Impact of Leadership Style on Employee Performance and Engagement

DOI

https://www.doi.org/10.59256/ijrtmr.20260605042

Published In

Volume 6, Issue 5 (2026)

Published Online

September-October 2026

Pages

389-399

Article Type

Original Article

Check for updates

Purpose – This study examines how leadership style, as perceived by employees, is associated with employee performance and employee engagement. Rather than testing a single named leadership typology, the study captures leadership as a bundle of everyday managerial practices relating to goal-setting, participation, recognition, feedback and workplace relationships, and identifies which of these practices employees most closely associate with better performance and stronger engagement. Design/methodology/approach – Data were collected through a structured, close-ended questionnaire administered online to 52 working respondents. The instrument captured demographic characteristics (gender, age, education and marital status) together with twelve perception-based items covering leadership approach, task-completion style, participation practice, idea-sharing, responsibility, feedback frequency, performance improvement, engagement, organisational connection and overall workplace priorities. Responses were coded and analysed using frequency and percentage analysis, descriptive statistics (mean, median and standard deviation), chi-square tests of independence, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and linear regression, the last two supported by index scores derived from the item responses. Findings – Inspiring and motivating leadership was the most frequently experienced style (50.0%), followed by target-and-reward-focused leadership (26.9%). Team involvement, regular guidance and manager encouragement emerged as the practices most strongly associated with task completion, participation and idea-sharing, while leader confidence and involvement in decision-making were the strongest drivers of employee responsibility-taking. Constructive feedback, trust and good communication were the factors most closely linked to performance improvement and engagement, and supportive management was the leading driver of organisational connection. A healthy work environment (46.2%) and strong leadership (40.4%) were rated the two most important overall workplace factors, ahead of employee development and formal recognition schemes. Inferential tests showed that perceived leadership practices and outcome drivers did not differ significantly by gender, age, education or marital status. Respondents naming inspiring leadership reported more frequent progress discussions with their leaders (ANOVA F(3, 48) = 3.10, p = .035, η² = .16), although this result was borderline under a non-parametric check and in Fisher's exact tests. A relational leadership-practice indexsignificantly predicted a performance-and-engagement index in simple linear regression (B = 0.17, p = .037, R² = .084), but the effect was small and was no longer significant once demographic controls and feedback frequency were added (p = .104). The statistical evidence is therefore suggestive rather than conclusive. Originality/value – The study adds employee-perception-based, developing-country evidence to a literature that has predominantly relied on validated Likert-scale instruments tested in single named leadership styles (mainly transformational, transactional and laissez-faire). By mapping a broader menu of everyday leadership practices onto performance and engagement outcomes, and by situating the findings alongside recent cross-national and digital-era leadership research, the study offers practical guidance for managers seeking to strengthen performance and engagement through concrete, everyday leadership behaviours.