| dc.description.abstract | This study sought to investigate the effect of leadership styles on employee performance in
Bulambuli District local Government. The specific objectives were; to determine the effect of
laissez-faire leadership styles on employee performance, to establish the effect of democratic
leadership styles on employee performance and to examine the effect of autocratic leadership
styles on employee performance. The researcher used a case study research design. The sample
size of the study was of 123 respondents drawn from the population of 178.
Findings indicated that the lassiez fair leadership style had Adjusted R2 = .207. This means that
20.7% (0.207×100) variations in employee performance is explained by lassiez fair leadership style,
democratic leadership style had Adjusted R2 = .133 (0.133×100) meaning that democratic
leadership style results into 13.3% variation in employee performance and autocratic leadership
style had Adjusted R2 = .109 (0.109×100) meaning that autocratic leadership styles results into a
10.9% variation in employee performance at Bulambuli district local government. The multiple
regression gave Adjusted R2 =.213 (0.213×100) meaning that leadership styles account for
21.3% variation in employee performance at Bulambuli district local government.
The study concludes that lassie-faire leadership style was the most effective in contributing to
employee performance with 35.3% impact as compared to democratic leadership style with
15.6% and autocratic leadership style with 3.4%. It is therefore recommended that individuals
with high self-capacity, self-management and good social skills be identified to take over
leadership roles since they are more likely to exhibit lassiez fair leadership traits, which are much
needed at Bulambuli district local government. Democratic leadership should also be integrated
into the leadership mix but with proper control leaving room for the practice of other styles. The
district should however regulate on autocratic leadership style to ensure it does not take lead
given it has a tendency to stifle employee skills, abilities and creativity. | en_US |
