Chapter Four

Data Presentation, Analyzing and Interpretation

4.1 Introduction
This chapter begins with a description of the characteristics of the study respondents and then the
description of the dependent and independent variables and ends with hypothesis testing.

4.2 Demographic characteristic

4.2.1 Gender of the respondents
TABLE 4.1. 1 GENDER OF THE RESPONDENTS
Frequency Percent
Valid Male 137 75.7
Female 44 24.3
Total 181 100.0
Primary Data (Source, 2024)
The table 4.1.1 above indicates that 137 (76%) of Barako Construction Company Employee were
male and 44(24%) of them were female. This implies that majority Barako Company workers here
male and this is because that Barako Company mostly employs the men than the women.

4.2.2 Marital Status

TABLE 4.1. 2 MARITAL STATUS
Frequency Percent
Valid Single 71 39.2
Married 110 60.8
Total 181 100.0
Primary Data (Source, 2024)

The table 4.1.2 above indicates that 110 (61%) of Barako Construction Company Employee were
married and 71(39%) of them were single. This implies that majority Barako Company workers
were married, which might mean that they have stable personal lives that could positively affect
their work performance. On the other hand the number of single employees shows that the
workforce is diverse, with various personal circumstances and possibly different priorities or
commitment.

1
4.2.3 Educational Level of the respondents
TABLE 4.1. 3 EDUCATION LEVEL OF THE RESPONDENTS
Frequency Percent
Valid Secondary 26 14.4
Primary 22 12.2
Post-Graduate 28 15.5
Diploma 34 18.8
Bachelor’ Degree 71 39.2
Total 181 100.0
Primary Data (Source, 2024)

The table 4.1.3 above indicates that the majority 71(39%) and 34(19%) of Barako Construction
Company Employees’ educational level were bachelor’s degree and Diploma respectively.
28(16%), 26(14%), and 22(12%) of them were Post-graduate, Secondary and primary level of
education as respectively. This shows that the company hires employees with higher education,
like bachelor’s degrees. But it also has employees with different educational backgrounds,
including Diploma, Post-graduates, Secondary and primary education levels.

4.2.4 Age of the respondents

TABLE 4.1. 4 AGE OF THE RESPONDENTS

Frequency Percent
Valid 51 and above years 25 13.8
40-50 years 52 28.7
29-39 years 60 33.1
18-28 years 44 24.3
Total 181 100.0
Primary Data (Source, 2024)

The table 4.1.3 above presents that 44(24%) of Barako Company Employees were aged between
18-28 years old, 60(33.1%) of them were aged between 29-39 years old, 52(29%) of them were
aged between 40-50 years old and only 25(14%) were aged 51 and above years old. This shows
that the majority of Barako Construction Company Employees were aged between 29-39 years
old, Implying that the company may actively hire individuals with this range, possibly because
they bring a balance of experience and energy to the workforce.

2
4.2.5 Work Experience
TABLE 4.1. 5 W ORK EXPERIENCE

Frequency Percent
Valid More than 10 years 53 29.3
Less than 1 year 37 20.4
6-10 years 49 27.1
1-5 years 42 23.2
Total 181 100.0
Primary Data (Source, 2024)
According to the above table 4.1.5 shows that most staffs had worked more than 10-years old,
representing 53(29%), followed by 49(27%), 42(23%), who had worked for 6-10 years and 1-5
years respectively. A reasonable number of respondents 37(20%) had worked less than 1 year in
the Barako Construction Company in Burao, Somaliland. This indicates that company has a mix
of experienced and new employees, with many having long-term experience. Having staff with
different levels of experience creates a balanced workforce, bringing both seasoned expertise and
fresh perspectives to the company.

4.2.6 Department/ Role at Barako Company

TABLE 4.1. 6 DEPARTMENT / ROLE AT BARAKO COMPANY

Frequency Percent
Valid Procurement 6 3.3
Other staffs 133 73.5
Marketing 12 6.6
Manager 5 2.8
HRM 7 3.9
Finance 8 4.4
Engineer 10 5.5
Total 181 100.0
Primary Data (Source, 2024)

According to the above table 4.1.6 shows that majority of employees work in different parts of the
Barako Construction Company in Burao, Somaliland, 133(74%) fall into category of other staff,
followed by 12(7%), 10(6%), 8(4%), 7(4%), 6(3%), were Marketing, Engineers, Finance, HRM,
and Procurement Departments Staffs respectively, and 5(3%) were Managers. This indicates that
company has a diverse workforce.

3
4.3 Analysis of findings on Variables
The study focuses on leadership styles, and employee performance. To achieve the objectives, 20
questions were divided into four dimensions of leadership styles: Autocratic, Laissez faire,
Transactional, and Transformational leadership. Additionally, 5 questions for employee
performance based on respondents' perceptions. Therefore, a total of 25 questions were used for
the analysis. To compare the respondent's perception about the different variables, I used
descriptive statistics like mean and standard deviation. The mean shows how much, on average,
the sample group agrees or disagrees with various statements. Thus, to do this I used the weighted
average value. To calculate the weighted average value, I simply summed up the mean values for
the items, then divided by the total number of items. In addition, standard deviation shows the
variability of an observed response. The summary of each dimension is presented below.

4.3.1 Autocratic Leadership Style

TABLE 1 AUTOCRATIC LEADERSHIP STYLE
Items SA A (%) N (%) D (%) SD Mean ơ
(%) (%)
My manager makes most
of the decisions without 33 64 32 29 23 3.30 1.292
consulting the team (18.2) (35.4) (17.7) (16.0) (12.7)

I often have little to no

input in the planning of 38 77 16 32 18 3.47 1.276
tasks and goals. (21.0) (42.5) (8.8) (17.7) (9.9)
My manager expects strict
compliance with rules and 39 62 20 44 16 3.35 1.298
procedures. (21.5) (34.3) (11.0) (24.3) (8.8)

I receive direct and clear

instructions on what I need 40 69 28 31 13 3.51 1.214
to do in my job. (22.1) (38.1) (15.5) (17.1) (7.2)
Whenever I make a
mistake, my supervisor 41 69 27 33 11 3.53 1.200
notes it and advises against (22.7) (38.1) (14.9) (18.2) (6.1)
its repetition.

Note: N=181; SA= Strongly Agree; A=Agree; N= Neutral; D=Disagree; SD= Strongly
Disagree. Decision = Weighted Average = 17.16/5 =3.43.

4
Table 1 shows the majority of respondents either agree (Strongly Agree + Agree = 53.6%) or are
neutral (17.7%) about their manager making decisions without consulting the team. The mean
score for this statement is 3.30, indicating moderate agreement with this behavior. The standard
deviation is relatively low (1.292), showing that the responses are clustered around the mean,
indicating consistency in perception. This suggests that many employees either agree or are neutral
about their manager's decision-making process, with responses clustering around the mean. The
relatively low standard deviation indicates consistent perceptions among the respondents,
indicating a moderate level of agreement with the behavior described.

The majority of respondents (Strongly Agree + Agree = 63.5%) agree that they have little to no
input in task and goal planning. The mean rating for this statement is 3.47, indicating a moderate
level of agreement. The standard deviation is modest (1.276), indicating that people responded
consistently. This suggests that many employees feel they lack involvement in planning tasks and
goals, with responses clustered around the mean, indicating a consistent perception among the
respondents.

A significant portion of respondents agree (Strongly Agree + Agree = 55.8%) that their
management expects strict compliance with rules and procedures. The mean score for this
statement is 3.35, indicating a moderate level of agreement. The standard deviation is modest
(1.298), indicating consistency in responses. This suggests that while there is a general agreement
with the expectation of strict compliance, there is also moderate level of variability in how strongly
employees perceive this expectation.

The majority of respondents (Strongly Agree + Agree = 60.2%) support having direct and clear
instructions. The mean score for this statement is 3.51, indicating a moderate level of agreement.
The standard deviation is minimal (1.214), indicating that the replies are consistent. This suggests
that a significant number of respondents agree with the statement receiving direct and clear
instructions. The minimal standard deviation indicates that responses were consistent among the
participants, supporting the notion of a moderate level of agreement.

The majority of participants (Strongly Agree + Agree = 60.8%) support their supervisor providing
feedback on mistakes. The mean score for this statement is 3.53, indicating a moderate level of
agreement. The standard deviation is relatively low (1.200), implying that the replies are
consistent. This suggest that a significant majority of participants agree with the statement

5
regarding receiving feedback on mistakes from their supervisors. The relatively low standard
deviation indicates consistency in responses among the participants, supporting the notion of a
moderate level of agreement.

Overall, the data indicate that employees agree with actions associated with autocratic leadership,
such as managers making decisions independently, expecting strict compliance, and giving direct
instructions. While there is moderate agreement with these activities, there is some diversity in
responses, indicating differences in employees' perceptions. Despite this variation, the majority of
survey respondents support the autocratic leadership style indicated in the study.

4.3.2 Laissez faire Leadership Style

TABLE 2 LAISSEZ FAIRE LEADERSHIP STYLE
Items SA A (%) N (%) D (%) SD Mean ơ
(%) (%)
My manager provides me
with a high level of 32 43 18 50 38 2.90 1.436
autonomy in my work (17.7) (23.8) (9.9) (27.6) (21.0)

My manager rarely
interferes with my work 32 35 21 55 38 2.82 1.423
unless it's necessary. (17.7) (19.3) (11.6) (30.4) (21.0)

I have to be self-motivated
because there is minimal 34 33 22 61 31 2.88 1.397
supervision from (18.8) (18.2) (12.2) (33.7) (17.1)
management.

I am free to make decisions

about how I perform my 32 37 21 61 30 2.89 1.382
work. (17.7) (20.4) (11.6) (33.7) (16.6)

My manager believes that,

in most situations, workers 36 36 23 44 42 2.89 1.472
prefer minimal input from (19.9) (19.9) (12.7) (24.3) (23.2)
supervisors.

Note: N=181; SA= Strongly Agree; A=Agree; N= Neutral; D=Disagree; SD= Strongly
Disagree. Decision = Weighted Average = 14.38/5 =2.87.

Table 2 shows The Majority of respondents either disagree (Disagree + Strongly Disagree =
48.6%) or are neutral (9.9%) about having a high level of autonomy at work. The mean score for
this statement is 2.90, showing a tendency towards disagreement. The standard deviation is

6
relatively high (1.436), suggesting variability in responses. This suggests that many respondents
do not perceive a high level of autonomy in their work environment. The relatively high standard
deviation implies that opinions varied widely among participants, indicating diverse perspectives
on the level of autonomy provided.

Most respondents either disagree (Disagree + Strongly Disagree = 51.4%) or are neutral (11.6%)
about their manager's interference with their work. The mean score for this statement is 2.82,
showing an inclination to disagreement. The standard deviation is rather large (1.423), showing
diversity in answers. This suggests that a significant portion of respondents do not perceive their
manager as rarely interfering with their work unless necessary. The relatively large standard
deviation implies that responses varied widely among participants, indicating diverse perspectives
on the level of interference from managers.

The majority of respondents disagreed (Disagree + Strongly Disagree = 50.8%) or were neutral
(12.2%) about being self-motivated with minimal supervision. The mean score for this statement
is 2.88, showing a tendency for disagreement. The standard deviation is rather large (1.397), which
indicates diversity in answers. This suggests that many respondents do not feel self-motivated in a
work environment with minimal supervision. The relatively large standard deviation implies that
response varied widely among participants, indicating diverse perspectives on the level of self-
motivation required in such circumstances.

The majority of respondents either disagree (Disagree + Strongly Disagree = 50.3%) or are neutral
(11.6%) about being free to make decisions about their work. The mean score for this statement is
2.89, showing a tendency for disagreement. The standard deviation is fairly high (1.382), showing
that the responses vary. This suggests that many respondents do not feel empowered to make
decisions about their jobs. The relatively high standard deviation implies that responses varied
widely among participants, indicating diverse perspectives on the level of decision-making
authority provided.

The majority of respondents disagreed (Disagree + Strongly Disagree = 47.5%) or were neutral
(12.7%) about their manager's belief regarding worker's preference for minimal input. The mean
score for this statement is 2.89, showing an inclination for disagreement. The standard deviation
(1.472) is rather large, indicating that answers vary. This suggests that many respondents do not
agree with their manager's belief that workers prefer minimal input from supervisors. The

7
relatively large standard deviation implies that responses varied widely among participants,
indicating diverse perspectives on this managerial belief.

The findings suggest that respondents generally disagree with statements related to Laissez-faire
leadership style, indicating a preference for more guidance and supervision from management.
The relatively high standard deviation across all statements indicate variability in responses,
suggesting differing perceptions among respondents. Overall, the data reflect a lack of strong
support for the Laissez-faire leadership approach among the surveyed individuals.

4.3.3 Transactional Leadership Style

TABLE 3: TRANSACTIONAL LEADERSHIP STYLES
Items SA A (%) N (%) D (%) SD Mean Ơ
(%) (%)
Rewards and penalties are
clearly linked to my 40 39 16 54 32 3.01 1.455
performance at work. (22.1) (21.5) (8.8) (29.8) (17.7)

My manager gives me
specific guidance on what 35 42 29 47 28 3.05 1.375
is expected to receive (19.3) (23.2) (16.0) (26.0) (15.5)
rewards.
I receive rewards
equivalent to the effort I put 34 42 27 47 31 3.01 1.392
in. (18.8) (23.2) (14.9) (26.0) (17.1)

My performance reviews
are regularly scheduled and 37 39 30 51 24 3.08 1.360
predictable. (20.4) (21.5) (16.6) (28.2) (13.3)

There is an emphasis on
efficiency and routine in 37 55 21 49 19 3.23 1.330
my work tasks.. (20.4) (30.4) (11.6) (27.1) (10.5)
Note: N=181; SA= Strongly Agree; A=Agree; N= Neutral; D=Disagree; SD= Strongly
Disagree. Decision = Weighted Average = 15.38/5 =3.07.

Table 3 show that the responses are divided, with 43.6% of employees agreeing that rewards and
penalties are clearly linked to performance, while 47.5% disagree. The mean score of 3.01 suggests
a neutral to slightly negative perception overall, indicating that employees are not uniformly
confident in the fairness or transparency of the reward system. The high standard deviation (1.455)
indicates a broad range of opinions, suggesting inconsistency in how performance is assessed and

8
rewarded. This inconsistency can lead to dissatisfaction and a lack of motivation among employees
who feel that their efforts are not adequately recognized or penalized fairly.

42.5% of employees agree that they receive specific guidance from their managers, while 41.5%
disagree. The mean score of 3.05, indicating neutrality, suggests that there is no clear consensus
on whether managers effectively communicate expectations for rewards. The standard deviation
of 1.375 points to variability in experiences, which could stem from differences in management
styles or communication practices within the organization. This inconsistency can result in
confusion and hinder employees' ability to align their efforts with organizational goals to achieve
rewards.

The responses show a nearly even split, with 42% agreeing that they receive rewards
commensurate with their effort and 43.1% disagreeing. The mean score of 3.01, near the midpoint,
reflects a neutral stance, suggesting that many employees are unsure about the fairness of the
reward system. The standard deviation of 1.392 indicates varied perceptions, which might be due
to subjective assessments of effort and reward balance or inconsistent reward practices. Ensuring
perceived fairness in reward distribution is crucial for maintaining employee morale and
motivation.

A total of 41.9% of employees agree that performance reviews are regularly scheduled and
predictable, while 41.5% disagree. The mean score of 3.08 suggests a neutral perception,
indicating that there is no clear majority opinion. The standard deviation of 1.360 points to some
variability in experiences with performance reviews. Predictable and regular performance reviews
are essential for providing employees with consistent feedback and development opportunities.
Inconsistent scheduling can lead to uncertainty and hinder employees' ability to improve and align
their performance with organizational expectations.

A majority, 50.8%, agree that there is an emphasis on efficiency and routine in their work tasks,
while 37.6% disagree. The mean score of 3.23 suggests a slightly positive perception overall. The
standard deviation of 1.330 indicates some variability in responses, which might be due to
differences in job roles or departmental practices. Emphasizing efficiency and routine can
contribute to productivity and clarity in work processes, but it is important to ensure that this focus
does not become overly rigid, stifling creativity and adaptability.

9
The data reveals mixed perceptions among employees regarding the transactional leadership style
in their organization. There is significant variability in how employees perceive the connection
between performance and rewards, the clarity of guidance from managers, and the fairness of
rewards. The average scores are neutral, and the standard deviations indicate diverse experiences
and views. This suggests that while some aspects of transactional leadership work well for some
employees, there is room for improvement to ensure consistent and clear leadership practices
across the organization.
4.3.4 Transformational Leadership Style

Items SA A N D SD Mean ơ Decision

(%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
My manager inspires me
to go beyond my own 62 52 6 33 28 3.48 1.497 High
perception
self-interest for the good (34.3) (28.7) (3.3) (18.2) (15.5)
of the team.
I am encouraged to
develop my skills and 47 67 8 31 28 3.41 1.429 Low
potential at work. (26.0) (27.0) (4.4) 17.1 (15.5) perception

My manager helps
connect my personal 51 53 18 30 29 3.37 1.450 Low
goals with the (28.2) (29.3) (9.9) (16.6) (16.0) perception
company's goals.

I feel that creativity and

innovation are valued in 59 41 23 36 22 3.44 1.427 High
my work environment. (32.6) (22.7) (12.7) (19.9) (12.2) perception

. My manager is a role
model whom I spire to 55 45 34 23 24 3.46 1.384 High
follow. (30.4) (24.9) (18.8) (12.7) (13.3) perception

Note: N=181; SA= Strongly Agree; A=Agree; N= Neutral; D=Disagree; SD= Strongly
Disagree. Decision = Weighted Average = 17.16/5 =3.43.
A combined 63% of employees (Strongly agree and agree) feel inspired by their manager to
prioritize team goals over self-interest. This high percentage indicates a positive perception of
transformational leadership. However, 33.7% (Disagree and strongly disagree) do not share this
view, which is reflected in the relatively high mean score of 3.48 and the substantial standard
deviation of 1.497, indicating variability in responses. This suggests that while many employees

10
feel motivated by their managers, a significant minority do not, potentially due to differences in
managerial style or individual expectations.

A combined 53% of employees (Strongly agree and agree) feel encouraged to develop their skills
and potential at work. Despite this positive trend, 32.6% (Disagree and strongly disagree) feel
otherwise. The mean score of 3.41 and a standard deviation of 1.429 indicate a generally positive
perception but with notable variability. This disparity suggests that while many employees receive
support for their development, others may feel neglected, highlighting the need for more consistent
development opportunities across the organization.

About 57.5% of employees (Strongly agree and Agree) feel that their managers help align personal
goals with company goals. Conversely, 32.6% (Disagree and strongly disagree) do not feel this
alignment. The mean score of 3.37 and the standard deviation of 1.450 reflect a moderately positive
perception but with significant variability. This indicates that while many managers succeed in
aligning individual and organizational goals, a considerable proportion of employees do not
experience this connection, potentially affecting their motivation and engagement.

A total of 55.3% (Strongly agree and Agree) believe that creativity and innovation are valued in
their work environment, suggesting a positive view of the organization's support for innovative
practices. However, 32.1% (Disagree and strongly disagree) disagree. The mean score of 3.44,
coupled with a standard deviation of 1.427, indicates a generally positive perception with notable
variability. This suggests that while many employees feel encouraged to be creative, others might
not, possibly due to differing departmental cultures or managerial practices.

A majority, 55.3% (Strongly agree and Agree), view their manager as a role model they aspire to
follow. Meanwhile, 26% (Disagree and strongly disagree) do not share this view. The mean score
of 3.46 indicates a generally positive perception, and the standard deviation of 1.384 points to
some variability. This suggests that while many managers are seen as effective role models, there
is a significant portion of employees who do not feel inspired by their leaders, potentially due to
inconsistencies in leadership behaviors or values.

The data shows mixed but generally positive views of transformational leadership within Barako
Construction Company. Most employees feel inspired by their managers to prioritize team goals,
though some see a need for more consistent inspiration. While many feel supported in their

11
development, there is a need for more uniform opportunities. Managers often align personal and
company goals, but some employees don't see this alignment. Creativity and innovation are
encouraged, but not all employees feel this equally. Overall, while many managers are seen as role
models, not all leaders consistently inspire their employees.

4.3.5 Employee Performance

Items SA (%) A (%) N (%) D (%) SD (%) Mean ơ

I feel that my productivity
is maximized in my current 47 62 24 34 14 3.52 1.272
role. (26.0) (34.3) (13.3) (18.8) (7.7)

I am satisfied with my job

and find it fulfilling. 47 62 24 27 21 3.48 1.332
(26.0) (34.3) (13.3) (14.9) (11.6)

I am committed to the
organization and its goals. 43 63 30 21 24 3.44 1.326
(23.8) (34.8) (16.6) (11.6) (13.3)

I feel motivated to go
above and beyond in my 60 43 25 32 21
job duties. (33.1) (23.8) (13.8) (17.7) (11.6) 3.49) 1.405)

I feel valued and supported

by my supervisor in
achieving my performance 55 47 12, 41 26,
goals.. (30.4) (26.0) (6.6) (22.7) (14.4) 3.35 1.471

Note: N=181; SA= Strongly Agree; A=Agree; N= Neutral; D=Disagree; SD= Strongly
Disagree. Decision = Weighted Average = 17.28/5 =3.45.

The majority of employees (60.3%) express agreement with the statement indicating that their
productivity is maximized in their current role. This sentiment is underscored by a mean score of
3.52, reflecting a positive perception of role efficacy and productivity. The relatively low standard
deviation of 1.272 suggests a consensus among respondents regarding the optimization of their
work output within their respective roles.

12
A significant majority (60.3%) of employees report satisfaction with their job and find it fulfilling.
This sentiment is reflected in a mean score of 3.48, indicating a positive perception of job
satisfaction. While there is some variability in responses, as evidenced by a standard deviation of
1.332, the overall trend suggests a prevailing sense of fulfillment among employees within the
organization.

The majority of respondents (58.6%) express commitment to the organization and its goals, with
a mean score of 3.44 indicating a positive perception overall. While there is some variability in
responses, as indicated by a standard deviation of 1.326, the prevailing sentiment suggests a strong
alignment with the organization's mission and objectives among employees.

A majority of respondents (56.9%) indicate feeling motivated to go above and beyond in their job
duties. This sentiment is supported by a mean score of 3.49, indicating a positive perception of
motivation for performance excellence. While there is variability in responses, as evidenced by a
standard deviation of 1.405, the overall trend suggests a prevalent drive among employees to excel
in their roles.

While a majority of employees (56.4%) feel valued and supported by their supervisors in achieving
their performance goals, there is some variability in responses. This sentiment is reflected in a
mean score of 3.35, suggesting a somewhat lower perception compared to other statements. The
standard deviation of 1.471 indicates considerable variability in experiences, highlighting a
potential area for improvement in leadership practices to ensure consistent support and value
perception among employees.

Overall, the data reflects generally positive perceptions of employee performance, satisfaction, and
engagement within the organization. While there are areas of strength, such as high productivity
and job satisfaction, there are also opportunities for improvement, particularly in enhancing
supervisor support and ensuring consistency in value perception among employees.

Mean range Response Mode Interpretation

4.21 – 5.00 Strongly agree Very High
3.41- 4.2 Agree High
2.61- 3.4 Neutral Normal
1.81- 2.6 Disagree Low
1.0-. 1.8 Strongly disagree Very low

13
4.4 Inferential Statistics
To analyze employee performance, a measure of association between the four important leadership
styles (Autocratic, Transactional, Laissez faire, and Transformational) and employee performance
is calculated as follows. The Pearson correlation coefficient is used here, along with its related
significance values (p-values).

4.4.1 Correlation Analysis

1 2 3 4
1 Autocratic Pearson Correlation 1
2 Laissez faire Pearson Correlation 0.115 1
3 Transactional Pearson Correlation 0.083 .409** 1
4 Transformational Pearson Correlation 0.056 0.007 0.018 1
5 Employee Performance Pearson Correlation 0.113 -0.004 0.020 .822**

The above table shows the results of bivariate correlation based on Pearson correlation statistics.
The correlation coefficients between different leadership styles and employee performance. In the
case of Autocratic Leadership, the correlation coefficient is 0.113, indicating a weak positive
correlation between autocratic leadership and employee performance. Although autocratic
leadership might have a slight positive influence on employee performance, the relationship is not
strong and is not statistically significant (p = 0.131).

On the other hand, the Laissez-faire Leadership correlation coefficient is -0.004. This indicates
virtually no correlation between laissez-faire leadership and employee performance, suggesting
that laissez-faire leadership neither positively nor negatively impacts employee performance
significantly (p = 0.961). The Transactional Leadership correlation coefficient is 0.020, showing
a very weak positive correlation between transactional leadership and employee performance. This
suggests that transactional leadership has little to no impact on employee performance (p = 0.793).

Finally, the Transformational Leadership Pearson Correlation is 0.822 with a Sig. (2-tailed) value
of 0.000. There is a strong positive correlation (0.822) between transformational leadership and
employee performance. The correlation is statistically significant at the 0.01 level (p < 0.01),
indicating a meaningful and strong relationship between these variables.

The data indicates that among the four leadership styles, transformational leadership has the most
substantial positive impact on employee performance. This suggests that leaders who inspire,

14
 support, and encourage employees to exceed expectations significantly boost performance. The
other leadership styles (Autocratic, Laissez-Faire, and Transactional) show weak or negligible
correlations with employee performance, implying they are less effective in enhancing
performance. The moderate correlation between laissez-faire and transactional leadership suggests
that these styles can coexist but do not strongly influence performance when compared to
transformational leadership.

4.5 Regression Analysis

4.5.1 Model Summary
In order to find the relationship between Autocratic leadership style, Laissez faire leadership
style, Transaction leadership style, Transformation leadership style and Employee performance,
Multiple Linear Regression analysis was performed.

Model Summary b
Model R R Adjusted Std. Error Change Statistics
Square R Square of the R Square F df1 df2 Sig. F
Estimate Change Chang Change
e
1 .825a .680 .673 2.80826 .680 93.595 4 176 .000
a. Predictors: (Constant), Transform_1, Laises_1, Auto_1, Transaction_1
b. Dependent Variable: Employee_performance1

The R-squared value of 0.680 indicates that 68% of the variance in employee performance can be
explained by the independent variables (leadership styles). This model is statistically significant
(F = 93.595, p < .001), suggesting a strong explanatory power of the regression model.

4.5.2 ANOVA
The ANOVA table confirms that the regression model is significant, indicating that the predictors
together significantly explain variance in employee performance (p < .001).
Model Sum of Squares DF Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression 2952.483 4 738.121 93.595 .000b

Residual 1387.994 176 7.886
Total 4340.476 180
a. Dependent Variable: Employee performance
b. Predictors: (Constant), Transformational, Laissez faire, Autocratic, Transactional

15
 4.5.3 Coefficient

Coefficientsa
Model Unstandardize Standardized t Sig. 95.0% Confidence Collinearity
d Coefficients Coefficients Interval for B Statistics
B Std. Beta Lower Upper Tolerance VIF
Error Bound Bound
1 (Constant) 3.278 1.052 3.115 .002 1.201 5.355
Autocratic .076 .047 .069 1.604 .111 -.017 .169 .982 1.018
Laissez -.018 .043 -.020 -.427 .670 -.103 .067 .826 1.210
Transaction .008 .054 .007 .154 .878 -.099 .116 .832 1.203
Transformation .720 .038 .818 19.158 .000 .646 .794 .997 1.003
a. Dependent Variable: Employee_performance1

Transformational Leadership (Transform_1): Has a significant positive impact on employee

performance (β = 0.818, p < .001), indicating that higher levels of transformational leadership are
associated with higher employee performance.

Autocratic Leadership (Auto_1): Positive but not significant (β = 0.069, p = .111), suggesting no
strong evidence that autocratic leadership affects employee performance.

Laissez-faire Leadership (Laises_1): Negative and not significant (β = -0.020, p = .670), indicating
that laissez-faire leadership does not significantly impact employee performance.

Transactional Leadership (Transaction_1): Positive but not significant (β = 0.007, p = .878),

suggesting no strong evidence that transactional leadership affects employee performance.

4.6 Diagnostic Plots

4.6.1 Histogram of Residuals
The histogram shows that the residuals are approximately normally distributed, with a mean
close to zero. This indicates that the assumption of normality is reasonably met. The spread of
residuals is fairly symmetrical around the mean.

16
4.6.2 Normal P-P Plot of Regression Standardized Residual

The P-P plot shows that the points lie close to the diagonal line, suggesting that the residuals are
normally distributed, thus supporting the normality assumption. This implies that the errors of the
regression model are normally distributed, which is a key assumption for valid hypothesis testing.

17
4.7 Scatterplot of Standardized Residuals

The scatterplot shows that the residuals are randomly dispersed around zero without any
discernible pattern, indicating that the assumptions of homoscedasticity (constant variance) and
independence are met. This implies that the variance of the errors is constant across all levels of
the independent variables.

4.8 Hypothesis Testing

Hypothesis 1 (H01): There is no significant positive relationship between the transactional
leadership style and employee performance at Barako Construction Company in Burao,
Somaliland.
 Result: Transactional leadership (β = 0.007, p = 0.878) does not have a significant positive
relationship with employee performance.
 Conclusion: Fail to reject H01. There is no significant positive relationship between the
transactional leadership style and employee performance.
Hypothesis 2 (H02): There is no significant positive relationship between the transformational
leadership style and employee performance at Barako Construction Company in Burao,
Somaliland.
 Result: Transformational leadership (β = 0.818, p < 0.001) has a significant positive
relationship with employee performance.

18
  Conclusion: Reject H02. There is a significant positive relationship between the
transformational leadership style and employee performance.
Hypothesis 3 (H03): There is no significant positive relationship between the autocratic leadership
style and employee performance at Barako Construction Company in Burao, Somaliland.
 Result: Autocratic leadership (β = 0.069, p = 0.111) does not have a significant positive
relationship with employee performance.
 Conclusion: Fail to reject H03. There is no significant positive relationship between the
autocratic leadership style and employee performance.
Hypothesis 4 (H04): There is no significant positive relationship between the laissez-faire
leadership style and employee performance at Barako Construction Company in Burao,
Somaliland.
 Result: Laissez-faire leadership (β = -0.020, p = 0.670) does not have a significant positive
relationship with employee performance.
 Conclusion: Fail to reject H04. There is no significant positive relationship between the
laissez-faire leadership style and employee performance.

4.9 Conclusion
The findings indicate that transformational leadership has a significant positive impact on
employee performance at Barako Construction Company, while transactional, autocratic, and
laissez-faire leadership styles do not have a significant positive relationship with employee
performance. The regression model is robust, with a good fit to the data, and the assumptions
underlying the regression analysis are reasonably met. These results suggest that promoting
transformational leadership within the company could enhance employee performance
significantly.

19