# Enhancing employees' grit through transformational leadership style and participation in decision-making: education context

Gertrude R Libertine

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## ► To cite this version:

Gertrude R Libertine. Enhancing employees' grit through transformational leadership style and participation in decision-making: education context. Divine Word International Journal of management and Humanities, 2024, 3 (3), pp.807-829. hal-05135740

HAL Id: hal-05135740

https://hal.science/hal-05135740v1

Submitted on 30 Jun 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

Research in Management and Humanities

DWIJMH VOL. 3 NO. 3 (2024) ISSN: 2980-4817

Available online at www.dwijmh.org

Journal homepage: http://www.dwijmh.org

ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6884-3504

# Enhancing employees' grit through transformational leadership style and participation in decision-making: education context

Libertine Gertrude R. Macaspac: Professor and Managing Editor of DWIJMH, Divine Word College of Laoag.

## ARTICLEINFO

Article history:

Received: May 15, 2024

Received in rev. form. July 10, 2024

Accepted: August 30, 2024

**Keywords:** transformational leadership, participation, grit, consistency of interest, persistence of efforts.

## ABSTRACT

The study aimed to explore how transformational leadership styles and employees' participation in decision-making influence employees' grit. To refine these concepts, relevant literature was reviewed. The research employed a descriptive and correlational design, with the institution's employees as the study population. Data were collected through questionnaires and analyzed using inferential statistics. Results revealed high levels of transformational leadership, employee participation in decision-making, and employee grit. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) indicated significant correlations between transformational leadership styles and employees' grit, as well as between employees' participation in decision-making and their grit. These findings suggest that enhancing employees' grit may require improving transformational leadership styles and increasing participation in decision-making.

© 2024 by the authors. Licensee DWIJMH. This open-access article is distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

JEL Classification: M: 14

## Introduction

Leadership and management styles consistently produce outcomes that can be either positive or negative. The same is true for decision-making styles, which also impact how administrators make decisions (Abood & Thabet, 2017). In organizational settings, leadership and management styles, along with decision-making styles, influence both the organization as a whole and individual employee. Research has demonstrated the impact of leadership on various aspects, such as school performance (Tedla et al., 2021; Omar & Kavale, 2016), student academic performance (Hailegebreal, 2020; Ferdinandi & Kiwonde, 2023), and teacher performance (Wachira et al., 2017; Adeyemi, 2010; Parveen et al., 2022). Similarly, decision-making styles also affect teachers' performance (Aboudahr, 2018; Olcum & Titrek, 2015; Ugurlu, 2013).

The aforementioned research suggests that leadership behavior, including leadership style, management style, and employees' participation in decision-making, impacts employees' behavior. However, there is limited research

<footnote>* Corresponding author. ORCID ID: 0000-0001-6884-3504</footnote>

<footnote>© 2024 by the authors. Hosting by DWIJMH. Peer review under responsibility of Divine Word International Journal of Management and Humanities.</footnote>
examining the effects of leadership style and employees' participation in decision-making on employees' grit—the consistency and persistence of effort toward long-term goals (Bernardy & Antoni, 2021). Studies have indicated that grit significantly affects performance (Zyl et al., 2022). Therefore, employees' grit is crucial for achieving organizational performance or institutional success in a school context. Grit is not a minor issue but a serious one that warrants attention from management.

The focus of the current research is to investigate the effect of leadership styles and decision-making styles on employees' grit, particularly in the context of teachers. Leadership and management styles, as well as employees' participation in decision-making, should ideally motivate employees to commit to the institution. Teachers' consistency and persistence toward the institution's long-term goals are crucial concerns for management and thus merit thorough examination. Organizational objectives cannot be met without employee commitment. Employees' consistent interest and persistence in their responsibilities are essential for management. Consequently, the findings of this research could guide management in revisiting and potentially revising their leadership and decision-making styles to enhance employees' commitment to the institution's long-term objectives.

The current study is organized into several sections. The first part is the introduction, which explains the rationale for the study. The second part is the literature review, presenting the study's theoretical framework based on existing literature. The third part details the research methodology, including the research design, population, locale, instruments, statistical treatment of data, research procedures, and ethical considerations. The fourth part involves data presentation and analysis, which includes tabular data followed by an analysis. The fifth part covers the results and discussion, which further explores the findings and their implications.

## Literature Review

This part presents literature that explains the leadership styles namely transformational leadership style, participation in decision-making, and the concept of grit.

### Transformational leadership style

Transformational leadership is an approach that focuses on changing individuals and the social system, creating valuable and positive change in followers. Burns (1978) introduced the concept of transformational leadership, describing it not as a set of specific behaviors but as a process in which leaders and followers elevate each other to higher levels of morality and motivation. In exercising leadership, a leader should appeal to higher ideals and moral values such as honesty, integrity, justice, and equality, which must be evident in the leader's own life. Leading by example involves integrating these values into daily life, thereby inspiring followers to emulate them. However, merely inspiring followers through values is insufficient; attention must also be given to their specific needs. Motivating followers requires addressing both their values and individual needs.

Supporting Burns' perspective, Bass (1985) argued that transformational leaders motivate their followers by addressing their strong motivations and needs. These leaders identify potential motives in followers and seek to satisfy their higher needs, such as self-actualization, engaging followers intellectually and morally. Bass emphasized that transformational leaders aim to uplift people to their better selves. For Burns (1978), the essence of transformational leadership lies in establishing a strong relationship between leaders and followers, particularly when this relationship fosters higher levels of motivation and morality. Leaders find genuine satisfaction in helping their followers grow both personally and professionally, taking a personal interest in their development beyond just skills and knowledge to include moral growth.

Transformational leaders focus on the potential of employees rather than their weaknesses, believing that employees can change and grow. They view employees in terms of both their current capabilities and their potential. Leaders affirm employees' current abilities and potential, understanding that achieving company objectives relies on
developing these qualities. To achieve this, leaders must inspire employees, secure their cooperation, build
confidence, create a supportive work environment, motivate them, provide guidance and direction, and foster team
spirit (Pratigma, n.d.). In essence, transformational leaders engage fully with their followers, recognizing them as
ends in themselves rather than means to an end, making their engagement in management processes crucial.

Dimensions of Transformational Leadership

Burns and Bass are credited with developing the concept of transformational leadership. Burns (1978) focused on the moral aspects of leadership, while Bass (1990) expanded on this by addressing both moral and efficacy concerns, particularly how leaders influence their followers. According to Bass, followers are drawn to leaders because of their charisma and trustworthiness. These leaders are trusted due to their moral integrity and concern for human development. Transformational leadership encompasses four dimensions: idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration (Clayton, 2016; Bass, 1985; Wodehouse, 2018; Riggio, 2014; Schieltz, 2019).

Idealized influence

The first element of transformational leadership is the idealized influence. It refers to a leader's capability to influence the behavior of his/her followers by being a role model to them (Zdaniuk & Bobocel, 2015). In this case, a leader does not use power and authority to influence his/her followers to follow him but simply by living his values. In other words, he/she walks the talk (Riggo, 2014). In such a case, it is the leader's personality that matters. The followers are convinced to follow the leader when they see him/her as honest and trustworthy. The public and personal life of a leader instils pride in followers and becoming proud to be associated with the leader (Hughes, 2014). It is through his/her actions that builds trust and confidence in his/her followers (Schieltz, 2019) and motivates followers to do their job well. A study by Ngaithe, et al. (2016) concluded that idealized influence of leadership affects the job performance of the employees.

Inspirational motivation

The second element emphasizes the leader’s efficacy. He/she inspires his/her employees or followers not only through his/her skills or knowledge but also through his/her self-confidence to carry out the vision and mission of the company. He/she should be able to project such self-confidence to the followers by articulating a clear vision for the future, communicating expectations for the group and demonstrating confidence and commitment to attain the goals (Wodehouse, 2018) and at whatever it takes. Therefore, inspirational motivation is not about telling people to accept things as they are but to dare one’s self and their followers to take risks to carry out the vision and mission and face challenges because only through it, they can transform themselves and the organization. Khan, et al. (2020) pointed out that leaders’ capability to inspire followers’ confidence and motivation helps increase employees’ job performance and avoid job burnout.

Intellectual stimulation

The third element of transformational leadership is intellectual stimulation. This element requires a leader to involve the followers in generating ideas and decision-making. He/she fosters and develops his/her team through questioning and encourages the team to question the status quo. In other words, the leader invites them to be critical, creative, innovative, and make decisions out of the box (Belmejdoub, 2015, Riggio, 2014, Schieltz, 2019, & Hill, 2013). This kind of leadership style will broaden the minds of followers to see problems from different perspectives and consequently enrich the followers' knowledge to carry out their duties and responsibilities. Followers are encouraged to take a different path or method in solving problems. Most importantly, by involving followers in solving organizational problems, the followers feel that they are part of and own the organization and the problems in it. Ogola, et al. (2017) suggest that leaders who stimulate intellectual discussion improve job satisfaction and organizational commitment of employees.
## Individualized consideration

This element demands that a leader cannot treat their employees or followers the same. Employees have different needs capabilities, skills, and knowledge. Thus, a leader needs to consider individual employees' needs and provide the necessary help that suits their needs and desires (Yeleap, n.d). In this case, the leader has a piece of knowledge about individual employees, develops a supportive relationship, and offers help to develop the employees according to his/her needs. He/she shows genuine concern for the needs and feelings of employees and offers support to help the employees (Belmejdoub, 2015). The purpose is to bring out the best in the employees (Riggio, 2014). Khalil and SahibZadah (2017) argued that leaders who demonstrate individual consideration to their employees increase employees' job satisfaction.

## The Influence of transformational leadership on job satisfaction, effectiveness, and performance of teachers

Studies have investigated the correlation between different leadership styles and their outcomes. For instance, Shin (2013) explored the impact of transactional and laissez-faire leadership styles on organizational commitment. The study found a positive correlation between transactional leadership and organizational commitment, whereas laissez-faire leadership was negatively correlated with organizational commitment. Similarly, Basit (2018) examined the effects of democratic, laissez-faire, and autocratic leadership styles on performance. Basit's study revealed that the democratic leadership style had the most significant positive influence on employee performance, followed by the laissez-faire leadership style. In contrast, the autocratic leadership style showed a weak correlation with employee performance. These findings suggest that leadership styles can significantly impact employee performance, either positively or negatively.

Transformational leadership styles have also been extensively studied. Research has demonstrated that transformational leadership is correlated with job satisfaction, extra effort, and effectiveness (Nidadhavolu, 2018). Elmore (2004) noted that applying transformational leadership styles, such as involving participation in decision-making, fosters a climate of collegiality and collaboration. This approach encourages a shared vision and commitment to school change, enhances interpersonal relationships, and promotes communication (Bass, 1985). Such an environment can boost the morale and performance of all community members, thereby improving teachers' job satisfaction (Korkmaz, 2007) and enhancing the overall school climate. Friedman (2004) found that transformational leadership transforms workplace culture and productivity by appealing to high ideals, challenging assumptions, and building commitment to common goals. Consequently, Demir (2008) emphasized the importance of applying transformational leadership styles in educational settings to promote school development, improve teachers' outcomes, and bolster their beliefs in their individual and collective capacities.

## Participative Management

The theory behind employees' participation in decision-making is participative management. Participative management is rooted in the definition of management, which can be informed by Follett's (1941) view that management is "the art of getting things done through people." Follett believed that employees would be more engaged, productive, and satisfied if they were treated as intelligent individuals and allowed to participate in decision-making. She opposed the compartmentalization of ideas in management and advocated for a lateral and creative approach to problem-solving (Graham, 1995; Tonn, 2003). Her definition parallels Koontz's (1961) definition of management as "the art of getting things done through and with people in formally organized groups," which emphasizes creating an environment conducive to cooperation and goal attainment. Koontz argued that this process is universal, regardless of the type of organization (Koontz, 1961).

Participative management is not a new concept; discussions and studies on it began over 60 years ago. Early studies on participative management include those by Levin et al. (1939), Coch and French (1948), and Likert (1967). It is
widely recognized as one of the most effective management and leadership styles (Likert, 1967; Yukl, 2010). The philosophy of participative management is based on the belief in the capabilities of organizational members and the importance of utilizing diverse possibilities offered by them (Maritz, 1995). Maisela (1995) described it as a management style that actively seeks employee input to address work-related issues. Marchant (1982) emphasized that participative management signifies trust and confidence in employees and a willingness to share decision-making authority. Rolková and Farkašová (2014). Huang et al. (2010), and Bass and Bass (2008) define participative management as "encouraging and involving employees in the decision-making process." However, the definition of participative management can be vague, as it varies among authors (Sashkin, 1984). Sashkin (1984) suggested that definitions should account for different forms of participation, classifying them into four types: participation in goal-setting, decision-making, problem-solving, and organizational changes.

In relation to the current study, participative management pertains to employees' involvement in solving work-related problems (Sashkin, 1984). It involves leaders motivating and encouraging employees to take responsibility and participate in workplace decision-making (Somech, 2006; Huang et al., 2010; Sauer, 2011; Rolková & Farkašová, 2015). According to Yukl (2010), it is a leadership capability to promote and facilitate employee participation in important decisions, representing a form of power-sharing between leaders and employees.

Many studies have measured the impact of participative management on organizational performance, consistently showing a positive effect. For example, Huang (2011) found that participative management leads to positive behavioral changes, including reduced absenteeism and increased organizational effectiveness. This finding is supported by O'Brien's (1988) earlier study, which suggested that participative management enhances teachers' satisfaction even during organizational decline. Reducing absenteeism and improving job satisfaction are likely to enhance overall productivity and organizational performance, as supported by studies from Park et al. (2015), Kashani and Shahsavarani (2015), and Khassawneh and Elrehail (2022), which indicated that employee participation in management affects both organizational performance and individual work performance.

## Forms of decision-Making participation

Facing the challenges posed by a dynamic environment, management needs to adapt its leadership and management styles. One cannot face these challenges alone; a team is essential. Management should work collaboratively with employees, treating them as team members and adopting a flexible structure that encourages the participation of all organizational members in management and decision-making. Participative management and participative decision-making are forms of recognition and trust from employers towards employees. Employers believe that employees possess valuable knowledge and skills that contribute to organizational success and development (Rima'a, 2020). Participative management is manifested through participative decision-making.

Participation in decision-making is defined as “the opportunity for an employee to provide input into the decision-making process related to work matters” (Zanoni & Janssen, 2007) or organizational issues, including contributing ideas on new strategies. It provides employees with the chance to influence decisions concerning work-related matters (Valverde, 2023). This approach is part of a management strategy aimed at incorporating employees' views on organizational issues, based on the belief that employees are more likely to commit to and perform well in their work if their contributions to decision-making affecting their work are valued (Elele & Fields, 2010). Kalleberg et al. (2009) define participation as “allowing employees to make decisions about their jobs and working conditions.” Heller et al. (2004) describe it as “a process that allows employees to exert some influence over their work and the conditions under which they work.” Others view participation as a spectrum, ranging from limited interaction and information dissemination to full empowerment of the community in the decision-making process (Arnstein, 1969; Pateman, 1976; Wilkinson & Dundon, 2010).
Regarding forms of participation in decision-making, researchers have identified several practices, although definitions vary among authors. Marchington and Wilkinson (2005) classify participative decision-making into four categories: degree, form, level, and scope. The degree of involvement indicates whether employees are merely consulted or actively involved in decision-making, reflecting their influence on the process and outcomes. The form of participation refers to representation, where employees participate through representatives, such as labor unions, rather than directly in decision-making (Markey & Townsend, 2013). The level of participation pertains to whether involvement occurs at the individual, group, or departmental level (Marchington & Wilkinson, 2005). Finally, the scope of participation involves operational concerns, such as work practices, or strategic direction, including organizational goals. White (1996) identified four forms of participation: nominal participation, instrumental participation, representative participation, and transformative participation. Nominal participation occurs when individuals are included in decision-making processes without the power to influence outcomes, often serving only to legitimize the process. Instrumental participation involves utilizing the community's skills and knowledge to achieve specific objectives. Representative participation allows community members to have their voices heard through representatives. Transformative participation empowers participants to alter structures and institutions that contribute to marginalization and exclusion (Tisdal, 2013). Arnstein (1969) categorized participation into three forms: nonparticipation, tokenism, and citizen power. Nonparticipation is when authoritarian leaders impose their agenda without considering community input. Tokenism involves minimal engagement where suggestions are considered but do not alter the course of action. Citizen power entails meaningful involvement where community voices lead to changes in the status quo.

In the context of the current topic, participative decision-making involves operational participation, where employees are invited to engage in decisions related to their jobs and working conditions (Kalleberg et al., 2009). This is supported by Miller (2012) and Carmeli et al. (2009), who argue that employee participation refers to the extent to which employees can express their ideas about organizational activities and contribute to decision-making. When management grants autonomy and freedom to employees regarding their work, time, and conditions, it enhances creativity and performance (Sia & Appu, 2015).

## The Effect of participation in decision-making on performance

Though it may be challenging to allow members of the organization to participate in decision-making, particularly depending on the size of the organization, this should not be used as an excuse to exclude employees from the process. Employees' participation in decision-making is an employer-driven initiative, and thus, managers are seen as promoters of this participation (Valverde, 2021). According to Wohlgemuth et al. (2019), managers can facilitate participation through both trust and informal control of employees. Therefore, there should be some form, degree, or level of participation in which employees contribute to decisions affecting their work (Marchington & Wilkinson, 2005). Not allowing employees to participate in decision-making can negatively impact employees' trust, sense of control, and productivity (Chang & Lorenzi, 1983), whereas allowing it can lead to better decisions (Williamson, 2008). As a result of employees' participation, monitoring costs can be minimized (Arthur, 1994; Spreitzer & Mishra, 1999) and diverse viewpoints can be incorporated (Kemelgor, 2002). Additionally, Noah (2008) noted that involving employees in decision-making can enhance communication between management and employees.

Moreover, employees' participation in decision-making leads to several other positive outcomes. For instance, Zivkovic et al. (2009) highlighted that participation in the planning process can foster innovation and recognition within the organization, which also affects organizational performance (Witte, 1980; Sagie & Aycan, 2003; Kuye & Sulaimon, 2011; Sikanyika & Chibomba, 2020; Ojokuku, 2014; Chimaobi & Chikamnele, 2020). Organizational performance is a cumulative result of individual performance. In other words, by allowing employees to participate in decision-making, individual creativity and work performance can be enhanced, which in turn improves overall firm performance (Olantuji et al., 2017). Landry (2020) emphasized that involving employees in decision-making encourages valuable ideas and potential solutions to improve systems or processes. Additionally, employees'
participation in decision-making can boost job satisfaction, which consequently leads to increased job performance (Mohsen & Sharif, 2020). Besides improving job performance, participation can also positively influence employees' attitudes (Pereira & Osburn, 2007).

## The concept of grit

Organizational performance depends on various factors, both external and internal. External environmental factors include the dynamic and competitive market situation, which can impact the organization's ability to operate and achieve its long-term objectives (Fernandez-Araos, 2014). Internal environmental factors encompass leadership and employer-employee relationships, which can influence employees' performance. Employees' performance is not solely dependent on knowledge, skills, and motivation but also on employees' grit (Zyl et al., 2022; Lee, 2022; Chandrawaty & Widodo, 2020). Studies indicate that grit is also influenced by other factors such as leadership (Rego et al., 2021) and a supportive environment (Chuental et al., 2023). This suggests that an individual's capability and desire to remain consistent and persistent in achieving long-term goals despite challenges are influenced by various factors.

Grit has been a popular research topic in psychology over the past decade. Introduced in 2007, grit is defined as a combination of perseverance and passion for long-term goals (Duckworth et al., 2007). It reflects a person's sustained interest and effort toward achieving long-term objectives despite encountering other appealing goals or projects. In other words, it describes an individual's ability to persistently focus on a chosen goal or project day in and day out (Datu, 2021). Psychologists view grit as a non-cognitive trait that describes the consistency of interest and the persistence of effort to achieve a goal, even during challenging times. It differs from similar psychological traits such as conscientiousness, resilience, work ethics, need for achievement, industriousness, hardiness, and self-control (Duckworth et al., 2007; Jordan, Ferris, Hochwarter, & Wright, 2019; Meriac, Slifka, & LaBat, 2015, cited by Febriawan & Maulina, 2019).

Duckworth et al. (2007) identified two dimensions of grit: consistency of interest and persistence of effort. Consistency of interest is the ability to maintain a stable level of interest over time (Duckworth & Quinn, 2009). It refers to the capacity to stay focused on a particular interest and goal without being distracted by other opportunities until the goal is achieved (Datu, Yuen, & Chen, 2017). Persistence of effort denotes the ability to show diligence and continue striving toward goals despite obstacles (Eskreis-Wink et al., 2016). It involves remaining committed to a course of action despite difficulties (Datu et al., 2017). Although a recent study by Febriawan and Maulina (2019) proposed three dimensions of grit—consistency of effort, persistence of effort, and adaptability—the current study adopts the earlier dimensions proposed by Duckworth et al. (2007). This choice is based on the view that adaptability involves flexibility in strategies rather than abandoning objectives. While one can adjust strategies according to the situation, the effort to achieve the goal should remain consistent and persistent.

Research on the influence of grit on success has yielded mixed results. Duckworth et al. (2007), Duckworth and Quinn (2009), and Akos and Kretchmar (2017) found that grit significantly correlates with achieving difficult goals and academic performance, suggesting that success is not solely attributed to talent or IQ. A recent study by Robbins (2022) supported these findings, indicating that sustained effort and hard work despite setbacks contribute to academic achievement in university students. However, some later studies have shown that grit is not a significant factor in academic performance. Bazelais et al. (2016), Tang et al. (2021), and Christopoulou et al. (2018) acknowledged its contribution but found it to be weak to moderate. These conflicting results suggest that grit may not be a consistent and sole predictor of academic performance.
**Conceptual Framework**

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

Source: Avolio, et.al (1995), PDM (Scott, James, Ming, (2003), Duckworth, et al. (2007).

<caption>Figure 1: The framework explains the relationship between transformational leadership style, participation in decision-making and grit. Transformational leadership style and participation in decision-making are predictors of grit.</caption>

**Statement of the problems**

The study measured the effect of transformational leadership style, and employees' participation in decision-making on the employees' grit. It specifically seeks to answer the following questions:

1. What is the transformational leadership style of the administrators?

2. What is the employees' participation in decision-making?

3. What is the employees' grit?

4. Is there a relationship between transformational leadership style and employees' grit?

5. Is there a relationship between employees' participation in decision-making and employees' grit?

**Assumptions**

The study assumes that transformational leadership style and the participation of employees in decision making is important for motivating employees to be consistent and persistent in pursuing the long-term goals of the institution.

**Hypothesis**

Transformational leadership style and allowing employees to participate in decision-making are important elements to be given attention by the management to motivate employees to be consistent and persistent in pursuing the organizational objectives. Thus, the study hypothesises that there is a correlation between transformational leadership style and employees' participation in decision-making and the grit of the employees.

**Research Methodology**

The study is a quantitative study and thus, it utilizes a descriptive assessment and correlational research design. The locale and the population of the study are the Divine Word College of Laoag and its employees. The study uses questionnaires to gather the data and the statistics to be used are descriptive and inferential statistics, therefore it used the weighted mean and ANOVA to analyze the data. In the process of gathering data, the researcher sent a letter to the President requesting him to allow the researcher to distribute the questionnaires and the collection of the data was done through employees' representatives. The researcher also considered the ethical review and since the research does not involve sensitive human issues, therefore the ethical review was waived.

The following ranges of values with their descriptive interpretation will be used:
<table><thead><tr><td>Statistical Range</td><td>Descriptive Interpretation</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>4.21-5.00</td><td>Strongly Agree/Very High</td></tr><tr><td>3.41-4.20</td><td>Agree/High</td></tr><tr><td>2.61-3.40</td><td>Somewhat Agree/Moderate</td></tr><tr><td>1.81-2.60</td><td>Disagree/Low</td></tr><tr><td>1.00-1.80</td><td>Strongly Disagree/Very Low</td></tr></tbody></table>

# Data Presentation and Analysis

The data are presented according to the statement of the problems.

**Problem 1: What is the transformational leadership style of the administrators?**

<table><caption>Table 1. Transformational leadership style of the administrators of Divine Word College of Laoag (n=161)</caption><thead><tr><th>TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP STYLE OF ADMINISTRATORS</th><th>WEIGHTED MEAN</th><th>DESCRIPTIVE INTERPRETATION</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>A. Idealized Influence</strong></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1. Display conviction to the vision and mission of the College</td><td>3.90</td><td>A/H</td></tr><tr><td>2. Act in ways that build the respect of employees/subordinates</td><td>3.88</td><td>A/H</td></tr><tr><td>3. Emphasize the importance of purpose, commitment, and ethical consequences of decisions</td><td>3.96</td><td>A/H</td></tr><tr><td>4. Display the most important values such as honesty, integrity, justice, transparency, and consistency</td><td>3.96</td><td>A/H</td></tr><tr><td>5. Go beyond self-interest for the good of the college</td><td>3.86</td><td>A/H</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Composite Mean</strong></td><td><strong>3.91</strong></td><td><strong>A/H</strong></td></tr><tr><td><strong>B. Inspirational Motivation</strong></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1. Articulate a compelling vision/goal of the future</td><td>3.76</td><td>A/H</td></tr><tr><td>2. Challenge employees/subordinates with a high standard of performance</td><td>3.66</td><td>A/H</td></tr><tr><td>3. Provide encouragement and moral support for the employees/subordinates</td><td>3.68</td><td>A/H</td></tr><tr><td>4. Inspire the employees/subordinates through his passion and determination to achieve the goals</td><td>3.75</td><td>A/H</td></tr><tr><td>5. Inspire employees/subordinates to see the priorities in carrying out their duties and responsibilities</td><td>3.77</td><td>A/H</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Composite Mean</strong></td><td><strong>3.72</strong></td><td><strong>A/H</strong></td></tr><tr><td><strong>C. Intellectual Stimulation</strong></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1. Question old assumptions, traditions and beliefs</td><td>3.65</td><td>A/H</td></tr><tr><td>2. Install new perspectives and ways of doing things</td><td>3.88</td><td>A/H</td></tr><tr><td>3. Encourage the free expression of ideas and reasons</td><td>3.86</td><td>A/H</td></tr><tr><td>4. See different perspectives when solving problems</td><td>3.94</td><td>A/H</td></tr><tr><td>5. Encourage problem-solving using reasoning and evidence, rather than unsupported opinion</td><td>3.89</td><td>A/H</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Composite Mean</strong></td><td><strong>3.84</strong></td><td><strong>A/H</strong></td></tr><tr><td><strong>D. Individualized Consideration</strong></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1. Deal with employees/subordinates as individual persons</td><td>3.81</td><td>A/H</td></tr><tr><td>2. Help individual employee/subordinates to develop their capabilities</td><td>3.78</td><td>A/H</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><tr><td>3.</td><td>Provide training and development activities or seminars according to the needs of different employees/subordinates</td><td>3.67</td><td>A/H</td></tr><tr><td>4.</td><td>Are sensitive to individual differences and approach employees/subordinates according to their traits</td><td>3.70</td><td>A/H</td></tr><tr><td>5.</td><td>Treat employees/subordinates as individuals with different needs, abilities, and aspirations rather than just members of the group</td><td>3.82</td><td>A/H</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"><strong>Composite Mean</strong></td><td><strong>3.76</strong></td><td>A/H</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"><strong>OVERALL MEAN</strong></td><td><strong>3.80</strong></td><td>A/H</td></tr></table>

Source: Avolio, et al. (1995).

Legend:

<table><thead><tr><td>Range of Mean Values</td><td>Descriptive Interpretation</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>4.21 - 5.00</td><td>Strongly agree/Very High</td></tr><tr><td>3.41 - 4.20</td><td>Agree/High</td></tr><tr><td>2.61 - 3.40</td><td>Somewhat agree/Moderate</td></tr><tr><td>1.81 - 2.60</td><td>Disagree/low</td></tr><tr><td>1.00 - 1.80</td><td>Strongly disagree/Very low</td></tr></tbody></table>

Based on the data in the table, the transformational leadership of the administrators received an overall mean rating of 3.80, which is interpreted as “agree/high.” This rating suggests that the transformational leadership style of the administrators is high but not extremely high, nor is it low or moderate. Even when considering the dimensions individually, all dimensions are rated within the same high level.

Regarding idealized influence, employees agree that administrators demonstrate conviction to the vision and mission, respect subordinates, consider the ethical consequences of their decisions, and exhibit values such as honesty, integrity, justice, transparency, and consistency, going beyond self-interest. Ellen III (2018) noted that idealized influence captures transformational leaders' tendency to behave in ways that generate admiration, trust, and confidence. Leaders are seen as moral guides (Chatterji & Zsolnai, 2016).

Concerning inspirational motivation, employees agree that the administrators articulate a compelling vision, challenge employees with high performance standards, provide moral support, inspire subordinates through their passion and determination to achieve goals, and encourage employees to prioritize their duties and responsibilities. These actions reflect the roles of transformational leaders, who act as motivators for employees to maintain their energy in fulfilling their roles (Behn, 1995; Peng, 2016).

Intellectual stimulation is another dimension of transformational leadership. In the context of the Divine Word College of Laoag, employees agree that administrators welcome change, constantly seek new ways of doing things, encourage subordinates to express new ideas and consider different perspectives in problem-solving, and use reasoning and evidence to address issues. These behaviors motivate and encourage subordinates to be more adaptive and creative (Khan et al., 2020; Ellen, 2022).

The final dimension of transformational leadership is individualized consideration. This involves leaders caring about the work-related development of their subordinates, promoting social support, addressing the needs of subordinates, and serving as mentors, guides, and coaches (Lorente & Salanova, 2014; Chen et al., 2018). In the context of the institution, employees agree that administrators deal with them as individuals, develop their personal capabilities, treat them according to their needs, and are sensitive to individual differences.
## Problem 2: What is the employees' participation in decision-making?

<table><caption>**Table 2. Employees' participation in decision making (n=161)**</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>PARTICIPATION IN DECISION MAKING</th><th>WEIGHTED MEAN</th><th>DESCRIPTIVE INTERPRETATION</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1.</td><td>In general, I have much influence on how I perform my job</td><td>3.76</td><td>A/H</td></tr><tr><td>2.</td><td>I decide how to do my job</td><td>3.84</td><td>A/H</td></tr><tr><td>3.</td><td>In general, I have influence on what goes on in my work group</td><td>3.60</td><td>A/H</td></tr><tr><td>4.</td><td>In general, I have influence on decisions which affect my jobs</td><td>3.56</td><td>A/H</td></tr><tr><td>5.</td><td>My supervisors are receptive and listen to my ideas and suggestions</td><td>3.78</td><td>A/H</td></tr><tr><td></td><td><strong>MEAN</strong></td><td><strong>3.71</strong></td><td><strong>A/H</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

Source: PDM (Scott, James, Ming, 2003)

Participation in decision-making is a key management strategy to enhance employees' performance (Akhimiean & Oriomah, 2023). The data in the table reveals that overall, employees' participation in decision-making received a composite mean rating of 3.71, interpreted as "agree/high." This rating suggests that while the level of employee participation is high, it is not extremely high, nor is it low or moderate. Even when considering each indicator individually, they all fall within the same high mean rating. Employees agree that they have a significant influence on their work, the decisions affecting their jobs, and contribute ideas to problem-solving related to their work. Allowing employees to participate in decision-making can enhance their job satisfaction, as confirmed by Wheeless et al. (1983).

## Problem 3. What is the employees' grit?

<table><caption>**Table 3. Employees' grit (n=161)**</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>EMPLOYEES' GRIT</th><th>WEIGHTED MEAN</th><th>DESCRIPTIVE INTERPRETATION</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>A.</td><td><strong>Consistency of Interest</strong></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1.</td><td>I often set a goal and pursue it until I achieve it</td><td>3.68</td><td>A/H</td></tr><tr><td>2.</td><td>New Ideas and Projects do not distract me from previous ones.</td><td>3.68</td><td>A/H</td></tr><tr><td>3.</td><td>I have been obsessed with a certain idea or project and I maintain my interest</td><td>3.58</td><td>A/H</td></tr><tr><td>4.</td><td>I don't have difficulty maintaining my focus on projects that take more than a few months to complete</td><td>3.64</td><td>A/H</td></tr><tr><td></td><td><strong>Composite Mean</strong></td><td><strong>3.64</strong></td><td><strong>A/H</strong></td></tr><tr><td>B.</td><td><strong>Persistence of Efforts</strong></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1.</td><td>I finish whatever I begin</td><td>4.25</td><td>A/H</td></tr><tr><td>2.</td><td>Setbacks don't discourage me</td><td>3.99</td><td>A/H</td></tr><tr><td>3.</td><td>I am a hard worker</td><td>4.18</td><td>A/H</td></tr><tr><td>4.</td><td>I am diligent.</td><td>4.22</td><td>A/H</td></tr><tr><td></td><td><strong>Composite Mean</strong></td><td><strong>4.16</strong></td><td><strong>A/H</strong></td></tr><tr><td></td><td><strong>OVERALL MEAN</strong></td><td><strong>3.90</strong></td><td><strong>A/H</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

Source: Duckworth, et al. (2007).
Based on the data in the table, it appears that overall, employees' grit gained an overall mean rating of 3.90 which is interpreted as "agree/high". This mean rating implies that overall, the employees' grit is not very high and it is not also very low, low or moderate but it is high. Even when the dimensions are taken separately, all dimensions are rated within the same level of mean rating which is high. In terms of consistency of interest, the employees agree that they set goals and pursue it even with the distractions along the way. Concerning persistence of efforts, the employees also agree that they finished what they have started despite of the setbacks. In the academic setting, students' grit is often touted as one of contributing factors to academic performance and retention (Apro, et al., 2024, Vinson, et al., 2022).

4. *Is there a relationship between transformational leadership style and employees' grit?*

A. Transformational leadership Style and consistency of interest

The different dimensions of transformational leadership style of the administrators such as idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration taken as a group significantly predicted the employees' grit in terms of consistency of interest, F (4,160) = 28.440, *p* < .05 with 42.20 percent overlap between the dimensions of transformational leadership style of the administrators and the employees' consistency of interest. When predicting the employees' consistency of interest, the error is approximately .38 rating points.

Specifically, idealize influence *B* = -.205, *p* < .05, intellectual stimulation *B* = .487, *p* < .05, and individualized consideration *B* = .175, *p* < .05, 2.110 quantified the Y-intercept for the regression equation.

Therefore, all of the four dimensions of transformational leadership style of the administrators such as idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration as a group significantly predicted the employees' consistency of interest.

These results suggest that the differences on the employees' consistency of interest are attributed to the variations on their assessments on the dimensions of transformational leadership style of the administrators along idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration.

However, when the dimensions of the transformational leadership style of the administrators were treated singly, only idealized influence, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration significantly predicted the employees' consistency of interest.

<table><caption>Table 4: Transformational leadership style and consistency of interest.</caption><caption>Model Summary</caption><thead><tr><th>Model</th><th>R</th><th>R Square</th><th>Adjusted R Square</th><th>Std. Error of the Estimate</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>.649<sup>a</sup></td><td>.422</td><td>.407</td><td>.37807</td></tr></tbody></table>

a. Predictors: (Constant), Individualized Consideration, Idealized Influence, Inspirational Motivation, Intellectual Stimulation

ANOVA<sup>a</sup>

<table><thead><tr><th>Model</th><th></th><th>Sum of Squares</th><th>df</th><th>Mean Square</th><th>F</th><th>Sig.</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="3">1</td><td>Regression</td><td>16.261</td><td>4</td><td>4.065</td><td rowspan="3">28.440</td><td rowspan="3">.000<sup>b</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Residual</td><td>22.298</td><td>156</td><td>.143</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>38.559</td><td>160</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

a. Dependent Variable: Consistency of Interest
b. Predictors: (Constant), Individualized Consideration, Idealized Influence, Inspirational Motivation, Intellectual Stimulation

<table><caption>Coefficientsª</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Model</th><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="2">Unstandardized Coefficients</th><th>Standardized Coefficients</th><th rowspan="2">t</th><th rowspan="2">Sig.</th></tr><tr><th>B</th><th>Std. Error</th><th>Beta</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="6">1</td><td>(Constant)</td><td>2.110</td><td>.179</td><td></td><td>11.774</td><td>.000</td></tr><tr><td>Idealized Influence</td><td>-.205</td><td>.076</td><td>-.297</td><td>-2.717</td><td>.007</td></tr><tr><td>Inspirational Motivation</td><td>-.050</td><td>.085</td><td>-.072</td><td>-.591</td><td>.556</td></tr><tr><td>Intellectual Stimulation</td><td>.487</td><td>.088</td><td>.684</td><td>5.522</td><td>.000</td></tr><tr><td>Individualized Consideration</td><td>.175</td><td>.072</td><td>.268</td><td>2.411</td><td>.017</td></tr></tbody></table>

a. Dependent Variable: Consistency of Interest

## B. Transformational leadership Style and persistence of efforts

The multiple linear regression analysis indicated that when all of the four dimensions of transformational leadership style of the administrators which include idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration are considered as a group, they could significantly predict the employees' grit in terms of persistence of efforts, F (4,156) = 12.280, *p* < .05 with 23.90 percent overlap between the predictor variables and the outcome variable. When predicting employees' persistence of effects, the error is approximately .46 rating points.

In particular, intellectual stimulation *B* = .323, *p* < .05. 2.839 quantified the Y-intercept for the regression equation.

Therefore, the dimensions of the idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration taken together significantly predict the employees' grit in terms of persistence of effects. However, when the dimensions of transformational leadership style of the administrators were treated separately, only intellectual stimulation could predict the persistence of effects among the employees.

These findings imply that the observed variations on the employees' grit as to persistence of effects is due to the idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration transformational leadership styles of the administrators.

<caption>Table 5: Transformational leadership style and persistence of efforts</caption>

<table><caption>Model Summary</caption><thead><tr><th>Model</th><th>R</th><th>R Square</th><th>Adjusted R Square</th><th>Std. Error of the Estimate</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>.489<sup>a</sup></td><td>.239</td><td>.220</td><td>.46800</td></tr></tbody></table>

a. Predictors: (Constant), Individualized Consideration, Idealized Influence, Inspirational Motivation, Intellectual Stimulation

<table><caption>ANOVAª</caption><thead><tr><th>Model</th><th></th><th>Sum of Squares</th><th>df</th><th>Mean Square</th><th>F</th><th>Sig.</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="3">1</td><td>Regression</td><td>10.758</td><td>4</td><td>2.690</td><td>12.280</td><td>.000<sup>b</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Residual</td><td>34.168</td><td>156</td><td>.219</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>44.926</td><td>160</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

a. Dependent Variable: Persistence of Effect
b. Predictors: (Constant), Individualized Consideration, Idealized Influence, Inspirational Motivation, Intellectual Stimulation

<table><caption>Coefficientsª</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Model</th><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="2">Unstandardized Coefficients</th><th>Standardized Coefficients</th><th rowspan="2">t</th><th rowspan="2">Sig.</th></tr><tr><th>B</th><th>Std. Error</th><th>Beta</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="6">1</td><td>(Constant)</td><td>2.839</td><td>.222</td><td></td><td>12.802</td><td>.000</td></tr><tr><td>Idealized Influence</td><td>-.169</td><td>.094</td><td>-.226</td><td>-1.805</td><td>.073</td></tr><tr><td>Inspirational Motivation</td><td>.169</td><td>.105</td><td>.226</td><td>1.612</td><td>.109</td></tr><tr><td>Intellectual Stimulation</td><td>.323</td><td>.109</td><td>.421</td><td>2.959</td><td>.004</td></tr><tr><td>Individualized Consideration</td><td>.030</td><td>.090</td><td>.042</td><td>.330</td><td>.742</td></tr></tbody></table>

a. Dependent Variable: Persistence of Effect

**Problem 5. Is there a relationship between employees' participation in decision-making and employees' grit?**

The computed correlation coefficient of .633 on the test of relationships between employees' participation in decision making and employees' grit along consistency of interest indicates a highly significant positive relationship. This suggests that as the employees' participation in decision making increases, their consistency of interest also increases.

Similarly, the correlation analysis also revealed that a highly significant positive relationship exists between the employees' participation in decision making and their persistence of effects (r= .516). This finding implies that every unit increase in the employees' participation in decision making, a corresponding increase in their persistence of effects is observed.

<table><caption>**Table 6. Correlation coefficients obtained on the test of relationship between employees' participation in decision making and employees' grit (n= 161)**</caption><thead><tr><th>EMPLOYEES' GRIT</th><th>EMPLOYEES' PARTICIPATION IN DECISION MAKING</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Consistency of Interest</td><td>r<br>(Sig. 2-tailed)</td><td>.633**<br>.000</td></tr><tr><td>Persistence of Efforts</td><td>r<br>(Sig. 2-tailed)</td><td>.516**<br>.000</td></tr></tbody></table>

Discussion

The study's results indicate that administrators' transformational leadership style, employees' participation in decision-making, and employees' grit are all rated highly. The high ratings for transformational leadership and participation in decision-making contribute to elevated levels of employees' grit, as confirmed by the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). The ANOVA results reveal a significant correlation between transformational leadership and employees' grit, as well as between employees' participation in decision-making and their grit. These positive correlations suggest that management should either sustain or enhance their transformational leadership style and

<footnote>** Significant at .01 level of significance (2-tailed)</footnote>
continue involving employees in problem-solving and decision-making. Leaders who are visionary, respectful, ethical, inspiring, and attentive to employees' needs tend to motivate employees to maintain consistency and persistence in their duties.

Grit has proven to be a critical factor in both individual and organizational performance. Employees' passion and perseverance in pursuing long-term goals lead to significant achievements across various performance metrics (Southwick et al., 2019). Thus, organizational success and growth are driven by employees' consistent and persistent efforts toward their work goals.

## Conclusion

This study aimed to examine the impact of transformational leadership and participation in decision-making on employees' grit. The findings suggest that both transformational leadership style and employee participation in decision-making are rated highly, which in turn corresponds to high levels of employees' grit. The ANOVA results show significant correlations between transformational leadership style and employees' grit, and between participation in decision-making and employees' grit. Therefore, it is recommended that management focus on enhancing their transformational leadership style and continue to involve employees in decision-making processes.

The study acknowledges its limitation of covering only one institution. Future research should expand to include multiple institutions to provide a broader understanding of leadership styles, participation in decision-making, and employees' grit across different contexts.

**Authors' Contribution:** L. G. R. M. **Conceptualization:** L. G. R. M. **Methodology:** L. G. R. M. **Data collection:** L. G. R. M. **Formal Analysis:** L. G. R. M. **Writing-Review and Editing:** L. G. R. M.

All authors have read and agreed to the published final version of the manuscript

**Institutional Review Board Statement:** Ethical review and approval were waived for this study, due to the research

does not deal with vulnerable groups or sensitive issues.

**Data Availability Statement:** the data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Data are not publicly available due to privacy.

**Conflict of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest

**Funding:** the study is privately funded.

## References

Abood, S.A. & Thabet, M. (2017). Impact of Leadership Styles on Decision Making Styles among Nurses' Managerial Levels. *IOSR Journal of Nursing and Health Science (IOSR-JNHS)*, 6(5), 71-78.
https://doi.org/10.9790/1959-0605037178

Aboudahr, S. (2018). Analysis of Principals Decision Making Styles on Teachers Performance in Selected Secondary Schools of Gharbia Governorate, Egypt. *Academic Journal of Economic Studies*, 4(4), 91-95.

Adeyemi, T.O. (2010). Principals' leadership styles and teachers' job performance in senior secondary schools in Ondo State, Nigeria. *Journal of Education Administration and Policy Studies*, 2(6), 83-91.

Akhimiean, P.G. & Oriomah, L. (2023). Participatory decision-making and organizational performance. *International Journal of Innovative Research and Advanced Studies (IJIRAS)*, 10(11).
Akos, P., & Kretchmar, J. (2017). Investigating grit as a non-cognitive predictor of college success. The *Review of Higher Education*, 40, 163–186. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2017.0000

Apró A, Fejes N, Bandi SA and Járai R (2024) Investigating the effect of grit trait on performance and success in Hungarian athlete’s sample. *Frontier in Psychology, 15*, 1283115. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1283115

Arnstein, S. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. *Journal of the American Institute of Planners* 35(4), 216–224.

Arthur, J.B. (1994). Effects of Human Resource Systems on Manufacturing Performance and Turnover. *Academy of Management Journal*, 37, 670-687.

Avolio, B. Bass, B.M. & Jung, D.I. (1995). *MLQ Multifactor Leadership Questionnaires: Technical Report*. Mind Garden.

Bass, B.M. & Bass, R. (2008). *The Bass Handbook of Leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications* (4th ed.). Simon & Schuster.

Basit, A. (2018). Impact of Leadership Styles on Employee Performance. *International Journal of Accounting & Business Management, 5*(2), https://doi.org/10.24924/ijabm

Bass, B. M. (1985). *Transformational leadership*. The Free Press.

Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. *Organizational Dynamics, 8*, 19-31

Bazelais, P., Lemay, D.J.&Doleck, T. (2016). How does grit impact college student's academic achievement in science? *European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 4*(1), 2016, 33-43.

Belmejdoub, A. (2015). *The Leadership Journey: A Paradigm for Developing Globally Responsible Leaders*. Unpublished Thesis. Northumbria University Newcastle. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.5093.9281.

Behn, R.D. (1995) The big questions of public management. *Public Administration Review*, 55(4):313–324

Bernardy, V. & Antoni, C.H. (2023). The grit to innovative teams? A theoretical model to examine team grit as a team innovation competence. *Gruppe. Interaktion. Organisation*. 52, 65–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11612-021-00555-z

Burns, M. (1978). Leadership. Harper and Row

Carmeli, A.; Sheaffer, Z. & Halevi, M.Y. (2009). Does participatory decision-making in top management teams enhance decision effectiveness and firm performance? *Personnel Review*, 38, 696–714. https://doi.org/10.1108/00483480910992283

Chandrawaty, C. & Widodo, W. (2020). An Empirical Effect of Grit on Task Performance: Mediating by Transformational Leadership and Job Involvement. *Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology*, 12(4).

Chang, G.S., & Lorenzi, P. (1983). The Effects of Participative versus Assigned Goal Setting on Intrinsic Motivation. *Journal of Management, 9*, 55-64. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920638300900106

Chatterji, M. & Zsolnai, L. (2016). *Ethical leadership*. Spinger.
Chen, Y., Ning, R., & Yang, T. (2018). Is transformational leadership always good for employee task performance? Examining curvilinear and moderated relationships. *Frontier of Business Research in China, 12, 22*. https://doi.org/10.1186/s11782-018-0044-8

Chimaobi, I. & Chikamnele, M.J. (2020). Employee Participation in Decision Making and its Impact on Organizational Performance. *SSRN Electronic Journal*, 27,18. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3667548

Christopoulou, M., Lakioti, A., Pezirkianidis, C., Karakasidou, E. and Stalikas, A. (2018). The Role of Grit in Education: A Systematic Review. *Psychology, 9*, 2951-2971. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2018.915171.

Chuented, P., Puranitee, P., & Pakakasama, S. (2023). Factors affecting residents' internal motivation, grit, and well-being. *BMC Medical Education, 23*, 779 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-023-04679-2.

Clayton, M. (2016). *Bernard Bass: Transformational Leadership*. Laurel House Station Approach.

Coch, L., & French, Jr. J.R.P. (1948). Overcoming resistance to change. *Human Relations, 1*(4), 512-532. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872674800100408

Datu, J. A. D., Yuen, M., & Chen, G. (2017). Development and validation of the triarchic model of grit scale (TMGS): Evidence from Filipino undergraduate students. *Personality and Individual Differences, 114*, 198-205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.04.012

Demir, K. (2008). Transformational Leadership and Collective Efficacy: The Moderating Roles of Collaborative Culture and Teachers' Self-Efficacy. *Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 33*112 (93).

Duckworth, A.L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M.D., & Kelly, D.R. (2007). Grit: Perseverance and passion for long-term goals. *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9*, 1087-1101.

Duckworth, A. L., and Quinn, P. D. (2009). Development and validation of the Short Grit Scale (Grit-S). *Journal of Personality Assessment, 91*, 166-174. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890802634290.

Elele, J. & Fields, D. (2010). Participative decision making and organizational commitment: Comparing Nigerian and American employees. *Cross Cultural Management, 17*(4), 368-392. https://doi.org/10.1108/13527601011086586.

Ellen, B.P. (2018 a). *Transformational leadership*. In: Farazmand, A. (eds). *Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance*. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20928-9_1343

Ellen, B. P. (202b). *Transformational leadership*. In: Farazmand, A. (eds). *Global encyclopedia of public administration, public policy, and governance*. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-66252-3_1343

Elmore, R. (2004). *School Reform from the Inside-Out: Policy, practice, and performance*. Harvard Education Press.

Eskreis-Winkler, L., Gross, J. J., and Duckworth, A. L. (2016). *Grit: sustained self-regulation in the service of superordinate goals, in Handbook of Self-Regulation: Research, Theory and Applications. 16*, eds K. D. Vohs and R. F. Baumeister. Guilford, 380-395.

Febriawan, I.M., & Maulina, D. (2019). Development of the Employee Grit (E-Grit) Measurement: Dimensionality, Convergent Validity, and Reliability.

*Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 494*.
Ferdinandi, C.M. & Kiwonde, F.M. (2023). The influence of educational leadership on student's academic performance in secondary schools: A case of Itilima district. *Electronic Journal of Education Social Economics and Technology, 4*(11), 16-21. https://doi.org/10.33122/ejeset.v4i1.100

Fernández-Aráoz, C. (2014). 21st-century talent spotting. *Harvard Business Review*, 92, 46–54.

Follett, M P. (1941). In H. Metcalf & L. Urwick (Eds.) *Dynamic Administration: The collected papers of Mary Parker Follett*. Harper & Brothers

Friedman, A. (2004). Beyond mediocrity: Transformational leadership within a transactional framework. *International Journal of Leadership in Education, 7*(3), 203-224.

Graham, P. (1995). *Mary Parker Follett – Prophet of management*. Harvard Business School Press

*Hailegbreal, T.D.* (2020). The Effects of Leadership Style on Students Performance. *Journal of Education and Practice, 11*(34). https://doi.org/10.7176/JEP/11-34-03

Heller, F., Pusic, E., & Strauss, G., (2004) *Organizational Participation, Myth and Reality*, reprint. Oxford University Press.

Hill, N.C. (2013). *Four Components of Transformational Leadership Style*. Passion for Fresh Ideas. https://passionforfreshideas.com

Huang, X., Iun, J., Liu, A., & Gong, Y. (2010). Does participative leadership enhance work performance by inducing empowerment or trust? The differential effects on managerial and non-managerial subordinates. *Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31*, 122-143. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.636.

Huang, T.C. (2011). The effect of participative management on organizational performance: the case of Taiwan. *The International Journal of Human Resource Management*, 8,5, 677-689. https://doi.org/10.1080/095851997341450

Hughes, T. A., (2014). *Idealized, Inspirational, and Intellectual Leaders in the Social Sector: Transformational Leadership and the Kravis Prize*. CMC Senior Theses. Paper 906. http://scholarship.claremont.edu/cmc_theses/906

Jordan, S. L., Ferris, G. R., Hochwarter, W. A., & Wright, T. A. (2019). Toward a Work Motivation Conceptualization of Grit in Organizations. *Group and Organization Management*, 44(2), 320–360.

Kalleberg, A.L.; Nesheim, T. & Olsen, K.M. (2009). Is participation good or bad for workers?: Effects of autonomy, consultation and teamwork on stress among workers in Norway. *Acta Sociology*, 52, 99–116.

Kashani, F.H. & Shahsavarani, H.R. (2015). The Impact of Participative Management on the Performance of Tehran Regional Water Company's Staff. *Journal of Applied Environmental and Biological Sciences, 5*(2), 63-70

Kemelgor, B.H. (2002). A Comparative Analysis of Corporate Entrepreneurial Orientation between Selected Firms in the Netherlands and the U.S.A. *Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 14*, 67-87. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985620110087023

Khalil, H. & SahibZadah, S. (2017). Leaders’ Individualized Consideration and Employee’s Job Satisfaction. *Journal of Business and Tourism, 3*(2). https://doi.org/10.34260/jbt. v3i2.81

Khan, H., Rehmat, M., & Butt, T.H. (2020). Impact of transformational leadership on work performance, burnout and social loafing: a mediation model. *Future Business Journal, 6*, 40. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43093-020-00043-8
Khassawneh, O. & Elrehail, H. (2022). The Effect of Participative Leadership Style on Employees' Performance: The Contingent Role of Institutional Theory. *Administrative Sciences*, 12(4), 195.
https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci12040195

Koontz, H. (1961). The Management Theory Jungle. *Journal of the Academy of Management*, 4(3), 174-188.
https://doi.org/10.2307/254541

Korkmaz, M. (2007). The effects of leadership style on organizational health. *Educational Research Quarterly*, 30(3), 22-54.

Kuye, O. & Sulaimon, A.A. (2011). Employee involvement in decision-making and firm performance in the manufacturing sector in Nigeria. *Serbian Journal of Management*, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.5937/sjm1101001K

Landry, L. (2020). *Why Managers Should Involve Their Team in the Decision-Making Process*. Harvard Business School Online. https://online.hbs.edu

Lee, J. (2022) The Role of Grit in Organizational Performance During a Pandemic. *Frontier in Psychology*, 13, 929517. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.929517

Levin, K., Lippitt, R., & White, R. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created "social climates. *Journal of Social Psychology*, 10, 271-299. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1939.9713366

Likert, R. (1967). *The human organization: Its management and value*. McGraw-Hill.

Lorente, L., Salanova, M. (2014). *Transformative leaders*. In: Michalos, A.C. (eds). *Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research*. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0753-5_3046

Marchant, M.P. (1982). Participative Management, Job Satisfaction & Service. *Library Journal*, 107 (8), 782-784.

Marchington, M. & Wilkinson, A. (2005, 398-423). *Direct Participation and Involvement. Management of Human Resource: Personnel Management in Transition*. Blackwell.

Maritz, F. (1995). Leadership and Mobilizing Potential. *Human Resource Management*, 11 (9), 8-16.

Markey, R., & Townsend, K. (2013). Contemporary trends in employee involvement and participation. *Journal of Industrial Relations*, 55(4), 475-487. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022185613489389

Maisela, T. (1995). Participative Management Facilitates a Productive Workplace. *Human Resource Management*, 11 (5), 20-22.

Meriac, J. P., Slifka, J. S., & LaBat, L. R. (2015). Work ethic and grit: An examination of empirical redundancy. *Personality and Individual Differences*, 86, 401-405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.07.009

Miller, G.R. (2012). Gender Trouble: Investigating gender and economic democracy in worker cooperatives in the United States. *Review of Radical Political Economics*, 44(1), 8-22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0486613411418049

Mohsen, A. & Sharif, O. (2020). Employee Participation in Decision-Making and Its Effect on Job Satisfaction. *International Journal of Research -GRANTHAALAYAH*, 8(7), 415-422.
https://doi.org/10.29121/granthaalayah.v8.i7.2020.580

Ngaithe, L., AOL, G.K., Lewa, P., & Ndwiga, M. (2016). Effect of Idealized Influence and Inspirational Motivation on Staff Performance in State-Owned Enterprises in Kenya. *European Journal of Business and Management*, 8(30).
Nidadhavolu, A. (2018). *Impact of Leadership Styles on Employee Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment*
– *A Study in the Construction Sector in India*. Masters Theses & Specialist Projects. Paper 2090.
https://digitalcommons.wku.edu/theses/2090

Noah, Y. (2008). Participation in Management Decision Making Within Selected Establishments in Lagos, Nigeria. *Journal of Social Science, 17* (1), 31-39.

O'Brien, R. M. (1988). *The Effects of Participative Management on Teacher Satisfaction During Periods of Organizational Decline*. Unpublished Dissertations: Western Michigan University. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations/2166

Ogola, M.G.O., Sikalieh, D. & Linge, T.K. (2017). The Influence of Intellectual Stimulation Leadership Behavior on Employee Performance in SMEs in Kenya. *International Journal of Business and Social Science, 8*(3).

Ojokuku, R. M. (2014). Effect of Employee Participation in Decision Making on Performance of Selected Small and Medium Scale Enterprises in Lagos, Nigeria. *European Journal of Business and Management, 6*(10).

Olantuji, F., Nwachukwu, C., Worlu, R., Ogunnaike, O., & Abimbola, A. (2017). Empirical Assessment of the Link between Participatory Decision-Making and Firm Performance in Nigeria. *International Journal of Contemporary Management 4*, 285-301. https://doi.org/10.4467/24498939IJCM.17.048.8271

Olcume, D. & Titrek, O. (2015). The Effect of School Administrators' Decision-Making Styles on Teacher Job Satisfaction. *Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 197*, 1936-1946. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.07.575

Omar, E.H. & Kavale, S. (2016). Effect of Leadership Style on School Performance of the Secondary Schools in Wadajir District, Mogadishu, Somalia. *IJRDO-Journal of Applied Management Science, 2*(5).

Park, J., Lee, K.-H., & Kim, P. S. (2015). Participative Management and Perceived Organizational Performance: The Moderating Effects of Innovative Organizational Culture. *Public Performance & Management Review, 39*(2), 316–336.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/48537168

Parveen K, Quang Bao Tran P, Kumar T and Shah AH (2022) Impact of Principal Leadership Styles on Teacher Job Performance: An Empirical Investigation. *Frontier in Education, 7*,14159.
https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.814159

Pateman C (1976) *Participation and Democratic Theory*. Cambridge University Press

Peng, S. (2016). *Motivation and leadership*. In: Farazmand, A. (eds). *Global encyclopedia of public administration, public policy, and governance*. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_1329-1

Pereira, G.M., Osburn, H.G. (2007). Effects of Participation in Decision Making on Performance and Employee Attitudes: A Quality Circles Meta-analysis. *Journal of Business Psychology, 22*, 145–153.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-007-9055-8

Pratigma, K. (n.d). *Importance of Leadership*. Business management Ideas.
https://www.businessmanagementideas.com

Rego, A., Cavazotte, F., Cunha, M. P. e, Valverde, C., Meyer, M., & Giustiniano, L. (2021). Gritty Leaders Promoting Employees' Thriving at Work. *Journal of Management, 47*(5), 1155-1184. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206320904765
Riggio, R.E. (2014). *The Four Elements of Transformational Leadership*. Psychology Today.
https://www.psychologytoday.com

Rima'a, D. (2020). Participation in Decision Making and Affective Trust among the Teaching Staff: A 2-Year Cross-Lagged Structural Equation Modeling During Implementation Reform. *International Journal of Education Reform*, 29, 77-97. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056787919877857

Robins, A.G. (2022). Measuring Grit as a Predictor of Academic Success Among African American Male Students in STEM Programs at Predominantly White Institutions in Western Pennsylvania. *Young, Gifted and Missing* (*Diversity in Higher Education*, 25. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-364420220000025001

Rolkováa, M., & Farkašováa, V. (2014). *The features of participative management style. 2nd global conference on business, economics, management and tourism*. Prague.

Sagie, A., & Aycan, Z. (2003). A Cross-Cultural Analysis of Participative Decision-Making in Organizations. *Human Relations*, 56 (4), 453-473. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726703056004003

Sashkin, M. (1984). Participative Management is An Ethical Imperative. *Organizational Dynamics*, 12(4), 5-22.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-2616(84)90008-1

Sauer, S.J. (2011). Taking the reins: The effects of new leader status and leadership style on team performance. *Journal of Applied Psychology*, 96(3), 574-587. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022741
Schieltz, M. (2019). *Four Elements of Transformational Leadership*. Chron. https://smallbusiness.chron.com

Scott, D., Bishop, J., & Chen, X. (2003). An examination of the relationship of employee involvement with job satisfaction, employee cooperation, and intention to quit in U.S. invested enterprise in China. *International Journal of Organization Analysis*, 1, 3-19. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb028960

Shin, Y. (2013). *The relationship between Leadership Styles, Organizational Commitment, and Organizational Outcome in Oklahoma's Volunteer Fire Departments*. Unpublished Master of Science Thesis: Oklahoma State University.

Sia, S.K. & Appu, A.V. (2015). Work Autonomy and Workplace Creativity: Moderating Role of Task Complexity. *Global Business Review*, 16, 772-784. https://doi.org/10.1177/0972150915591435

Sikanyika, S. & Chibomba, K. (2020). Assessing the effect of employee participation on organizational performance: A Case Study of Lusaka. *The International Journal of Multi-Disciplinary Research*, 5(1).

Somech, A. (2006). The effects of leadership style and team process on performance and innovation in functionally heterogeneous teams. *Journal of Management*, 32(1), 132-157. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305277799

Southwick, D.A., Tsay, C.J. & Duckworth, A.L. (2019). Grit at work. *Research in Organizational Behavior*, 39,100126, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2020.100126

Spreitzer, G.M. & Mishra, A.K. (1999). Giving Up Control without Losing Control: Trust and its Substitutes' Effects on Managers' Involving Employees in Decision Making. *Group & Organization Management*, 24(2), 155-187.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601199242003

Tang, X., Wang, MT., Parada, F. (2021). Putting the Goal Back into Grit: Academic Goal Commitment, Grit, and Academic Achievement. *Journal of Youth Adolescence* 50, 470-484. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-020-01348-1
Tedla, B.A., Redda, E.H., Vilas, G.B. (2021). Leadership Styles and School Performance: A Study Within Eritrean Context of South Africa. *International Journal of Management*, 12(3), 1152-1169.
https://doi.org/10.34218/IJM.12.3.2021.109

Tisdall, E.K.M. (2013). The Transformation of Participation? Exploring the Potential of ‘Transformative Participation’ for Theory and Practice around Children and Young People’s Participation. *Global Studies of Childhood*, 3(2), 183193. https://doi.org/10.2304/gsch.2013.3.2.183

Tonn, J. (2003). *Mary P. Follett: Creating democracy, transforming management*. Yale University Press

Ugurlu, C.T. (2013). Effects of Decision-Making Style of School Administrators on General Procrastination Behaviors. Eurasian Journal of Education Research, 15, 253-272.

Valverde, M. (2021, August 05). *Participative Decision Making (PDM)*. Scholarly Community Encyclopedia.
https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/12828

Vinson, J.M., McMillan, J.J. & Schleifer, L.F. (2022). An investigation of the association of grit and performance in accounting courses. *Journal of Accounting Education*, 59, 100779. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccedu.2022.100779

Wachira, F.M., Gitumu, M. & Mbuga, Z. (2017). Effect of Principals' Leadership Styles on Teachers' Job Performance in Public Secondary Schools in Kieni West Sub County. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Invention, 6(8), 72-86.

Wheeless, V.E., Wheeless, L.R. & Howard, R.D. (1983). An analysis of the contribution of participative decision making and communication with supervisor as predictors of job satisfaction. *Research in Higher Education, 18*, 145-160 (1983). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00992059

White, S. (1996). *Depoliticizing development: the uses and abuses of participation*. Development in Practice, 6(1), 6-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/0961452961000157564

Williamson, M.G. (2008). The Effects of Expanding Employee Decision-Making on Contributions to Firm Value in an Informal Reward Environment. *Contemporary Accounting Research* 25(4). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.954349

Wilkinson, A. & Dundon, T. (2010). *Direct employee participation. In: Wilkinson A, Gollan P, Marchinton M, Lewin D (eds). The Oxford Handbook of Participation in Organizations (167-185). Oxford University Press, 167-185.*

Witte, J.F. (1980). *Democracy, Authority, and Alienation in Work: Workers' Participation in an American Corporation*. University of Chicago Press

Wodehouse, J.P. (2018). *Inspirational Leadership Matters: The Four I's of Leadership*. Penn State Extension.
https://extension.psu.edu

Wohlgemuth, V.; Wenzel, M.; Berger, E.S.C. & Eisend, M. (2019). Dynamic capabilities and employee participation: The role of trust and informal control. *European Management Journal*, 37, 760-771.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2019.02.005

Yeleap, (n.d). *Youth Entrepreneurship and Leadership*. YELEAP. https://www.homeofentrepreneurship.com

Yukl, G. (2010). *Leadership in Organizations* (7th ed.). Prentice Hall
Zanoni, P.; Janssens, M. (2007). *Minority employees engaging with (diversity) management: An analysis of control, agency, and micro-emancipation*. Journal of Management Studies, 44, 1371–1397. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00700.x

Zdaniuk, A., & Bobocel, Bobocel, R. (2015). The Role of Idealized Influence in Promoting Workplace Forgiveness. *The Leadership Quarterly*, 26(5), 863-877.

Zivkovic, Z., Mihajlovic, I., & Prvulovic, S. (2009). Developing a Motivational Model as a Strategy for HRM in Small Enterprises under Transitional Economy. *Serbian Journal of Management*, 4(1), 1-27.

Zyl, L.E., van Vuuren, M., Roll, L.C. & Stander, M.W. (2022). Person-Environment Fit and Task Performance: Exploring the Role (s) of Grit as a Personal Resource. *Current Psychology*, 42(27). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-03461-9

**Publisher's Note:** DWIJMH stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

© 2024 by the authors. Licensee DWIJMH. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Divine Word International Journal of Management and Humanities. DWIJMH is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.