Assessing Leadership Styles in Student Unions: A Quantitative Survey in Ghana

Abstract

In Ghana, student unionism has become integral to the leadership culture. Over time, this has witnessed successive national leaders emerging from the wings of student governance. Our study investigates the preferred leadership styles of students in Ghana. The study adopted a quantitative methodology. The population for the study consists of member-students of the Students Representative Council (SRC) of the University of Professional Studies-Accra. The sample comprised students offering various courses from levels 100–400. Ninety-five (95) students were selected using a simple random sampling technique for the study. Anchored on the contingency leadership theory, we found that students preferred to be led through a democratic leadership style (M = 3.52, SD = 0.45) than laissez-faire (M = 3.51, SD = 0.42) and autocratic styles (M = 2.3, SD = 0.72). We also found that senior students prefer autocratic leadership styles. We conclude that students’ preference for a democratic leadership style stems from the need to create a participatory environment. This gives followers a sense of ownership of the decision-making process. We also conclude that as students’ academic responsibilities increase, they may prefer autocratic leadership styles as it ensures that their needs are met quickly.

1. Introduction

Ghanaian leaders are likely to adopt a paternalistic leadership style, influenced by the traditional rule system where the chief is seen as the father of the community [1]. Asiedu-Appiah et al. [1] argue that Ghanaian leaders in a work organisation are also expected to make decisions that will benefit the organisation and employees without involving them in decision-making. Overall, their study’s findings suggest that influential leaders were achievement and results-oriented, focused, committed, courageous, hardworking, and have integrity. While their study investigated leadership broadly, the results have implications for leadership in the Ghanaian educational sector.

Effective leaders are needed to manage vocational-technical educational institutions in Ghana as the government plans to raise its workforce’s skill level [2]. Leadership styles would be a prominent feature of any educational institution that intends to ensure enhanced productivity and efficiency in its service delivery. The leadership of the Polytechnic predominantly exhibited autocratic and democratic (participative) leadership characteristics [3]. Yahaya et al. [3] further reports that leaders who exhibited democratic (participative), people-oriented or transformational leadership characteristics enhanced staff productivity. The study concluded that the leadership of the Polytechnic were either autocratic or democratic in its leadership approach.

While the works of [2, 3] seem to give preliminary evidence of the need for good leadership in Ghana’s educational sector, there seems to be a certain lack of awareness among educational managers on the styles that produce results within the Ghanaian educational system. For instance, [4] reports that unless headteachers are well equipped with leadership knowledge and skills, they would not know if they have any influence on their schools and academic work. The study also established that even though respondents agreed that a leadership style could affect academic performance, the headteachers do not gain the confidence of the stakeholders enough to build terms that can enhance the quality of teaching and learning.

Inferring from the work of [4], the leader directs the progress of every organisation. This is found true in the work of [5] that leaders should know any action to improve subordinate commitment and job performance should take into account appropriate leadership behaviour. Also, human development training should be instituted to shape the enterprise’s present and future leadership needs.

While these studies on leadership and its styles are specifically aimed at university managers, it does appear that, within the Ghanaian educational system, there seem to be minimal studies on the leadership styles relative to the student unions and their leadership. This deficit in the leadership literature precludes educational stakeholders from holistically accessing, in broader terms, the leadership styles adopted by the educational system in Ghana since that will be bereft of the inputs of students’ leadership. This study fills this gap by interrogating the leadership styles adopted by student leaders in a public university in Ghana.

The significance of this study is that it would contribute to the existing literature on leadership styles adopted in the Ghanaian educational system from the lenses of students. It is also significant that we will be able to establish whether the styles adopted are effective or otherwise in achieving the desired outcomes for students within the Ghanaian educational sector. The study is further significant in that it introduces readers to studies on university governance from student leadership perspectives.

2. Literature review

2.1 Theoretical antecedence of the study

We adopt the contingency theory as the theoretical base of our study. The theory posits that the situation, environment and other factors are the basis of choosing an appropriate leadership style. According to [6], contingency theories dominate scholarly studies of organisational behaviour, design, performance, planning and management strategy. While they vary widely in subject matter, they have the common proposition that an organisational outcome is the consequence of a fit or match between two or more factors. Fielding [7] also asserts that contingency theory postulates that no universally accepted model of the organisation explains the diversity of organisational design. Therefore, an organisation’s design is contingent on factors relevant to its situation. We argue that given the complex nature and characteristics of student organisations and needs, the leadership preference of students will vary depending on the situations they find themselves in and will require leaders to also vary in their leadership approaches.

2.2 Leadership styles

Leadership styles have continued to be one of the most widely discussed areas by researchers worldwide [8, 9]. When leaders interact with their subordinates, they use various diverse features, attributes, and behaviours collectively referred to as their leadership style [10]. According to [10], leadership is the pattern of managerial action intended to integrate organisational or personal interests and impacts for accomplishing specific goals. The various definitions of leadership only imply that a variety of behaviours or aspects can explain the concept of leadership. These dimensions are usually referred to as leadership styles [11].

Like the general leadership construct, democratic leadership also has no conceptual precision [11]. Pioneer studies on leadership presented a classic formulation of democratic leadership that distinguished the concept from autocratic and laissez-faire leadership styles [12, 13, 14]. The idea of democratic leadership suggests that decision-making should be shared between the leader and the group so that praise and criticism may be delivered objectively and for the group as a whole to feel more accountable [15]. Decisions are made jointly by the leader and the group, in which praise and criticism are offered objectively, and a sense of accountability is fostered. This gives the followers the chance to take the initiative and contribute [15].

Contrarily, the laissez-faire leadership style avoids making important decisions and provides little assistance with problem-solving [16]. With laissez-faire leadership, there is no work improvement intervention or follow-up of performance feedback [17]. A Laissez-faire leadership style is associated with role conflict, increased stress, and low job dissatisfaction [16]. Laissez-faire leadership is ineffective because it may prevent followers from receiving information and feedback from their leader [18] and support when dealing with difficult situations at work. Indeed, this lack of adequate leadership has negative consequences for followers, such as higher levels of distress and more conflicts with colleagues [19], as well as reduced satisfaction with the job, satisfaction with the leader, and leader effectiveness [20].

According to [21], autocratic leaders use forceful methods to uphold the law, influence decision-makers and the public and reward loyalty over merit. Strict adherence to the organisational structure and a precise explanation of processes are concerns of autocratic leadership. According to research by Fred Fiedler, authoritarian leaders can be effective in some circumstances because they can alternate between consideration and ruthlessness [22, 23]. Given that the leader has unquestionable authority within a team or organisation, the leader’s power determines the autocratic leadership style [24]. The organisation’s behaviour, performance, and accomplishments are all decided upon and are the leader’s sole responsibility. From co-workers, he requires them to follow his instructions and directives, respect and implement his decisions and orders, and communicate formally and in written form [24].

This leadership approach can be used for jobs that must be accomplished quickly, with reliant subordinates, in shaky working groups. This leadership approach performs well in the beginning and produces positive outcomes. Cherry [21], however, suggested that if this style of leadership conduct is used for a long time without taking into account the level of human resources and the requirement for associate independence, it becomes a limiting factor in the firm’s growth.

2.3 Student leadership

Student leadership in schools is a distinct area in research and practice, as education is, first and foremost, a moral enterprise [25, 26, 27, 28, 29]. However, emerging trends in the last 15 years show a renewed focus on developing critical leadership outcomes in students, with momentum built in recent years primarily due to increased accountability for learning [30]. These studies reveal that Student Leaders are a part of School Leaders and have a significant role in the classroom and their respective organisations [31]. Compared to earlier leadership theory and philosophy, the developing tendencies observed include a paradigm shift toward reciprocal and relational models [32, 33], the business sector’s increasing emphasis on teams and collaborative methods [34]; the professionalisation of the educator’s role in student leadership [35]. Other trends include the creation of new student leadership paradigms [35, 36]; the civic engagement, service learning and volunteerism movement [37]; among social identity groupings, the empowerment of leadership needs [38]; and the creation of new tools, conferences, and resources for leadership educators, including the “International Leadership Association (ILA)” and the “Association of Leadership Educators (ALE)” additionally to the “National Leadership Symposium”. These new developments point to a societal and institutional imperative for educational institutions, including secondary schools, colleges, and universities, to cultivate responsible student leaders [30].

2.4 Student voice in leadership

The role of leaders of student unions is to serve as a pivot for channelling the collective opinions and needs of the students they lead. Arguably this is best achieved when students when the opinions and interests of all involved are solicited and defended by the few chosen to represent them. Fielding [7] writes persuasively that student-led dialogue can lead to open and exploratory exchanges founded on ‘active listening’ in ‘joint inquiry [which is] respectful, attentive and committed to positive change’ Student Representative Councils in institutions of higher education try to achieve this by establishing other chains of representations from faculties through departments down to classes. Robinson and Taylor [39] asserts that one of the values underpinning pupil voice work is that of participation. To create a school in which there is democratic inclusivity, there is a need for ways of allowing the whole student body to participate in school decision-making and recognising that there are multiple voices to be listened to, regardless of gender, ethnicity, disability, behaviour and social class. The mandate of the SRC to advocate for student needs and interests is also achieved through partnerships with faculty and management, serving as a close mouthpiece to the two parties and aligning interests. The beneficial outcomes of partnership engagement are emerging in published literature [40]. Cook-Sather [41] also report positive learning impacts for students, while [42, 43] demonstrate how students and staff who work together have a greater feeling of leadership in, accountability for, and motivation for the learning process. Other scholars report a transformed sense of self and self-awareness for both students and staff [41, 42, 44, 45] alongside the development of more inclusive teaching practices [46].

2.5 Leadership orientation of staff

Regarding the benefits of partnerships between student leaders and faculty and staff, it is also important to discuss the leadership orientations of faculties and staff and the outcomes/effects on the wellbeing, behaviours, achievements and performances of the student populace. Focusing on building faculty leadership skills with an emphasis on increasing student collaboration may lead to increased student performance [47]. Studies suggest that there might be no unique or universal approach to leadership that can improve all aspects of students’ welfare. For instance, [48] examined the effect of principals’ leadership styles on students’ academic performances in the Kenyan Certificate of Secondary Education (KCSE). The study’s foundations were modified versions of Bossert’s and Pitner’s theoretical frameworks, which claim that interconnected factors, such as external antecedent variables and current external environmental conditions, impact the principal’s role. They discovered that schools with more democratic and participative leadership styles that promoted teamwork and group work outperformed those with more authoritarian, largely dictatorial leadership approaches.

Al-Khasawneh and Moh’d Futa [49] first sought to determine the leadership style most frequently employed by Jordanian university professors and then looked at how three different leadership philosophies—autocratic, laissez-faire, and democratic—affected how students behaved. The findings showed that the academic staffs at the universities under study operate democratically. The simple regression results showed that only the democratic leadership style affected how the behaviour of students.

In a slightly different context, [50] investigated the influence of principals’ democratic leadership and autocratic and laissez-faire styles on students’ performance. The study established that democratic leadership accounted for 37.4% of student academic performance variation, as signified by adjusted R square 0.374. Autocratic leadership accounted for 43.8% of the variation in students’ academic performance, and the Laissez-faire leadership style accounted for 15.7% of the variation in students’ academic performance. They suggested that principals should be encouraged to balance both democratic and autocratic styles but avoid Laissez-faire.

Similarly, [51] compared principals’ leadership styles in public and mission secondary schools on students’ academic performance in Nigeria. Results of the investigation reveal that autocratic leadership style was positively correlated with students’ academic performance. The study recommended that principals’ application of autocratic leadership style can increase students’ academic performance.

2.6 Leadership orientation of student leaders

Based on the leadership orientation survey (LOS-self) by Bolman and Deal, [52] investigated the leadership philosophies of student leaders at secondary and postsecondary institutions in Malaysia. Four leadership philosophies—structural, human resource, political, and symbolic—were examined. Findings showed various leadership philosophies among Malaysian student leaders of the three main ethnic groups, genders, and between those enrolled in secondary school and postsecondary education. The structural frame is the second most common after the human resources frame.

According to [52], the human resource frame focuses on human needs and assumes that organisations that meet basic needs will work better than those that do not. Human resource leaders value relationships and feelings and seek to lead through facilitation and empowerment. The political frame assumes that organisations are coalitions composed of individuals and interest groups competing for scarce resources. The political framework assumes that institutions are coalitions of people and interest groups vying for limited resources. Conflict results from persistent disparities in the values and views of various groups and people. The structural frame emphasises goals and efficiency. It assumes that leaders work by establishing crystal-clear objectives. Institutions use policies, procedures, and the chain of command to classify people into distinct jobs and coordinate a variety of activities. In a world where meaning and predictability are social constructs and facts are interpretative rather than objective, the symbolic frame sees chaos. Organisations create culture and symbols that subtly influence people’s behaviour and foster a sense of shared purpose and identity.

Mohanan and Shah [53] also examined the leadership frames of university presidents using the Bolman and Deal framework. They also emphasise that, given the complexity of the modern presidency, using at least three frames is essential to effectively lead the organisation. Leaders who analyse challenges from many viewpoints are better equipped to address more complicated difficulties. Tull and Freeman [54] evaluated the preferred leadership frames and locus of power used by 478 student affairs administrators in a different study. Administrator responses were analysed to determine the most popular leadership frames and their preferred rankings. The survey’s findings showed that administrators preferred the human resource frame above the structural frame, ranked second, and rarely focused on the political frame.

Furthermore, by ranking the preferred leadership styles and influence strategies at a management institute as part of a class assignment, [55] investigated the preferences of 209 MBA students. Findings showed that individuals favoured adopting nurturing-task and participatory methods over transformational style more frequently. Additionally, they discovered that they were least likely to adopt an authoritarian style. The first three styles have positive correlations, indicating that they can invoke all leadership styles to varying degrees. Sinha and Gupta [55] further research revealed that although influence tactics and leadership styles were significantly associated, there were enough overlaps to imply that leaders might flexibly employ various styles and influence tactics depending on the circumstances of various scenarios. Literature on the prevailing leadership styles of students in the sub-continent is relatively scarce. The current student then seeks to remedy this by shedding light on the preferred leadership styles of undergraduate students in Ghana.

3. Materials and methods

3.1 Research design

This study used a quantitative research paradigm with survey research as the design for the study.

3.2 Sample and population

The population for the study consists of member students of the Students Representative Council (SRC) of the University of Professional Studies-Accra. The sample comprised students offering various courses from levels 100–400. Ninety-five (95) students were selected using a simple random sampling technique for the study.

3.3 Instrumentation and validation

The preferred leadership style questionnaire (PLSQ) used in this study comprised nine items that examined three leadership styles preferred by students. Anchors in the instruments were: 1 = Strongly Agree, 2 = Agree, 3 = Strongly Disagree, 4 = Disagree. Items (2, 5, & 8) measured preference for democratic leadership, items (1, 4, & 7) measured preference for autocratic leadership and items (3, 6, & 9) measured preference for laissez-faire leadership style. A principal components exploratory factor analysis with varimax rotation showed Kaiser-Meyer measure of sampling adequacy of 0.71 and also showed that at Eigen-value of 1, there were two constructs explaining 47% of the variances between the items in the PLSQ with the first six items loading together in the first component and the last three in the second. The items on the PLSQ had a Cronbach’s alpha α=0.694.

3.4 Data analysis

We used mean analysis with standard deviations and kurtosis to examine the preferred leadership styles by students using SPSS package version 26. The means for the preference for leadership styles were ranked using scales: 1 = very low, 2 = low, 3 = high, 4 = very high. We further used regression analysis to determine the relationship between age, level and preference for autocratic leadership styles.

4. Findings

The study’s objective was to determine students’ preferred leadership styles. as part of this objective, the researchers measured preference for democratic leadership (see Table 1). We analysed frequencies for each item and presented the data as means. The scores for items that measured preference for democratic leadership style “SRC should involve us in decision making” (M = 3.67, SD = 0.53), “SRC should allow us to allow us to collectively brainstorm for decisions” (M = 3.46, SD = 0.64), “SRC should implement the decision of the majority” (M = 3.43, SD = 0.70) and the overall score for students’ preference for democratic leadership was (M = 3.52, SD = 0.45).

Items	N	Mean
SRC should involve us in decision making	95	3.6737
SRC should allow us to collectively brainstorm for decisions	95	3.4632
SRC should implement the decision of the majority	95	3.4316
Democratic leadership	95	3.5228

Table 1.

Descriptive statistics for student preference for democratic leadership style.

Also, we examined students’ preference for Laissez-faire leadership (see Table 2). The scores for the items that measured preference for laissez-faire leadership were “Students should be allowed to make decisions that do not impede the functions and activities of the SRC” (M = 3.53, SD = 0.59), “SRC should trust students to be able to perform tasks assigned them by building their confidence” (M = 3.52, SD = 0.63), “The SRC should delegate some responsibilities to students” (M = 3.48, SD = 0.59). The overall score for student preference for laissez-faire leadership style was (M = 3.51, SD = 0.42).

Items	N	Mean
Students should be allowed to make decisions that do not impede the functions and activities of the SRC	95	3.5368
SRC should trust students to be able to perform tasks assigned to them by building their confidence	95	3.5263
The SRC should delegate some responsibilities to students	95	3.4842
Laissez-faire	95	3.5158

Table 2.

Descriptive statistics on student preference for Laissez – Faire Leadership.

Lastly, we examined students’ preference for autocratic leadership (see Table 3). The scores for the items that measured preference for autocratic leadership were “The SRC should govern students by strict rules and regulations” (M = 2.60, SD 0.99) and “The ideas and judgement of the SRC should supersede that of students” (M = 2.37, SD = 0.93), “The SRC should allow no inputs from students in decision making” (M = 2.16, SD = 1.08) and the overall score for student preference for autocratic leadership was (M = 2.3, SD = 0.72).

Items	N	Mean
The SRC should govern students by strict rules and regulations	95	2.6000
The ideas and judgement of the SRC should supersede that of students	95	2.3789
The SRC should allow no inputs from students in decision making	95	2.1684
Autocratic leadership	95	2.3825

Table 3.

Descriptive statistics on student preference for autocratic leadership.

Interestingly, mean scores for student preference for autocratic leadership demonstrate a preference for autocratic leadership in students, although it is the least preferred leadership style. A further regression analysis between age and level with a preference for autocratic leadership style shows a positive and significant relationship between student level and preference for autocratic leadership style [R² = 0.075, F (2.92) = 3.70, p = 0.028].

5. Discussions

The findings offer insights into the preferred leadership styles of management students at the University of Professional Studies - Accra. Most students were males between the ages of 21–30. Students preferred being led by leaders who adopted democratic leadership styles, followed by laissez-faire leadership. Findings from this study corroborate the works of [48, 49, 50, 51, 56].

Obama et al. [48] found that the schools that embraced more democratic and participatory leadership styles that encouraged group work and team spirit performed significantly better than those that used more autocratic leadership styles that were largely dictatorial. Al-Khasawneh and Moh’d Futa [49] also found that democratic styles were effective in modifying student behaviour. While the current study only surveys the prevalent leadership styles preferred by students and does not delve into the styles adopted by staff and faculty, it informs student leaders in collaborating with staff and faculties. Smith et al. [47] adds that focusing on building faculty leadership skills with an emphasis on increasing student collaborations may lead to increased student performance.

Results from the current study also show that students also prefer laissez-faire over autocratic styles, and [56] found that the laissez-faire leadership style was positively correlated with the self-efficacy of the academic staff in the studied university, which has positive results in the student’s achievements.

Autocratic leadership style, although the least preferred leadership style, had a relative satisfactory preference among some students. Further regression analysis showed a positive correlation between student preference for autocratic leadership and their academic level and age. This means that seniors and older students preferred autocratic leadership. This may be due to the maturity levels compared to younger students who prefer participatory leadership styles often exhibited by democratic leaders. This mildly corroborates the work of [51], who found that autocratic leadership style was positively correlated with students’ academic performance.

In student governance, the leadership’s fundamental objective is directed toward students’ wellbeing, and as such, student preference for democratic, participatory and mentorship styles are merited. However, depending on the student’s lifestyle and academic responsibilities, laissez-faire or autocratic styles may be a better proposition for some students, especially seniors [57]. Increasing academic responsibilities in senior years might shift the preference for democratic leadership to laissez-faire or autocratic leadership to accommodate other responsibilities. Since leadership tenures typically last only for an academic year, it may best serve some students even if leaders exhibit autocratic styles as it ensures that issues can be solved in the relevant time frames, unlike in democratic or participatory styles, which require more time in decision-making.

What this broadly implies for literature on the preferred leadership styles of students in institutions of higher education is that in identifying and promoting students’ voices as agents of change, student unions/organizations and their leaders in the sub-continent can now alter what has been the normative leadership style particularly in the African contexts where leadership is predominantly paternalistic [1]. This can provide opportunities for student-faculty partnership in higher education, particularly those that open up discussions among subject specialists, students and educational researchers, creating forms of transactional curriculum inquiry between these three parties [58], that will support faculty and students in embracing a partnership model and thereby transform teaching and learning into shared responsibilities of faculty and students [46]. A snowball effect of this will then be better academic performances that is built upon better negotiations and partnerships between the student bodies, faculties and management [48, 50, 59].

6. Conclusions and implications

The study sheds light on the leadership styles students desire from their leaders. The study found that students preferred democratic (participative) leadership more than laissez-faire and autocratic styles. The study further found that senior students prefer autocratic leadership styles. We conclude that students’ preference for democratic leadership behaviours stems from the need to create participatory environments where followers feel a sense of being part of the entire decision-making process. The study also concludes that increasing academic responsibilities might necessitate students’ preference for autocratic leadership styles, as an autocratic leadership style could ensure that needs are met quickly without requiring too much time in decision-making. The Practical implications of this study are that student leaders of the student unions can identify and be flexible with the type of leadership orientations they lead with.

Moreover, student leaders can encourage staff to engage students depending on specific needs in collaborating with staff and faculty. The study, however, does not explore how different leadership orientations will improve students’ welfare or otherwise, which contributes to a major limitation of the study. Although the study was conducted at the University of Professional Studies – Accra, its results will be beneficial to other student organisations, including the National Union of Ghana Students, Graduate Students’ Association of Ghana, Teacher Trainees’ Association of Ghana, University Students’ Association of Ghana, Regional Students Representative Councils, and the National Association of Health Sciences Students of Ghana.

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the contributions of Mr Solomon Yeboah, Mr Jessie Foli, Ms Dorcas Adomaa Addo, and Ms Emmanuella Sefiamor Heloo to this study.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.