1

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

Rationale

This study investigated the student leadership style of the student.

Student leaders have been known into a lot of schools already as they

represent the voice of the student. As such, knowing their styles with regards

to leadership can give perspectives and emphasis on how as young as they

are having the ability to lead (Kapur, 2018).

In Kenya, secondary student leaders' performance has been noted to

be low, particularly at Mount Kenya University Rwanda. This could be linked

to the deprived school leadership styles utilized in school. The majority of

students in Kenya district have been performing poorly over the last three

years. The major challenges included conflict between academic pursuits

and leadership roles, lack of teamwork among student leaders and students'

ignorance of university policies and statutes. So, improving learning outcomes

requires an approach to leadership development, which focused on

leadership styles. This means attempting to change the mind-set of leaders to

regard the processes of teaching and learning as central to their role rather

than simply leaving such matters to teachers (Harerimanal & Toyin, 2017).

In Philippines, particularly in Colegio de San Juan de Letran - Manila,

Philippines, the growth of leadership among students is perceived to be a key

goal for any academic institution. Yet, one of the issues experienced by

student leaders was a lack of clear vision and inadequate communication with

members. As a result, members are also against their leaders because of its

ineffective attitude as to leading the team (Astin, 2018).

 2

In Davao del Norte, specifically in Kapalong College of Agriculture

Sciences and Technology (KCAST), a governor of the Office Administration

Department accounted that some leaders failed to communicate their

agendas well to their constituents, and many are trying to avoid to work with

people who disagree with their agenda. With this, the team members may

suffer from lack of communication with their leaders, and thus, they may fail to

meet the desire objectives of the department.

With this concern, it leads the researchers to conduct a study about the

leadership style among office administration student officers. Another reason

that convinced the researchers to push through this study because previous

researches have not crossed with the same variables and method used. As a

result of the study, it may help students to surpass their own deficit in

leadership with due consideration on student officers. Likewise, to significantly

enable them in enhancing their knowledge and skills on leadership. Also, the

researchers consider the social relevance of the study of which the results of

the study will be beneficial to everyone like it may be very beneficial to the

future office administration students as this study will provide relevant and

significant information that could be of great help in improving the society and

community in general.

Research Objectives

The aim of this study was to determine the leadership style of Bachelor

of Science in Office Administration officer’s leadership styles. Specifically, it

sought answer to the following:

1. To determine the leadership style of Bachelor of Science in Office

Administrator officers in terms of:

 3

1.1 autocratic;

1.2 democratic; and

1.3 laissez-fair.

2. To propose an enhancement program based from the results and

findings of the study.

Review of Related Literature

This section presented the review of literature and studies related to

the present investigation so that renders would be given a clearer

understanding of what is being emphasized in the study.

Leadership Style

Leadership styles are modes or methods of leadership adopted by

various leaders. For the purposes of this study, the definition of leadership

styles is per the United States of America Army Handbook which recognizes

three styles of leadership namely: authoritarian or autocratic style; the

participative or democratic style, charismatic, laissez-fair and the bureaucratic

leadership style. However, the study will also employ the behavioral

approach, which affirms that leaders can be made or that behaviors can be

learned (Stoner, 2017).

In addition, student leadership style involves engaging the learners in

activities such as student parliament, class representation, and collaborative

decision making on the issues that either directly or indirectly affecting the

learners. Though not much exploited, the concern about the impacts of

involving students in leadership in schools has been a longstanding amongst

students. Leadership style of the student mobilizing others to get

extraordinary things done. They further emphasize that leadership style of the
 4

student are practices to transform values into action and vision into realities,

obstacles into innovation, separation into solidarity and risks into rewards also

created the atmosphere that transforms challenging opportunities into great

success. (Anderson & Lu, 2016).

Moreover, student level encouraging students to take leadership style

in a position in schools would boost their performance. Student parliament

was observed to be significant in boosting leadership style through the

enhancement of performance and development in the students. Thus, leaders

need to create the group’s vision, support the individual and group strategies,

and serve as catalyst for developing each individual’s strength to move the

organization forward. Still leadership can be an elusive characteristic and

developing leaders to their full potential remains one of the greatest

challenges for organizations today (Stave et al., 2017).

Furthermore, leadership style is a part from reflecting the pre-existing

skills in the students, the leadership roles also help the students to develop

and strengthen their cognitive capability including academic performance. In

addition, it has been stated that leadership gives the students’ opportunities

the experience that facilitates their transition into adulthood. This is because

the roles give the student a learning chance that facilitates the acquisition of

life experience and learning. Leadership has thus been considered part of a

lifelong learning that enables those involved to not only acquire and advance

their skills but also improve their academic excellence (Black et al., 2015).

Leadership styles have an influence on their leadership effectiveness,

leaders must alter their behaviors. Leaders who understand and act in

accordance with cultural norms, on the other hand, are likely to be more
 5

effective. The implication is that leaders should be guided by their

subordinates' cultural preferences while developing and displaying leadership

styles. This is particularly important considering the multicultural composition

of today's workforce (Hendrickson, 2016).

Lastly, the effective leadership style of an individualistic cultures is

generally regarded as the action of producing superior results. The focus is on

the outcomes flowing from the behavior of the leader as opposed to any

specific behavior. Collectivist societies, on the other hand, consider effective

leadership as a durable objective germinating from subordinate dependability,

which stems from leaders affording them security and direction.  Maintains

that leaders who are effective refer to the role the students play in improving

leadership effectiveness. It is reasonable then to expect that will assist

leaders to fare better, that is, to be increasingly effective when leading

(Pauliene, 2015).

Leadership is proven to be critical in establishing a shared vision and

commitment. The search of an effective leadership style is inextricably linked

to the collective work strategy. Organizations must be cognizant of the

possible impact of role pressures in today's highly competitive environment.

Role stressors such as role ambiguity and role conflict are determined to be

the most important source of task dissatisfaction and task performance, as

evidenced by the review of prior literature and the findings of the study

(Mohammed, 2018).

Autocratic. This leadership style is known for individual control over all

decisions and little input from members. Typically, autocratic leaderships

make choices based on their own ideas and judgments and rarely accept
 6

advice from followers. Autocratic leadership employs absolute, authoritarian

control over staff. Some features of autocratic leadership include little or no

input from group members; leaders make the decisions; group leaders dictate

all the work methods; group members are rarely trusted with decisions or

important tasks (Maqsood, Bilal & Baig, 2015).

Autocratic leaders are Strong-willed, domineering & to some extent

aggressive. Usually, don’t listen to views and suggestions of others if they

offer different opinions. The followers of autocratic leaders have a low level of

job satisfaction because they assert absolute power and. They have their own

ways of exercising their authority and look at followers or team members as

mere functionaries. Their followers are waiting for the inevitable failure to

happen, so the leader can be changed. There is shared vision and little

motivation beyond coercion however autocratic leader is unable to stimulate

the feelings of helping others due to its task-oriented nature (Malik et al.,

2016).

In some situations, autocratic leadership style may be the ideal

method. However, autocratic leadership style should not be employed when

members become uncomfortable, scared, or angry; expect to have their ideas

heard; low member morale, high turnover, absenteeism, or work stoppage are

present. Also, when you have all of the information you need to solve the

problem, you're short on time, and your team is highly motivated, it's a good

time to use it. The conditions in which the style could be applied (Cherry,

2018).

Under autocratic leadership, researchers discovered that decision-

making was less innovative. Controlling, domineering, and dictatorial are all
 7

words that come to mind when thinking about this style. When there is

minimal time for collaborative decision-making or the leader is the most

informed member of the group, authoritarian leadership is most effective.

When a crisis necessitates quick choices and decisive measures, the

autocratic style might be beneficial (Kendra, 2021).

Another statement that the higher level in autocratic leadership of the

students-leaders be specially the service to provide the basic services needed

by the students in the group and have a knowledge to answer the questions,

readiness to respond the group request, handle complains about the services

and helps the development the department (Boehman, 2006)

Lastly, autocratic leader would generally solve an issue and make

decisions for the group using observations and what they feel is needed or

most important for the majority of the group members to benefit at that time,

when faced with the need to provide a decision, an autocratic leader is one

who would come up with a solution for the entire group on their own. These

are the leaders that would decide for the group when they would wake up and

depart, and exactly how far they should go for that day. If the group came

across any conflicts or barriers within the expedition, these leaders would also

make the decisions on their own, inquiring feedback from the three hired

instructors to ensure that their decisions were okay. Also, that autocratic

leaderships alone determine policy guidelines as well as share out work to

library staff without consulting them (Val & Kemp, 2015).

Democratic. In this style decision making is decentralized, the leader

includes his followers in the decision-making process of planning and

execution. The leader is concerned with maintaining group effectiveness and

 8

encourages members to express their ideas for task accomplishment. While

democratic leadership sounds good in theory, but often is bogged down in its

own slow process and workable results usually require an enormous amount

of effort. This leadership style stimulates more organizational citizenship

behavior among the employees (Ikram et al., 2017).

Democracy among students-leaders is already helping to raise student

awareness for a better understanding. It promotes government efficiency and

effectiveness while strengthening democracy and provides the best

opportunity for collaboration with the stakeholders feeling “being heard.” and

should mediates and facilitate the different interests of the group to reach a

general agreement on what is the best interest of the whole group and how

this can be achieved (Bass, 2010).

On the other hand, the democratic leadership style concerned with

meaningful participation and decision making to establish conditions for

respectful relationships, collaborative associations, active cooperation, and

enable the formation of social, learning and culturally responsive educational

organizations, in part by student leading strategies for achievement, enabling

particular conversations and struggling to determine what is needed, when,

and how to get there in specific situations by developing a politically informed

commitment to justice for all. It is also necessary to state that democratic

leadership entails rights to meaningful participation and respect for and

expectations toward everyone as ethical beings (Gale & Densmore, 2015).

Moreover, on philosophical tradition of Dewey’s pragmatism cultivates

an environment that supports participation, sharing of ideas, and the virtues of

honesty, openness, flexibility and compassion. It emphasizes social justice,

 9

dignity, rights and welfare of minorities and all individuals in the school.

Democratic leadership requires value base of leadership practice and the

processes creating or sustaining social justice, empowerment and community.

By means of balancing power and trust in leadership and management areas

of the school, empowerment can be achieved which in turn creates a

stimulating learning environment where students develop as citizens (Harris &

Chapman, 2016).

On the other hand, it stated that members ensure that everyone in the

group has equal access to the same opportunities in the school and group by

acknowledging that there is an unequal starting point and working to correct

and address the imbalance, whereas inclusiveness is about people of various

identities feeling valued, leveraged, and welcomed in a given setting. One of

the most essential effective aspects that impact leadership has been equity

and inclusion (Nyengane, 2007).

Democratic leaders provide direction to group members while also

participating in the group and allowing feedback from others. The group was

less prolific than the authoritarian group in this research, but their

contributions were of higher quality. Leaders that encourage group

participation while maintaining control over the decision-making process are

known as participatory leaders. Members of the group are more driven and

innovative since they are more involved in the process (Cherry, 2018).

Laissez-fair. This leadership style is one where the leader tends to

avoid power and authority. Members establish goals and means of achieving

progress to success. Chances of anarchy and chaos are high since the

leadership does not guide student’s activities. The student’s leader delegates
 10

almost all authority and control to members. There is no person of authority in

the organization. The students lead the organization indirectly; he/she does

not make decisions; rather he/she abides by popular decisions. There is no

setting of goals and objectives by the student’s leaders. Tasks are done the

way the students think it should be done, but he/she gets involved on request

and this may lead to the digression from broad organizational policy. Thus,

this style of leadership may be effective with well-motivated and experienced

students (Black, 2015).

On the other hand, Leadership where leaders refuse to make

decisions, are not available when needed, and choose to take no

responsibility for their lack of leadership ability. Delegative leaders offer little

or no guidance to group members and leave the decision-making up to group

members. While this style can be useful in situations involving highly qualified

experts, it often leads to poorly defined roles and a lack of motivation.

Laissez-faire leaders don't use their authority, avoid taking actions it is

considered a passive and ineffective form of leadership (Bolda & Nawaz,

2015).

The step-by-step facilitation guide demonstrates an effective way for

socializing a group and generating broad consensus on crucial choices with

complete member engagement in a real collaborative environment. The

practical step-by-step facilitation guide combines extensive knowledge of

effective communication techniques with deep insight into conflict resolution

and group dynamics to present an efficient method to social of group on which

generate general agreement on important decisions with full member

participation in a true collaborative atmosphere (Stogdill, 2015).

 11

Another study found that Leaders who are more laissez-faire enable

their subordinates to make decisions. Leaders often avoid interfering with a

group's activities. A prior study found that when supervisors fail to respond

quickly, it has a detrimental impact on subordinates' productivity. It associated

with a lack of leadership. Empirical research on the laissez-faire leadership

style has focused on its link with member work satisfaction and the desired

goal; it has been discovered to be adversely connected with task satisfaction

(Iqbal, 2021).

This style, favors the installation of a relaxed working atmosphere, it

brings down morale and reduces efficiency of the group considered a passive

and ineffective form of leadership. Lassiez-faire Leadership: taken from the

French phrase meaning “let people do as they choose,” the leader abdicates

responsibility, delays decisions, gives no feedback, and makes little effort to

help followers satisfy their needs (Northouse, 2016).

In addition, it indicates that even one’s internal representation of how

leadership is mentally construed and how one makes sense of situations

appears to be a function of the proximal and distal context in which those

mental representations are formed. It develops a process of education where

students and students-leaders were working together to solve the problem

(Avolio, 2017).

Moreover, these leaders practice the art of delegation, in which the

leaders are hands –off and allow group members to take a decision. There is

not much interference between leaders and followers, they usually avoid

responsibility, don’t have feedback mechanism and delay the decision

making. This style of functioning doesn’t involve in the meaningful transaction

 12

and does nothing to affect the follower’s behavior outcomes. They usually

avoid getting involved in the decision making and work progress and allow

things to happen and also have a weak relationship with organizational

citizenship behavior (Malik et al., 2016).

This style of a leader exercises little control over his followers. Laissez-

faire leaders abandon their responsibility, delay decisions, give no feedback,

and make little effort to help followers satisfy their needs. There is no

exchange with followers or any attempt to help them to grow. Laissez-faire

leaders make little personal contact with workers in their organizations

(Leithwood & Riehl, 2017).

To sum it up, leadership style handling the certain organization in order

to grow, and utilizing others to get extraordinary things done practices to

transform values into action and vision and develop the goal. A leader that

needs to create the group’s vision, support the individual and group

strategies, and serve as catalyst for developing each individual’s strength to

move the organization. The most important is the Leaders inspire their followers

to work together towards the company's vision and often imprint their own style on

the organization. A leader holds the power to make decisions without input from

others.  Leadership style refers to a very open leadership style that includes

group members in the decision-making process. While leaders still provide

their teams with the resources and tools they need to succeed, it is where the

leaders refuse to make decisions. This leadership style has the complete trust

in their ability of those under them. 

Theoretical Framework
 13

This study was anchored to the Normative Decision Theory of Peterkin

(1996). This is a theory of leadership that emphases on the correct rules or

standards of behavior for student leaders to follow. Although it focuses on

correct rules in decision-making, it is concerned with the level to which

leaders allow their assistants to participate in decision-making. It proposes

five styles of leader behavior ranging from the despotic style in which

decisions are made merely by the leader to complete participation by

assistants and during which decisions are reached through agreement. Under

this theory, the most effective style of leadership depends on the importance

of the resolution, the degree to which assistants accept it, and the time

required making the decision. Leaders must be flexible in selecting the

decision-making approach that produces maximum benefits in terms of

quality, recognition and time restraints.

Furthermore, this study was also based on Bass (1985) Transactional

Leadership Theory which explained that leadership is the interpersonal

influence, exercised in a situation, and directed, through the communication

process, toward the attainment of a specified goal or goals. Leadership has

typically been classified into three distinct types: autocratic, democratic, and

laissez-faire. Traditionally leadership has been analyzed by using a

transactional model. Leaders operate within the organizational culture, basing

their decisions upon the value framework intrinsic to that culture.

Also, the Situational Theory Model of Gumpert and Hambleton (1979)

explored how leaders manage their organizational environment through two

types of behavior, either tasks or relationships. This theory explains the

relational manager engages his/her team by developing a relationship that

 14

encourages team success. The leader supports his/her team by listening to

their needs for resources. A leader’s ability to utilize different styles allows the

flexibility to adapt to changing situations within an organization. As the student

mature and develop, the skills of the student’s increase and enable the leader

to engage the team through a higher task style rather than a relationship style

due to the fact the relational groundwork has already been. This subsequent

result of this team is it is an effective, efficient, and healthy operational,

working machine.

Conceptual Framework

The conceptual paradigm of this study was presented in Figure 1.

Specifically, it show the variable of the study. The variable of this study was

the student leadership styles which were based on Osswatch (2014). Student

leadership could be conceptualized to: autocratic is a leadership style wherein

one person controls all the decisions and takes very little inputs from other

group members.; democratic is a type of leadership style in which members of

the group take a more participative role in the decision-making process; and

laissez-fair is a type of leadership style in which leaders are hands-off and

allow group members to make the decisions.

Significance of the Study

This study will give an idea about the sex disparity of student

leadership is significant to some relevant reason. The findings of this study

will be used as valuable information among people in different areas of study.

The result could be highly significant and beneficial to the following:

The Commission on Higher Education (CHED) for this could provide

them reference of information about student leadership to ensure that

 15

education shall be accessible to all. Also, in protecting academic freedom for

the continuing intellectual growth, the advancement of learning and the

development of responsible effective leaders.

To the School Administration, for them to have the outcomes

through planning which will also benefit them in using this study as a basis in

developing skills that would enhance the student’s leadership style and

positive outcomes

Input Output

LEADERSHIP STYLE
Autocratic
Enhancement
Democratic Program

Laissez-fair

Figure 1: Paradigm of the Study Showing its Variable

 16

in leading. Also, they may utilize the findings of the study in giving trainings,

seminar, and workshop among student leaders in the institution especially the

officers from the different clubs and organizations.

Further, this study also beneficial to teachers in which, they may use

the results of the study as their basis to identify the strengths and weaknesses

of their students when it comes to their level of leadership. It also helps them

in designing appropriate classroom activities that is relevant to the student’s

level of intelligence and confidence for the tasks.

Lastly, this study will contribute to the future researchers who will

conduct related studies or conduct further research on this. Also, to use this

as their valuable reference in developing other related researches about the

study. The weakness and other limitation will challenge to either replicate or

conduct the study using other methodologies.

Definition of Terms

To establish a common frame of reference, conceptual and operational

definition was used in this study.

Leadership style. This refers to a social influence process in which the

leader seeks the voluntary participation of subordinates in an effort to reach

 17

organization goals, providing direction, implementing plans, and motivating

people. Various authors have proposed identifying many different leadership

styles as exhibited by leaders (Hilliard, 2010). As operationally defined, this

refers to the autocratic, democratic, and laissez-fair leadership style among

office administration student officers.

Student leaders. Refer to the students have committed to faithfully live

out the purposes by modeling the lifestyle and influencing those around them

to do the same to take advantage of this time and to influence those in their

small group (Tim, 2018).

 18

Chapter 2

METHOD

For better understanding of the research procedures and methods to

be employed, the researcher discussed thoroughly in this chapter the

important concepts of the methodologies to be undertaken. Discussion

includes the research design, research locale, population and sample,

research instrument, and data collection.

Research Design

This study used a quantitative descriptive study since it quantified the

data collected in the variables under study which are autocratic, democratic,

and laissez-fair leadership style of the office administration student officers.

This method is used when variables of interest cannot be manipulated

because they are naturally existing attributes or when random assignment of

individuals to a given treatment condition would be ethical. As defined by

Barnham (2015), quantitative research tries to find answers to concrete

questions by generating numbers and facts.

 19

In addition, quantitative research involves the collection of data so that

information can be quantified and subjected to statistical treatment in order to

support or refute alternative knowledge claims. Furthermore, he also remarks

that quantitative research starts with a statement of a problem, generating of

hypothesis or research question, reviewing related literature, and a

quantitative analysis of data (Williams, 2011).

A descriptive study also lends itself more to the epistemological

position of positivism, as it seeks to gain knowledge through observed and

described phenomena. A descriptive study also values an objective

description, which aligns with the epistemological position of positivism that

guided this study. This research study thus aligned itself with the above

descriptions of a descriptive study (Davis, 2014).

Quantitative design was applied in the current study through the use of

research instruments which were modified questionnaires that quantified the

variables under investigation. The data was then statistically evaluated to

determine the level of its link, which was the primary goal and used of

descriptive research, which was to define the significance of the variable

under investigation.

Research Locale

This study was conducted among Office Administration college student

officers of Kapalong College of Agriculture, Sciences and Technology in the

Municipality of Kapalong, Province of Davao del Norte. Kapalong College of

Agriculture, Sciences and Technology (KCAST) was originally under the

Bukidnon State University (BSU) consortium program in 2005. Five (5) years

later, it became independent from BSU; and as part of being recognized by

 20

the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) and the first local college in

Region XI.

Population and Sample

This study involved the 114 student leaders in all sections of Bachelor

of Science in Office Administration (BSOA) in Kapalong College of Agriculture

Sciences and Technology (KCAST) in Kapalong, Davao del Norte. By the

used of complete enumeration as sampling technique, there were a total of

114 respondents being selected from the total population of the Bachelor of

Science
 21

Figure 2. Geographical Location of the Research Locale

 22

in Office Administration as this number pertains to the student leaders on the

program in general. The researchers asked for the listing of class officers in

the office of the Students and Development Services to get the total number

of respondents.

Table 1. Distribution of Respondents

Total No. BSOA Sample

RESPONDENTS student Population Percentage

BSOA-1A 11 11 9.65%

BSOA-1B 10 10 8.77%

BSOA-1C 10 10 8.77%

BSOA-1D 9 9 7.89%

BSOA-1E 10 10 8.77%

BSOA-2A 10 10 8.77%
BSOA-2B 7 7 6.14%
BSOA-2C 9 9 7.89%
BSOA-3A 7 7 6.14%
BSOA-3B 7 7 6.14%
BSOA-3C 4 4 3.51%
BSOA-4A 10 10 2.40%
BSOA-4B 10 10 2.30%
TOTAL 114 114 100.00%

Research Instrument

The research instruments utilized in the study was an adopted

questionnaire from Osswatch (2014) for the leadership style of office

administration students which was validated by the panel of experts.

Indicators for the variable were autocratic, democratic, and laissez-fair. The
 23

questionnaire had five (5) questions each indicator with the total of (15)

questions.

For the variable student leadership, the researchers employed

parameter limit and descriptive equivalents as follows:

Range of Means Descriptive Description

Equivalent

4.20-5.00 Very High If the measure described in

leadership style item is
always observed.
3.40-4.10 High If the measure described in
leadership style item is
oftentimes observed.

3.00-3.30 Average If the measure described in

leadership style item is
sometimes observed.

1.80-2.90 Low If the measure described in

leadership style item is
seldom observed.

1.00-1.70 Very Low If the measure described in

leadership style item is rarely
observed.
Data Collection

In gathering the data, the researchers observed the following steps.

Seeking the Permission to Conduct the Study. The researcher secured

permission letter as approved from the IATF, to the College President Rodrigo

C. Licayan Jr., DBA, to the Head of Student Development and Services Office

Mar Vincent M. Rebote, MAEcon and the program head of Office

Administration Denisa A. Suteu, MBA and approval from the IATF all for the

gathering of population data, for asking the complete list of officers as well as

the conduct of the study itself.

Validation of Survey Questionnaires. The researchers used an adopted

questionnaire after the approval of the panel. The questionnaire was used and
 24

presented first to their adviser for verification and validated by the panel of

experts. After the validation of questionnaires, the study was conducted at

Kapalong College of Agriculture, Sciences and Technology.

Distribution and Retrieval of the Questionnaire.The researchers

distributed the research questionnaires to the respondents through online.

After the respondents completely answered the test questionnaire with ample

time given, the researchers retrieved the test questionnaire from them.

Collection and Tabulation of the Data. The research instrument was

retrieved, checked and gathered together for the tabulation of the data which

was done by the researchers.

Statistical Tools

The statistical tool was used to calculate the data in the study likewise

in the testing of the research objectives at 0.05 level of significance.

Mean. This was used for determining the level of the leadership styles

of the office administration student class officers.

 25

Chapter 3

RESULTS

Presented in the section below were the discussions of the data

gathered about the leadership style of office administration student officers in

terms of autocratic, democratic and laissez-fair as well as the propose

enhancement program that can be generated from results of the study.

Level of Leadership Styles of Office Administration Student Officers in

terms of Autocratic

The level of leadership style of office administration student officers

was measured through a survey questionnaire with the following indicators:

autocratic, democratic and laissez-fair. The responses of the respondents on

each indicator were presented and analyzed below.

Presented in Table 2 is the level of leadership style of office

administration student officers in terms of autocratic had a total mean of 3.70

with a descriptive equivalent of high. It implied that the level of leadership

style of office administration officers in terms of autocratic is oftentimes

manifested. Likewise, even though it is often manifested but it seems that

almost office administration officers have the voice to lead the organization

based on their capacity to lead.

Also, the data revealed that the highest mean of 4.38 was obtained

from item number 4 stating closely monitoring my team to ensure they are

performing correctly with a very high descriptive equivalent which means that

it is always manifested. This means that the office administration officers need

to check and update the performance of the members to see to it that it is

guided by what they want.

 26

Table 2
The level of the level of leadership style of BSOA officer in terms of Autocratic
Autocratic Mean Description

1. Not considering suggestions made by my 1.92 Low

team members as I do not have the time for
them.
2. Telling my team members what has to be 4.34 Very High
done and how to do it.
3. When someone makes a mistake, I telling 3.93 High
him or her not to ever do that again and make
a note of it.
4. Monitoring closely my team to ensure they 4.38 Very High
are performing correctly.
5. When something goes wrong, I telling my 3.91 High
team that a procedure is not working correctly
and I establish a new one.

Overall 3.70 High

Lastly, item number 1 stating not considering suggestion made by my

team members as I do not have the time for them got the lowest mean of 1.92

garnered a low descriptive equivalent which means that it is seldom

manifested. This implied that the office administration officer need to consider

the opinion of others in order to have a successful attainment of the goal as

one team.

Level of Leadership Styles of Office Administration Student Officers in

terms of Democratic

Presented in Table 3 were the level of the level of leadership style of

office administration officers in terms of democratic had a total mean of 4.11

with a descriptive equivalent of high. It implied that the level of the level of

leadership style of office administration officers in terms of democracy is

oftentimes manifested. Likewise, even though it is often manifested but it

seems that almost office administration officers they still have an initiative to

gathered idea for their member to achieved the success of the organization.
 27

Meanwhile, the level of leadership style of BSOA officer in terms of

democratic. The data revealed that the highest mean of 4.42 was obtained

from item number 3 stating wanting to create an environment where team

members take ownership of the projects. I allowing them to participate in the

decision-making projects with a very high descriptive equivalent which means

that it is always manifested. This implied that the office administration officers

allowing everyone to cooperate and participate in attaining the goal of the

organization. Two heads are better than one is the best describe for the

officer that fall under this indicator.

Table 3
The level of the level of leadership style of BSOA officer in terms of
democratic
Democratic Mean Description
1. Trying to include one or more team members 3.95 High
in determining what to do and how to do it.
However, I maintain the final decision-making
authority.
2. Asking for ideas and input on upcoming plans 4.00 High
and projects.
3. Wanting to create an environment where team 4.42 Very High
members take ownership of the projects. I
allow them to participate in the decision-
making projects.
4. Asking team members foe their vision of where 4.23 High
they see their work going and then use their
vision where appropriate.
5. Exercising self-direction if they are committed 3.97 High
to the objectives.
Overall 4.11 High

Lastly, item number 2 stating asking for ideas and input on upcoming

plans and projects got the lowest mean of 4.00 which garnered a high

descriptive equivalent which means that it is oftentimes manifested. This

means that the office administration officer they oftentimes solicit ideas from
 28

others for planning. Also, student leaders opted to listen to the ideas of their

groupmates or constituents rather than basing and choosing their own

decisions.

Level of Leadership Styles of Office Administration Student Officers in

terms of Laissez-Fair

Presented in Table 4 were the level of the level of leadership style of

office administration officers in terms of laissez-fair had a total mean of 4.22

with a descriptive equivalent of high. It implied that the level of the level of

leadership style of office administration officer in terms of laissez-fair is

oftentimes manifested. Indicate that they let everyone decide what they want

to be with a little guidance of the officers.

Table 4
The level of the level of leadership style of BSOA officer in terms of laissez-
fair
Laissez-Fair Mean Description
1. Voting whenever a major decision has to be 4.31 Very High
made.
2. Having the approval of each individual or the 4.39 Very High
majority for a major decision to be made
3. Allowing my team members to determine 4.34 Very High
what needs to be done and how to do it.
4. Delegating tasks in order to implement a 4.09 High
new procedure or process.
5. Having the right to determine their own 3.96 High
organizational objectives among team
members.
Overall 4.22 High

Thus, the level of leadership style of office administration student

officers in terms of laissez-fair. The data revealed that the highest mean of

4.39 was obtained from item number 2 stating having the approval of each

individual or the majority for a major decision to be made with a very high
 29

descriptive equivalent which means that it is always manifested. This implied

that the office administration officers having a consensus in every decision for

the organization, allowing everyone to participate in decision making.

Furthermore, the data also revealed that item number 5 stating having

the right to determine their own organizational objectives among team

members got the lowest mean of 3.96 garnered a high descriptive equivalent

which means that it is oftentimes manifested. This indicated that the

administration officers student officers that as an officer they allow their

member to feel free in any suggestion and opinion in working with the

members to target the highest attainment of the objective of the organization.

Summary of Leadership Styles of Office Administration Student Officers

Presented in the Table 5 is the overall level of level leadership style of

administration officers. It is revealed with an overall mean of 4.01 with a

descriptive equivalent of high. It indicates that the level of leadership style of

office administration student officers is oftentimes manifested. This implies

that the characteristic shows of some of the leaders has this kind of

leadership style. But still all the indicator has a description of high, it observed

that all the indicator is often observed and practice by the office administration

leaders.

Also, data showed that the highest mean was garnered by the indicator

laisses-fair with a total mean of 4.22 with a descriptive equivalent of high. This

indicates that level leadership style among administration officers is

oftentimes manifested. This implied that the office administration officers has

oftentimes manifested and let alone policy which they like to do a work
 30

depending of what they wanted this means they need to decide according to

their will with accordance with the higher position.

On the other hand, the indicator autocratic obtained a total mean of

3.70 which was considered being the lowest mean. This implied that level

leadership style in terms of autocratic was oftentimes manifested. This

indicated that the officers more often become autocratic in terms of leading

the organization. This means that their voice as officers is the only voice that

they want without any other prevailing voices come from the member.

Democratic obtained a mean of 4.11 which consider being the second highest

mean. This implied the level of oftentimes manifested. This indicate that the

leadership style of BSOA become democratic in terms of handling their

members.

Table 5
Summary on the Level of Leadership Style of Office Administration Student
Officers
Indicators Mean Description

Autocratic 3.70 High

Democratic 4.11 High
Laissez-Fair 4.22 High
Overall 4.01 High
 31

Chapter 4

DISCUSSION

The data presented about leadership styles among BSOA student-

leaders of Kapalong College of Agriculture, Sciences and Technology were

presented in this chapter and discussions were based on the findings

appeared in the previous sections.

Level of Leadership Style among the BSOA Student-leaders in KCAST

The respondents’ level of Leadership Style was generally in high level

of performance as manifested by the respondents according to their ratings

given in the indicators of Leadership style in terms of autocratic, democratic

and laissez-fair.

The result revealed that autocratic is also oftentimes manifested in the

students-leaders which means that leadership position is supposed to be a

shared responsibility which no one should lay claim to within an organization

by implementing the will of a leader.

This study is supported to the findings of Oyebimpe (2017) which

stated the higher level of autocratic Institutions can take responsibility and

address the fundamental requirements of a group while making the greatest

use of the resources at their disposal without jeopardizing the members'

higher worth.This study is congruence with the findings of Boehman (2016),

which stated that the higher level in autocratic of the students-leaders be

 32

specially the officers need to checked and update the performance of the

member to see to it that it is guided by what they want and have a knowledge

to answer the questions, readiness to respond the group request, handle

complains about the services and helps the development the department.

This study is also congruence with the findings of Val & Kemp (2015)

which stated that the higher level of autocratic leader would generally solve an

issue and make decisions for the group using observations and what they feel

is needed or most important for the majority of the group members to benefit

at that time, when faced with the need to provide a decision.

The result revealed that democratic style is oftentimes manifested

which means that it was always observed by the themselves and other

students in Kapalong College of Agriculture, Sciences and Technology that

the governing students-leaders will guide and be the voice of all BSOA

students.

Also, this study is parallel with the findings of Avolio (2017) which

stated that higher level of democracy students-leaders are already assisting in

raising student awareness in order to improve comprehension. It strengthens

democracy and promotes efficiency and effectiveness in organizations that

reflect their main leadership conceptualization and interactions with their peer

group over whom they have limited, if any, positional authority; the democratic

style provides the best opportunity for collaboration with stakeholders feeling

heard, and should mediate and facilitate the group's various interests to reach

a general agreement on what is the best course of action.

This study is also supported by Cherry (2018) which stated that the

higher-level democratic student leaders guide group members while also

 33

engaging in the group and soliciting input. In this study, the group contributed

less frequently than the authoritarian group, but their contributions were of

greater quality.

This study is also parallel to the findings of Kapur (2020) which stated

the higher level of democratic style by acknowledging the unequal starting

point and continuing to correct and address the imbalance, of the members

ensures that everyone in the group has access to the same opportunities in

the school and group, while inclusiveness is about people with different

identities feeling valued, leveraged, and welcomed within a given setting.

Democratic has long been recognized as one of the most powerful influences

on leadership.

Further, results revealed that laissez-fair is oftentimes manifested

which means that the BSOA students-leaders in Kapalong College of

Agriculture, Sciences and Technology allows the co-students being part on

decision makings in the department for them to get the actual problem being

raised by people and for the continuously development of the said course.

In other investigation which showed that high participation of the co-

students was important to develop practices and improve the quality of

leadership among leaders. This study is congruence to the findings of Zaver

(2015) which stated that the participation of the member in selecting solutions

to problems promotes common good.

This study is congruence with the findings of Avolio (2017) which

stated that the it develops a process of education where students and

students-leaders were working together to solve the problem. Which means

 34

that they are unified in having decisions in giving better services for the BSOA

students in KCAST.

This result is further support with findings of Stogdill (2015) which

stated that the high level of laissez-fair leadership style helps the student

development especially in achieving the goals of the group such as better

development to achieve effective governance in the school Combinations of

extensive knowledge of effective communication techniques with deep insight

into conflict resolution and group dynamics the practical step-by-step

facilitation guide presents an efficient method to social of group on which

generate general agreement on important decisions with full member

participation in the atmosphere of true collaboration.

These findings point to variances in leadership styles at various levels

of the organizational hierarchy, where various leadership roles serve

fundamentally distinct functions. This theory has some support in the

literature; distinctions in leadership styles have been demonstrated between

autocratic, democratic, and laissez-faire leaders in a variety of situations, with

different types of leadership styles being utilized increasingly more frequently

as leadership levels rise (Astin, 2018).

Conclusion

Based on the findings of the study, conclusions were drawn in answer

to sub-question raised in the previous chapter. The respondents from

Kapalong college of Agriculture, Sciences and Technology were in high level

of leadership style which means that they oftentimes manifested the

autocratic, democratic and laissez-fair.

 35

On the other hand, the level of leadership style among office

administration student officers in terms of autocratic leadership style was in

high level which means that the students oftentimes manifested the said

indicator of leadership style. This implies that office administration officers

have the voice to lead the organization based on their capacity to lead.

In addition, based on the results of the study, it can also be drawn that

the level of leadership style among office administration student officers in

terms of democratic leadership style was in high level which means that the

students oftentimes manifested the said indicators of leadership style. This

means that practically almost of the office administration officers are still

taking the initiative to gather ideas for their members in order to help the

organization succeed.

Lastly, the level of leadership style among office administration student

officers in terms of laissez-fair leadership style was in high level which means

that the students oftentimes manifested the said indicators of leadership style.

This means that every decision made by the office administration officers

must be unanimous, allowing everyone to participate in decision-making.

Recommendations

Since the findings of the study revealed that leadership style is high, it

was suggested that the former variable may affect the latter. Among the three

indicators of leadership style, autocratic had the lowest mean being identified.

Thus, the student’s exposure in autocratic drills oftentimes manifested and

has a least manifestation compare to other indicators. We suggested that

leadership requires a great deal of trustworthy leaders needed to feel

 36

confident that the members of their group possess the skills, knowledge, and

follow-through to complete a project without being micromanaged.

Consequently, the democratic leadership style is high. Therefore, we

highly recommend that the student-leaders should strive to become role

models to their subordinates; inspire members by providing meaning and

challenge to work; stimulate subordinate efforts to become innovative &

creative; and pay attention to each individual need for achievement and

growth.

Also, the laissez-fair leadership style is high, thus, the student in

Kapalong College of Agriculture, Sciences and Technology was suggested

that there is no single leadership style is appropriate at all times, because no

leadership is right all the time. Therefore, the student-leaders may promote

continuously programs and projects for the co-student’s empowerment to

ensure the students improvement and development.

Then, student leaders must develop their leadership style and skills by

attaining and attending seminars and training to further advance their

knowledge of leadership given by seasoned and active leaders available in

the locality. Also, it is suggested among educators and/or academic body in

the institution to let all students gain a better understanding of variables that

may affects students’ leadership styles in order to best educate students and

prepare them for professional experiences.

Lastly, formulating the intervention program to the students give a

holistic approach to addressing learners' concerns regarding Office

Administration Personnel and student officers' leadership styles. It is goal-

oriented, allowing people to earn leadership experience, a life career, and

 37

long-term happiness. Hence, it was suggested by the researchers that the

Office Administration program head, stuff, (PASOA), students as well as the

Student Development Services Office (SDSO) must employ or conduct the

propose enhancement program in order to make use of the valuable findings

that the study offered.