4.
0 CHAPTER FOUR
This chapter looks at the presentation, analysis and interpretation of the
data collected. To enhance clarity and understanding, different methods
have been used to present the collected data, including frequency tables,
percentages, and cumulative percentages. The findings have also been
interpreted accordingly
The chapter is divided into subsections where general characteristics of the
respondents such as gender, age, educational background, employment
status, and other sections as outlined in the study objectives. The data is
also analyzed in steps as per the objectives and the research questions of
the study. The purpose of this chapter is to present the result of the
procedures described in the methods and present evidence in form of tables,
text and figures.
4.1 Data presentation, analysis and interpretation
4.1.1: Respondents Information.
Table 1: Gender of the respondents
Gender Number of Respondents
Total Percenta Cumulativ
ge e
1 Male 92 57 % 57
2 Female 69 43 % 100
3 Intersex 0 0 100
The table shows that 57 % of the respondents were male and 42% were
female as shown on table 2. This is indication that majority of the people
holding management positions and supervisory positions within the sector
are male.
Table 2: Age of respondents
Age Number of Respondents
Total Percentage Cumulative
20 - 30 69 43 % 43
31 - 40 23 14 % 57
41 - 50 46 29 % 86
51 and above 23 14 % 100
From table 2 above, 86% of the respondents are young adults. An indication
that most of the working force in supervisory and management positions are
of this age group.
Table 3. Education background of the respondents.
Education Level Number of Respondents
Total Percentage Cumulativ
e
Diploma 0 0.00 % 0
Bachelor’s Degree 69 42 % 42
Master’s degree 46 29 % 71
Doctorate 46 29 % 100
The data informs us that the majority of respondents in the target population
of 161 respondents holds a bachelor’s degree, accounting for approximately
42.86% of the group. This is followed by those with master’s and doctorate
degrees, each representing 28.57% of the population. To note is that, none
of the respondents are hold a diploma qualification, indicating a relatively
high level of academic achievement among the surveyed population.
These findings point to a workforce that is predominantly dominated by
individuals with advanced academic qualifications, with nearly three-quarters
(57.14%) holding postgraduate degrees. This implies a strong potential for
strategic thinking, leadership, and research-based decision-making within
the organization. The absence of lower qualifications such as a diploma
holder also reflects deliberate recruitment or promotion trends that award
degree holders as the work environment may demand such.
Table 4. Years of experience in the public service.
Number of Number of Respondents
Years
Total Percentage Cumulativ
e
Less than 5 69 43 % 43
5-10 years 23 14 % 57
11 – 15 years 23 14 % 71
Over 15 Years 46 29 % 100
The data on years of experience among respondents in the public service
shows that a significant number representing 43 % have served for less than
five years. Twenty eight percent (28 %) of the respondents have over 15
years of experience, representing a strong base of institutional knowledge
and long-term service. The remaining 29 % is split evenly between those
with 5–10 years and 11–15 years of experience, and each accounting for 15
%.
The distribution informs the finding and suggests a workforce structure
characterized by a mix of early-career professionals and long-serving staff,
but a smaller mid-level cadre. This shows that the finding is informed from a
well distributed respondents from various work experience levels.
Leadership Styles in Your Work Environment.
Table 5: My supervisor usually makes decisions without consulting staff.
Responses Respondents
Total Percentage Cumulative
Strongly disagree 92 58 % 58
Disagree 23 14 % 72
Neutral 0 0.00 % 72
Agree 23 14 % 86
Strongly agree 23 14 % 100
Data reveals that a significant majority of respondents of about 58 %
strongly disagree with the statement that "My supervisor usually makes
decisions without consulting staff." An additional 14 disagree, indicating that
over 71% of the respondents perceive their supervisors as consultative in
their decision-making approach. However, 29 % expressed some level of
agreement (agree or strongly agree), while none remained neutral.
This finding suggests that, in the public service, most supervisors are
inclusive and participatory when making decisions. This reflects positively on
leadership practices, that contributes to better staff engagement, trust, and
motivation. To however note id that the presence of a small segment that
agrees with the statement highlights an opportunity for improving.
Table 6: Employees are rarely involved in decision-making processes.
Responses Respondents
Total Percentage Cumulative
Strongly disagree 92 57 % 57
Disagree 0 0.00 % 57
Neutral 46 29 % 86
Agree 0 0.00 % 86
Strongly agree 23 14 % 100
The data reveals that a significant majority of the respondents i.e 57 %
strongly disagree with the statement "Employees are rarely involved in
decision-making processes." 29 % remained neutral, 14 strongly agree, while
none selected disagree or agree.
This suggests that while most employees look at the decision-making
processes as inclusive, there is still a portion who are either unsure.
The high neutrality rate may indicate inconsistencies in participation across
departments or levels, or a lack of clarity around how decisions are made.
The 14 % who strongly agree with the statement highlights the need for
greater transparency.
Table 7: Instructions are strictly top-down in my department.
Responses Respondents
Total Percentage Cumulative
Strongly disagree 0 0.00 % 0
Disagree 92 58 % 58
Neutral 23 14 % 72
Agree 23 14 % 86
Strongly agree 23 14 % 100
The data reveals that a majority of respondents which is 58 % disagree with
the statement in question "Instructions are strictly top-down in my
department." An additional 14 % agree, 14 % strongly agree, and 14 % are
neutral, while none strongly disagree with the statement.
This suggests that while over half of the respondents perceive their
departments as not strictly hierarchical, there is a significant portion
(28.58%) who believe that top-down communication dominates.
Overall, the findings point to a trend toward more participatory or flexible
communication, but also highlight the need to foster consistent two-way
communication practices to ensure all employees feel engaged and informed
in the decision-making process.
Table 8: My supervisor allows us to work independently without
interference.
Responses Respondents
Total Percentage Cumulative
Strongly disagree 0 0.00 % 0
Disagree 0 0.00 % 0
Neutral 23 14 % 14
Agree 115 72 % 86
Strongly agree 23 14 % 100
Data shows that a significant majority of respondents 72 % agree with the
statement "My supervisor allows us to work independently without
interference." An additional 14 % strongly agree, bringing the total positive
observation to 86 %.14 % remained neutral, and no respondents disagreed
or strongly disagreed (negative outcome).
These finding suggests that management practices within the public service
trust in staff capabilities. The high percentage of agreement indicates that
most employees feel empowered to carry out their responsibilities without
unnecessary micromanagement which fosters accountability, innovation, and
job satisfaction. That there is no disagreement further reinforces the
perception of a positive and enabling leadership style in the workplace.
Table 9: There is little supervision or direction from our leaders.
Responses Respondents
Total Percentage Cumulative
Strongly disagree 46 29 % 29
Disagree 0 0.00 % 29
Neutral 69 43 % 72
Agree 23 14 % 86
Strongly agree 23 14% 100
The findings show that 29 % of respondents strongly disagreed with the
statement that there is little supervision or direction from their leaders. This
means that they believe there is adequate supervision. However, 43 % of the
respondents were neutral, suggesting that many employees are uncertain
about the level of leadership guidance they receive. Only 29 % agreed or
strongly agreed, indicating that a smaller group feels there is a lack of
supervision or direction.
Overall, these results suggest that while some staff feel supported, others
may experience unpredictable leadership, and there may be a need to
strengthen simplicity and presence from leaders across the organization.
Table 10: Staff in my department often make their own decisions.
Responses Respondents
Total Percentage Cumulative
Strongly disagree 46 29 % 29
Disagree 69 43 % 72
Neutral 23 14 % 86
Agree 0 0.00 % 86
Strongly agree 23 14 % 100
The data shows that most respondents about 72 % either strongly disagreed
or disagreed, meaning they believe staff in their department do not usually
make their own decisions. Only a small number (about 14 %) strongly
agreed, and another 14 % were neutral. No respondent agreed with the
statement.
This shows that decision-making in the department is largely centralized,
with most decisions likely being made by supervisors or higher-level leaders.
The limited agreement indicates that staff may not feel empowered or
trusted to make independent decisions, which could affect motivation,
creativity, and ownership of work. This highlights a need for leadership to
promote greater staff involvement in decision-making to improve
engagement and responsibility.
Table 11: There is a lack of coordination from leadership in my department.
Responses Respondents
Total/Count Percentage Cumulative
Strongly disagree 115 72 % 29
Disagree 0 0.00 % 72
Neutral 0 0.00 % 86
Agree 23 14 % 86
Strongly agree 23 14 % 100
The results of this survey show that 72 % of respondents strongly disagreed
meaning that most employees feel there is good coordination from
leadership in their department. Only a small number (14.29%) agreed or
strongly agreed, while no respondent chose neutral or disagree.
This indicates that leadership is generally seen as well-organized and
effective in coordinating departmental activities, with very few staff
perceiving a lack of coordination.
This section looks at the impact of leadership styles on productivity.
Respondents were to indicate the extent to which you agree with the
different statements presented to then using the scale below:
1 = Strongly Disagree | 2 = Disagree | 3 = Neutral | 4 = Agree | 5 = Strongly
Agree
Table 12: Autocratic leadership helps in completing tasks faster.
Responses Respondents
Total/Count Percentage Cumulative
Strongly disagree 69 44 % 44
Disagree 23 14 % 58
Neutral 23 14 % 72
Agree 23 14 % 86
Strongly agree 23 14 % 100
The data suggests that responses on whether autocratic leadership helps in
completing tasks faster are divided, but move slightly toward disagreement.
A significant section of respondents (44%) strongly disagreed, indicating that
many employees do not believe autocratic leadership improves task
efficiency. Meanwhile, 14 % simply disagreed, and an equal percentage (14
%each) selected neutral, agree, or strongly agree.
These mixed responses suggests that while some respondents may see
value in clear, top-down leadership for quick decision-making, a larger group
favors more inclusive or participatory approaches. The results point to a
need for leadership styles that balance decisiveness with team involvement,
as purely autocratic methods may not be widely supported or effective in the
long term.
Table 13: Autocratic leadership reduces motivation and morale among
employees.
Responses Respondents
Total/Count Percentage Cumulative
Strongly disagree 23 14 % 14
Disagree 23 14 % 28
Neutral 23 14 % 42
Agree 69 44 % 86
Strongly agree 23 14 % 100
The data shows that 44 % of respondents agreed that autocratic leadership
reduces motivation and morale among employees, while 14 % strongly
agreed, indicating that the majority (approximately 58 %) view autocratic
leadership negatively in terms of its impact on staff morale and motivation.
Meanwhile, 14 % were neutral, and the remaining 28 % expressed
disagreement (Spread across strongly disagree and disagree).
This indicates that while some respondents/employees may not view
autocratic leadership as entirely harmful, more than half believe it negatively
affects motivation. The findings indicate a need for more participatory and
empowering leadership approaches to foster better morale and engagement
in the workplace.
Table 14: Laissez-faire leadership promotes creativity and innovation.
Responses Respondents
Total/Count Percentage Cumulative
Strongly disagree 46 29 % 14
Disagree 23 13 % 28
Neutral 0 0.00 % 42
Agree 46 29 % 86
Strongly agree 46 29 % 100
Data indicates that a majority of respondents 57 % (agree + strongly agree)
believe that laissez-faire leadership promotes creativity and innovation.
However, a significant portion 42 % (strongly disagree + disagree) disagreed
with this view, and no respondents were neutral.
This suggests a divided perception among respondents; while many
recognize the benefits of laissez-faire leadership in encouraging innovation
and independent thinking, others associate it with a lack of direction or
accountability. The findings highlight that while freedom and flexibility can
foster creativity, they must be balanced with guidance and structure to be
fully effective in the workplace.
Table 15: Laissez-faire leadership leads to confusion and inefficiency.
Responses Respondents
Total/Count Percentage Cumulative
Strongly disagree 69 43 % 43
Disagree 69 43 % 86
Neutral 23 14 % 100
Agree 0 0.00 % 100
Strongly agree 0 0.00 % 100
The data presented shows that a significant majority of respondents 86 %
(strongly disagree + disagree) do not believe that laissez-faire leadership
leads to confusion and inefficiency. Only 14 % were neutral, and none agreed
with the statement.
This suggests that most respondents/employees do not view laissez-faire
leadership as harmful in terms of causing disorganization or inefficiency.
Instead, they associate it with flexibility and autonomy. However, the
presence of neutral responses indicates that some respondents may
experience mixed outcomes, depending on how this leadership style is
applied.
Overall, the results point to a positive perception of laissez-faire leadership,
but with a reminder that clear roles and minimal guidance still need
structure to avoid uncertainty.
Table 16: A combination of autocratic and laissez-faire styles can be
effective.
Responses Respondents
Total/Count Percentage Cumulative
Strongly disagree 23 14 % 14
Disagree 23 14 % 28
Neutral 23 14 % 56
Agree 69 44 % 100
Strongly agree 23 14 % 100
The data suggests that a majority of respondents (57 %) agreed that a
combination of autocratic and laissez-faire leadership styles can be effective.
This includes 42 % who agreed and 14 % who strongly agreed with the
statement. Meanwhile, 28 % expressed some level of disagreement (14 %
strongly disagreed and 14 % disagreed), and 14 % were neutral.
This finding indicates that most employees see value in a balanced
leadership approach—one that combines clear direction and control when
needed (autocratic), with freedom and flexibility when appropriate (laissez-
faire). It reflects the perception that no single leadership style fits all
situations, and effective leaders should adapt their approach based on
context, tasks, and team dynamics.
Table 17: A Leadership style in my department influences employee
performance.
Responses Respondents
Total/Count Percentage Cumulative
Strongly disagree 23 14 % 14
Disagree 0 0.00 % 14
Neutral 0 0.00 % 14
Agree 115 72 % 86
Strongly agree 23 14 % 100
The data shows that 86 % of respondents (72 agree and 14 % strongly
agree) believe that the leadership style in their department influences
employee performance. Only 15 % strongly disagreed, and no respondents
disagreed or was neutral.
This indicates a strong consensus among respondents that leadership
approach directly affects how well employees perform. It suggests that when
leaders are supportive, engaging, and effective, employees are more likely
to be motivated and productive. The finding highlights the importance of
adopting positive, responsive leadership styles to enhance staff performance
and overall departmental success.
Table 18: Productivity would improve with a different leadership style.
Responses Respondents
Total/Count Percentage Cumulative
Strongly disagree 23 14 % 14
Disagree 0 0.00 % 14
Neutral 69 43 % 57
Agree 46 29 % 86
Strongly agree 23 14 % 100
The data shows that 43 % of respondents were neutral on whether
productivity would improve with a different leadership style; suggesting
uncertainty about the current leadership’s impact. However, some 69
respondents expressed some level of agreement (46 agree + 23 strongly
agree), indicating that a notable portion of employees believe a change in
leadership style could boost productivity. Only 23 respondents strongly
disagreed, and no one disagreed.
This suggests that while many respondents are unsure, a significant number
feel that the current leadership style may not be optimal for maximizing
performance. The results point to a potential opportunity for leaders to
evaluate and adapt their leadership approach—perhaps by being more
inclusive, supportive, or responsive—to better meet employee needs and
improve overall productivity.
Summary.
This chapter focused on the presentation, analysis and interpretation of the
responses addressed in the questionnaire. Attention was mainly given to
those responses that focused on the objectives and the research questions of
the study. This was done by use of frequenccy tables, percentages and
cumulative frequencies.
CHAPTER FIVE; SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Introduction
This chapter covers summary, conclusion, recommendations of the study and suggestions for
further study.
Summary of the findings
This section presents summary of findings per each objective. It follows the order of research
objectives and data presented in chapter four. The general objective of this study is to understand
autocratic and laissez-faire leadership styles and the productivity of employees.
Autocratic and laissez-faire leadership styles in the work environment
The study established that both autocratic and laisses-faire leadership styles in the work
environment can be effective in the sense that it can enhance team performance, builds
strong relationships and foster innovation and creativity.
From the findings, majority of the respondents (57%) agreed that combination of the two
styles can be effective
Autocratic and laissez-faire leadership styles on employees’ performance
Autocratic leadership style being characterized by centralized decision making where a
leader has full control over decisions making, this will lead to timely decisions making
and full accountability and responsibility. Laissez-faire leadership gives the followers the
freedom and authority to use their expertise to make decisions hence the overall
performance of the organization is improved.
From the findings, majority of the respondents (86%) believe that leadership styles
influence performance in their departments in terms of quality and quantity.
Leadership style in enhancing productivity of employees
Leadership styles that leaders adapt affect employee’s behavior wise including
motivation, job satisfaction, creativity and innovation. Leadership style produces
different employee performance results under different work environment and it can
vary depending on the motivation that the leader uses to encourage the performance of
the employee.
From the findings, notable portion of respondents believe that leadership style change
could boost morale of the employee and turn their productivity is improved.
CONCLUSIONS
The study concluded that leadership styles have a significance influence on the productivity of
public employees. It allowed us to see the impact of autocratic and laissez-faire leaderships on
the productivity of the employees. It reveals that as a leader using autocratic style which is
characterized by leader taking complete control in decision making, the leader takes full
accountability and responsibility in the decisions made, it allows for quick and timely decision
making particularly in time of crisis. Autocratic leadership is appropriate in a new startup where
subordinates may be having less technical skills to make decisions hence employees are relieved
off stress, they get clear directions and guidance from the leader hence efficiency is improved.
Leaders through their leaderships style provides vision, motivation mentorship and other support
to the employees hence employee productivity and performance is improved.
Leaders can provide inspiration and guidance in the organization towards achievement of the
overall goals of the organization.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The research study recommends that leaders should adapt a balanced leadership approach
between laisses-faire and autocratic leadership styles as it promotes creativity and innovation in
an organization hence productivity would increase.
Suggestion for further research
The study recommends further research studies to be conducted on leadership styles on the
production of public sector employees. This will help to enhance the body of existing knowledge
on productivity of employees under different leadership styles.
The study further recommends future studies on leadership styles to determine their further
influence on productivity of public sector employees.
References
1. Blake, R., & McCanse, A. (1991). Leadership Dilemmas Grid Solutions. Gulf Pub. Co.
2. Fayol, H. (1949). General and Industrial Management. Sir Isaac Pitman & Sons.
3.Akampurira Sarah and Mwesigwa Henry, 2025. The Influence of Leadership Styles on
Employee Productivity in Multinational Corporations. A case study of KCCA.
Metropolitan Journal Of Academic Multidisciplinary Research. 2: 75-85
