
study employed SPSS for data analysis and revealed that, while the dominant
leadership styles in public and private organizations were not significantly
different, private sector employees exhibited higher levels of work engagement.
Additionally, the analysis indicated that the relationship between leadership style
and work engagement was significant only within public sector firms.

These findings suggest that, despite similarities in leadership styles, the

public sector may face unique challenges that hinder employee engagement,
emphasizing the need for targeted leadership strategies to enhance work
engagement in this sector. The study contributes to the existing literature by
providing empirical evidence on work engagement levels and the role of
leadership in both sectors, highlighting the importance of tailored leadership
approaches to foster higher engagement in public organizations. Future research
could further explore the specific leadership behaviors that drive engagement in
various organizational contexts and the potential impact of external factors on
these dynamics.

5. Kılıç
This study aims to compare the leadership styles of public and private
school principals, specifically focusing on democratic, autocratic, and laissez-
faire leadership as perceived by teachers. The research was conducted among
teachers in public and private schools in the central districts of Konya during the
2018-2019 academic year. Data were collected from 420 randomly selected
teachers using the Leadership Style Scale of School Principals, developed by
Kılıç and Yılmaz (2018), within a quantitative research framework.
 The analysis revealed significant differences in the leadership styles
exhibited by public and private school principals. Private school principals
demonstrated a higher mean score in the democratic leadership style, indicating
a more participative approach. Conversely, public school principals had higher
mean scores in both autocratic and laissez-faire leadership styles. The findings
highlighted that public school principals were more likely to adopt autocratic
leadership, which received the highest mean score among the leadership styles
assessed, while private school principals scored the lowest in laissez-faire
leadership.

These results suggest that the context of public versus private education
influences the leadership styles of school principals, with public school principals
tending to favor more directive approaches, while private school principals are
more inclined towards democratic practices. Understanding these dynamics can
help inform leadership training and development programs tailored to the specific
needs and environments of public and private schools. Future research could
further explore the implications of these leadership styles on teacher satisfaction
and student outcomes within different educational contexts.

Rationale

This study examines job satisfaction and leadership qualities in government versus
private sectors, crucial due to their differing organizational cultures and structures.
Understanding these differences can help improve employee motivation, retention, and
leadership development. Findings may provide insights for HR and policymakers to
tailor strategies that enhance job satisfaction and effective leadership, supporting
productivity and organizational success in each sector.

Problem
To explore the level of job satisfaction and leadership styles among government and
private sector employees.
Objective
 To study the level of job satisfaction and leadership styles among government
and private sector employees.
 To compare the level of job satisfaction and leadership styles in private and
government sector employees
Hypothesis
H1- There will be no correlation between level of job satisfaction and leadership styles
among government sector employee.
H2- There will be no correlation between level of job satisfaction and leadership styles
among private sector employees
H3-There will be no significant difference between the different levels of job satisfaction
between government and private sector employees.
H4- there will be no significant difference between leadership styles among government
and private sector employees.
Methodology
Research design
Comparative research design was used for this study. A comparative research design is a
methodological approach in which researchers systematically compare two or more groups,
cases, variables, or conditions to identify patterns, relationships, and differences. The goal of
this design is to understand how variables or groups differ, which can offer insights into
causation, correlation, or the impact of specific variables.
Sample
Our sample consisted of 2 individuals employed in private sector and 2 in government sector.
This individual data was then pooled with the data from the rest of the students. Then the total
sample became 146 individuals out of which 73 were from government sector and 73 were from
private sector. It was made sure that none of them were suffering from any illness and that they
were willing to participate. Purposive sampling was used as the sampling method. Our first
participant was a 42 year old female from the private sector. Our second participant was a 32
year old Male from the private sector. Our third participant was a 33 year old male from the
government sector. Our fourth participant was a 45 year old male from the government sector.

Tools
1. The Leadership Style Questionnaire
It was given by Peter G. Northouse in the year 1997 and revised for the last time in
2021. It is generally considered reliable, with consistent results across various studies,
although its self-reported nature may introduce some bias. It demonstrates content
validity by aligning with established leadership theories like transformational,
transactional, and laissez-faire leadership. The LSQ uses a Likert-type scale(1-5), where
respondents rate statements on a scale to indicate the extent of agreement. The scoring
criterion involves calculating the scores for each leadership style based on the
responses, which helps identify the predominant leadership style of an individual. It
measures leadership styles in three dimensions, democratic, autocratic and laissez-
faire.
2. The work and meaning inventory
The Work and Meaning Inventory (WAMI), developed by Michael Steger in 2012,
assesses the degree to which individuals find meaning in their work. It is considered
reliable, with studies showing good internal consistency and test-retest reliability. The
scale demonstrates good construct validity, as it effectively measures the concept of
meaning in work, which is central to theories of well-being and motivation. The WAMI
 uses a Likert-type scale, typically ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly
agree), where respondents rate statements about the purpose and significance of their
work. The scores help determine how meaningful an individual perceives their work to
be, with higher scores indicating a greater sense of work-related meaning. It assesses a
total of 3 subscales. namely Positive Meaning subscale score, Meaning-Making through
Work subscale, and the Greater Good Motivations subscale.

Instructions
Following instructions were given to the subject. These were directly sourced from the tools.

For the Work and Meaning Inventory (WAMI):

” Please indicate how well the following statements applies to you and your work and/or career.
Please try to answer as truthfully as you can.”

For the Leadership style Questionnaire:

This Leadership Style Questionnaire helps incoming leaders understand their preferred
leadership style. The questionnaire provides three categories of leadership style (Authoritative,
Democratic, Laissez faire) which are determined by a participant’s cumulative score. Please
indicate how well the statement applies to you on the scale of 1-5.

Procedure
Proper consent was taken from each and every participant and they were informed
about the goal of the study. After the participants consented to the study, they were taken to a
quiet and comfortable environment where they can comfortably fill out the questionnaires
without any disturbance. The estimated time for completing both questionnaires was
approximately 20-30 minutes. The estimated time for completing both questionnaires was
approximately 20-30 minutes.
After the participants finished, the researchers collected the completed questionnaires
and input the data into SPSS for analysis. The analysis focused on identifying trends and
correlations between perceived work meaning, job satisfaction levels, and leadership styles
across the government and private sectors. This structured approach aimed to yield meaningful
insights into how leadership impacts employee well-being in different organizational contexts.
Figure: Procedure of data collection and analysis

Rapport
establishment

Control of
extraneous
variables

Consent

Proforma in
hand

Tabulation of
data

Grouping of data
and analysis
Results

Table 1 Individual cases

Government Private
1 2 1 2
Authoritarian 26 21 29 25
Democratic 20 21 27 17
Laissez-Faire 18 19 13 21
Positive Meaning 10 16 14 19
Meaning making through 7 13 8 15
work
Greater good motivations 6 13 12 14

This table indicates the individual results we received from the 4 employees we interviewed
individually. Top three columns are the leadership style questionnaire scores while the bottom
three are the WAMI scores.

Table 2: Correlations (Govt)

Authoritarian Democratic Laissez-Faire

Positive Meaning Pearson Correlation .118 .054 .067

Sig. (2-tailed) .320 .650 .573

Meaning making through Pearson Correlation .320 .080 .051

work
Sig. (2-tailed) .006 .503 .668

Greater good Pearson Correlation -.065 .120 .046

motivations
Sig. (2-tailed) .586 .313 .702

Table 2 presents the correlation coefficients for government sector participants. Notably, a
significant positive correlation was found between meaning making through work and
democratic leadership style (r = .320, p = .006), indicating that those who perceive their work as
meaningful are more likely to experience democratic leadership. However, other correlations,
such as those involving positive meaning and greater good motivations, did not reach statistical
significance.
As we can see the highest meaning making through work and positive meaning scores correlate
relatively highly with authoritarian leadership style. While the greater good motivations score is
the opposite. It scored the highest correlation with the democratic leadership style.

Table 3: Correlations (Pvt)

Authoritarian Democratic Laissez-Faire

Positive Meaning Pearson Correlation .084 -.019 .005

Sig. (2-tailed) .480 .874 .969

Meaning making through Pearson Correlation .052 -.136 -.096

work
Sig. (2-tailed) .664 .251 .421

Greater good Pearson Correlation .049 .063 .009

motivations
Sig. (2-tailed) .678 .596 .938

In Table 3, the correlations for private sector participants revealed no significant

relationships across the measured variables. All Pearson correlation values were low, with the
highest being for positive meaning with authoritarian leadership (r = .084, p = .480), suggesting a
lack of meaningful association between leadership styles and job satisfaction dimensions in this
sector.

The data analysis was conducted using SPSS to examine the relationships between
leadership styles and various dimensions of work meaning among participants from both
government and private sectors. The analysis included correlation coefficients and independent
samples t-tests, providing insights into how leadership styles influence job satisfaction and
meaningfulness at work.
Table 4: Group Statistics
Std. Error
Govt/Pvt N Mean Std. Deviation Mean

Authoritarian 1 73 20.86 2.600 .304

2 73 20.77 3.932 .460

Democratic 1 73 20.92 3.578 .419

2 73 22.21 3.480 .407

Laissez-Faire 1 73 19.05 3.527 .413

2 73 19.16 2.555 .299

Positive Meaning 1 73 14.66 3.015 .353

2 73 14.47 3.997 .468

Meaning making through 1 73 11.14 2.429 .284

work
2 73 11.59 3.072 .360

Greater good 1 73 9.86 3.246 .380

motivations
2 73 9.08 2.957 .346

Group Statistics
Table 4 summarizes the group statistics for both sectors. The means for democratic leadership
were higher in the private sector (M = 22.21) compared to the government sector (M = 20.92),
indicating a potential preference or effectiveness of democratic leadership in private
organizations. Conversely, the means for authoritarian and laissez-faire leadership styles were
relatively similar across both sectors.

Table 5 t-test for Equality of Means

t df Sig. (2- tailed)
Authoritarian 0.174 144 0.862
Democratic -2.204 144 0.029
Laissez-Faire -0.215 144 0.830
Positive Meaning 0.327 144 0.744
Meaning making through work -0.986 144 0.326
Greater good motivations 1.519 144 0.131
Independent Samples Test
Table 5 shows the results of the independent samples t-tests conducted to compare means
between government and private sector participants. A significant difference was observed in
democratic leadership, where private sector participants reported a higher mean score (M =
22.21) compared to government participants (M = 20.92), with a t-value of -2.204 and a p-value
of .029. This suggests that democratic leadership is perceived more favorably in the private
sector.
In contrast, no significant differences were found for authoritarian or laissez-faire
leadership styles, nor for any of the dimensions related to work meaning or motivations across
sectors. The results indicate that while certain leadership styles may resonate differently within
sectors, overall job satisfaction and meaning may not be significantly influenced by these styles
in all contexts.

Discussion
The study aimed to explore job satisfaction and leadership qualities among employees in
government and private sectors, focusing on the relationships between leadership styles, job
satisfaction, and sector of employment. The findings revealed interesting patterns in how
different leadership styles affect employees' motivations and satisfaction levels in both sectors.
Our first participant which was from the government sector had authoritarian leadership
as the most dominant leadership style, followed by democratic and then lastly laissez-faire.
Their positive meaning score was on the lower side along with their meaning making through
work score and greater good motivations score. Our second participant from the government
sector had higher than average positive meaning and meaning making through work scores and
significantly higher than average greater good motivation score.

Our first individual from the private sector had authoritarian leadership as the most
dominating leadership style and it was also significantly higher than our average of all the
participants. They also had about average positive meaning score and below average meaning
making through work score and above average greater good motivation score. Our second
private sector participant was similar to the first one in terms of leadership style. But all of his
Work and meaning inventory scores were significantly higher than average.
In the government sector, democratic leadership showed a significant positive
correlation with "meaning making through work." This indicates that government employees who
experienced democratic leadership were more likely to find purpose and fulfillment in their roles.
(Belias, D., & Koustelios, A. 2014) The absence of strong relationships between other
leadership styles and work-related motivations in the government sector suggests that the
influence of leadership on job satisfaction is complex and varies depending on the style. In
contrast, no significant correlations were found between leadership styles and work motivations
in the private sector, which implies that leadership style may not be the primary determinant of
job satisfaction there. Private sector employees might prioritize other factors such as
compensation, career advancement opportunities, and work environment over leadership styles.
 The analysis of leadership styles across both sectors indicated that democratic
leadership was more prevalent in the private sector,(Kılıç, Y., 2022) as demonstrated by its
higher mean score compared to the government sector. The t-test results further confirmed a
statistically significant difference in democratic leadership between the two sectors, suggesting
that employees in private organizations are more likely to experience participative decision-
making. This could contribute to a more positive work culture and higher levels of job
satisfaction. On the other hand, authoritarian and laissez-faire leadership styles did not show
significant differences between the sectors, indicating similar levels of these styles in both
environments.

The study also assessed job satisfaction indicators, such as "meaning making through
work" and "greater good motivations." The results showed no significant differences in these
indicators between government and private sectors. Employees in both sectors appeared to
derive similar levels of meaning from their work, regardless of their organization's leadership
style or context.

The findings highlight the importance of democratic leadership in promoting job

satisfaction, particularly in the government sector, where a more participative leadership
approach was linked to greater meaning-making. This aligns with existing literature that
suggests participative decision-making tends to enhance job satisfaction by fostering a sense of
empowerment among employees. However, the lack of significant correlations in the private
sector suggests that leadership style may be less critical compared to other factors, such as
compensation, career opportunities, and organizational culture, in determining job satisfaction
for private sector employees. These findings indicate that leadership approaches need to be
tailored to the specific demands of each sector to be effective.

To enhance job satisfaction in the government sector, managers could benefit from
adopting more democratic leadership approaches, which may help employees find greater
meaning and fulfillment in their work. In the private sector, focusing on other motivators such as
career development opportunities and competitive compensation, in addition to leadership
improvements, could further boost employee satisfaction. It is also worth noting that the small
sample size of the study, with only four participants, limits the generalizability of these results.
Future research should use a larger and more diverse sample to obtain findings that can be
more widely applied. Additionally, future studies could consider the impact of cultural and
contextual factors on leadership and job satisfaction, as these factors play a significant role in
shaping employee experiences across sectors.

In summary, the study provides valuable insights into the leadership styles and job
satisfaction levels of employees in government and private sectors. It emphasizes the
significance of adapting leadership styles to meet the needs of employees within each sector
and suggests that participative leadership can play a crucial role in enhancing job satisfaction,
particularly in public organizations.

References
 Belias, D., & Koustelios, A. (2014). Leadership and job satisfaction--A review. European
Scientific Journal, 10(8).
 Bogler, R. (2001). The influence of leadership style on teacher job satisfaction.
Educational administration quarterly, 37(5), 662-683.
 Pool, S. W. (1997). The relationship of job satisfaction with substitutes of leadership,
leadership behavior, and work motivation. The Journal of Psychology, 131(3), 271-283.
 Mohammad Mosadegh Rad, A., & Hossein Yarmohammadian, M. (2006). A study of
relationship between managers' leadership style and employees' job satisfaction.
Leadership in Health services, 19(2), 11-28.
 Brooke, S. (2006). Leadership and job satisfaction. Academic Leadership: The Online
Journal, 4(1), 6.
 Kumari, G., & Pandey, K. M. (2011). Job satisfaction in public sector and private sector:
A comparison. International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, 2(3),
222.
 Wang, Y. D., Yang, C., & Wang, K. Y. (2012). Comparing public and private employees'
job satisfaction and turnover. Public Personnel Management, 41(3), 557-573.
 Chauhan, A., & Solanki, P. M. (2014). A comparative study of Job Satisfaction in
government and private employees. The International Journal of Indian Psychology,
2(1), 17-22.
 Andrade, M. S., & Westover, J. H. (2023). Job satisfaction–an international comparison
of public and private sector employees. International Journal of Public Administration,
46(16), 1151-1165.
 Mihajlov, S., & Mihajlov, N. (2016). Comparing public and private employees' job
satisfaction and turnover intention. MEST Journal, 4(1), 75-86.
 Hansen, J. R., & Villadsen, A. R. (2010). Comparing public and private managers'
leadership styles: Understanding the role of job context. International Public
Management Journal, 13(3), 247-274.
 Andersen, J. A. (2010). Public versus private managers: How public and private
managers differ in leadership behavior. Public administration review, 70(1), 131-141.
 Anastasiou, S., & Garametsi, V. (2021). Perceived leadership style and job satisfaction
of teachers in public and private schools. International Journal of Management in
Education, 15(1), 58-77.
 Mathew, J., Rajam, K., & Nair, S. (2024). Leadership Style and Work Engagement: A
Comparison of Private and Public Sector Firms in India. Vision, 28(4), 523-528.
 Kılıç, Y. (2022). A Comparative Study on Democratic, Autocratic and Laissez-faire
Leadership Styles of Public and Private School Principals. Eğitim Kuram ve Uygulama
Araştırmaları Dergisi, 8(2), 128-141.