Executive Summary

_{Author: Bruna de Abreu e Silva Adad — Advisor: Juliana Schneider Mesquita}

^{Summary prepared by the ResumeAI tool, an artificial intelligence solution developed by the Pecege Institute focused on synthesis and writing.}

This study analyzes how leadership styles influence the motivation of employees in a distributed solar energy generation company, a sector of high technical qualification and innovation. In a competitive market, people management and the promotion of mental health are strategic differentiators (Dias and Borges, 2015). Leadership is a process of direct influence over group activities, impacting goal setting and the achievement of corporate objectives (Robbins, 2002; Molina and Molina, 2022). The way leadership is exercised affects organizational climate, productivity, and well-being.

The complexity of leadership lies in balancing organizational demands with individual needs. An effective leader, according to Sobral (2008), builds trusting relationships and an environment focused on well-being, without neglecting company results. The choice of leadership style is a characteristic of the manager, based on their perception of how to manage information, processes, and people (Lucattelli et al., 2021). The contemporary trend values humanized leadership, which promotes empathy, engagement, and motivation, essential elements for a competitive organization (Maximiano, 2011). Leadership, therefore, is the art of directing collaborators towards goals aligned with their values and the organization’s strategic objectives.

Employee motivation is a critical variable. The leader-led relationship depends on individual characteristics and the work environment, which directly interferes with motivation (Tadeucci, 2009; Soares, 2021). Motivation is the process that governs the intensity, direction, and persistence of a person’s efforts to achieve a goal (Robbins, 2005). Effective leadership is a catalyst for strengthening motivation. The sustainable success of an organization depends on the interdependence between the quality of leadership and the team’s motivation level (Gil, 2007).

A primary function of leadership is to create stimuli to keep employees motivated, which requires understanding their individual needs. When leaders demonstrate respect for these needs, they foster a positive environment and contribute to organizational success (Tajra and Santos, 2014). This research evaluates how autocratic, liberal, and democratic leadership styles impact decisions, procedures, and human relations, influencing motivation in the face of organizational challenges (Araújo and Ferreira, 2009).

The relevance of the study is amplified by the debate on mental health in organizations. Understanding the leader’s role in building a healthy and motivating environment is crucial for well-being, productivity, and talent retention (Salomão et al., 2025). By analyzing a company in the solar energy sector, this work offers practical insights into how leaders’ actions can be improved to guide teams in alignment with their motivational needs. The findings indicate that leaders exhibit a mix of behaviors, sometimes inspirational, sometimes reward-based, offering a field for the development of more effective management strategies.

The methodology is an applied research, with a quantitative-descriptive approach, aiming to analyze leadership styles and their impact on motivation (Lakatos and Marconi, 2010). A structured questionnaire with scales and variables was applied to measure employee perception (Gil, 2002). Bibliographic and documentary research provided the theoretical foundation for the analysis of empirical data (Marconi and Lakatos, 2003).

The instrument was an online questionnaire administered to employees of a solar energy company with 130 employees. The non-probabilistic sample consisted of 61 volunteer employees, who answered the questionnaire between May and July 2025 via Google Forms. The questionnaire used validated scales: for leadership styles, an adaptation of the studies by Fonseca and Porto (2013) and Silva, Ruffato, and Gonçalves (2023); for motivation, an adaptation of the scale by Gagné et al. (2015). Both used the 5-point Likert format.

All participants signed the Informed Consent Form (ICF), authorizing the anonymous use of data. The research was exempted from submission to the Ethics Committee as it involved an opinion survey with unidentified participants. Data analysis, via Excel, included frequencies, means, medians, and correlations (Hair et al., 2010).

Methodological limitations are acknowledged. The quantitative approach does not capture the depth of individual experiences, and the non-probabilistic sample limits the generalization of the results. Despite this, the data provide a solid foundation for the discussion on the relationship between leadership and motivation in the context of the studied company, offering insights for managers and researchers.

The results show that organizational performance is impacted by leadership styles, a critical element for success and competitive advantage (Oliveira, 2012). The analysis focused on Transactional and Transformational Leadership. The data demonstrate a predominance of Transactional Leadership (M=3.62) over Transformational (M=2.97). The overall motivation level is moderate (M=3.35), indicating untapped potential. Transformational Leadership, which aims for engagement through inspiration, is perceived with less intensity, suggesting a missed opportunity to strengthen emotional connection and shared vision.

In Transformational Leadership, the perception that the leader unites the group around a common goal was well evaluated (M=4.33), with 82% of respondents agreeing. This reveals capacity for cooperation and alignment, in line with literature that points to this style as a promoter of a sense of collective direction (Bass, 1985; Belo et al., 2024). However, the perception regarding the offering of positive feedback for good performance (M=3.89) was intermediate, with a significant number of collaborators being neutral or disagreeing, signaling an area for development. Feedback is a pillar of transformational leadership, promoting development and appreciation (Fonseca and Porto, 2013).

Other dimensions of Transformational Leadership had mixed results. The majority (77.1%) disagreed that leadership “generally does not recognize good performance”, indicating a perception of appreciation. However, clarity about team objectives (M=3.77) was moderate, which can generate uncertainty (Ferreira, Martins and Santos, 2021). The leader’s ability to inspire with plans for the future also received a less affirmative evaluation, a critical point, as the transformational leader must be a model of visions and purposes (Bass and Avolio, 1999; Vizeu, 2011). On the other hand, consideration for personal needs (M=3.75) was well evaluated, a central characteristic of this style (Dias and Borges, 2015). The insistence on the team’s best performance (M=4.34) was also a strong point, corroborating that the leader-led relationship in the company is based on respect and the pursuit of high performance (Cunha and Rodrigues, 2022).

Transactional Leadership, perceived as stronger (M=3.62), is based on authority and the exchange of rewards for performance (Burns, 1978). The results show that leaders make it clear what to do to be rewarded (M=3.20), although the perception is not unanimous. The negotiation of rewards was not strongly perceived. The style is more manifested in management by exception, where the leader shows discontent with low performance (M=3.50), evidencing a focus on monitoring and correcting failures (Soares, 2021). Correlation analysis revealed a positive and significant association between the two styles (r=0.518), indicating that they coexist in a complementary way. Leaders are perceived as transactional with some transformational behaviors, which is consistent with the theory that styles vary with the situation (Bass & Avolio, 1994).

The analysis of motivation revealed an intriguing panorama. The general level is moderate (M=3.35), but there is disparity between the factors. Intrinsic motivation, such as pride in belonging to the company (M=4.64), pleasure in performing the work (M=4.59), and identification with the organization’s values (M=4.51), showed very high averages. In contrast, extrinsic motivation, such as seeking approval (M=3.10), gaining respect (M=3.00), and avoiding criticism (M=2.72), had lower averages. This reveals a paradox: the predominant leadership is transactional (focused on extrinsic factors), but the main source of employee motivation is intrinsic, linked to meaning and personal fulfillment.

This duality is reinforced by Pearson’s correlation. No statistically significant association was found between Transformational Leadership and motivation (r=0.063). However, a positive and significant correlation was identified between Transactional Leadership and motivation (r=0.368). This counterintuitive result suggests that, in the company’s context, the control and reward practices of the transactional style have the greatest impact on engagement, even though employees value intrinsic factors. The transactional structure may provide the necessary security and clarity for intrinsic motivation to flourish.

The organization possesses a high potential for intrinsic engagement that is not being fully leveraged by the predominant leadership style. The focus on transactional practices ensures compliance and short-term performance, but strengthening transformational practices — such as developing an inspiring vision, providing constructive feedback, and valuing the individual — could align management with the existing sources of motivation. Such alignment has the potential to unlock higher levels of innovation, commitment, and long-term engagement, transforming the motivational paradox into synergy.

The practical implications are significant. For the company, an exclusively transactional leadership is insufficient to maximize the potential of a qualified and intrinsically motivated workforce. Investing in the development of transformational skills in leaders can enhance innovation and performance. For leaders, the findings highlight the need to improve communication, feedback, and inspiration skills. For employees, the research indicates an unexplored potential for deeper engagement, which could be activated by more transformational leadership.

In summary, this study details the interaction between leadership and motivation. The predominance of a transactional style was identified in an organization whose collaborators are driven by intrinsic factors, revealing a motivational paradox. The positive correlation between the transactional style and motivation suggests that structure and clarity are important, but the potential for sustainable engagement lies in strengthening transformational leadership practices. It is concluded that the objective was achieved: it was demonstrated that, in the studied organization, the transactional leadership style is the most perceived and correlates positively with motivation, despite collaborators reporting a strong orientation towards intrinsic motivational factors, which points to the need for leadership development that balances transactional efficiency with transformational inspiration and development.

References:
^{Araújo, K.; Ferreira, M. A. A. 2009. The exercise of leadership through coaching style in team management. Revista Administração em Diálogo, n. 13, v. 2.
Bass, B. M. 1985. Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: The Free Press.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. 1999 Training full range leadership: A resource guide for training with the MLQ. California: Mind Garden.
Belo, E. M. et al. 2024. Leadership styles. Revista Ibero-americana de humanidades, ciências e educação, vol. 10, n. 05, p. 4141-4164.
Burns, J. M. 1978. Leadership. New York: Harper and Row.
Chiavenato, I. 2013. Introduction to general administration. 1st reprint. Barueri, SP: Manole.
Cunha, L. S., Rodrigues, L. da L. (2022). The Influence of Leadership and Motivation in Organizations. ID on Line. Revista De Psicologia, 16(60), 598–619.
Dias, M. A. M. J; Borges, R. S. G. 2015. Leadership styles and team performance in the public sector. Revista eletrônica de Administração. Belo Horizonte, MG, ed. 80, n. 1, p. 200-221.
Ferreira, H. S., Martins, J. N. S., Santos, L. F. 2021. Leadership in organizations: bibliographic review in national journals. Ciência Dinâmica, p. 27-49.
Fonseca, A. M., & Porto, J. B. 2013. Factorial validation of a scale of attitudes towards leadership styles. Avaliação Psicológica, 12(2), 157-166.
Gagné, M., Forest, J., Vansteenkiste, M., Crevier-Braud, L., Van den Broeck, A., Aspeli, A. K., Bellerose, J., Benabou, C., Chemolli, E., Güntert, S. T., Halvari, H., Johnson, P., Indiyastuti, D. L., Molstad, M., Naudin, M., Ndao, A., Olafson, A. H., Roussel, P., Wang, Z., Westbye, C. (2015). The Multidimensional Work Motivation Scale: Validation evidence in seven Languages and nine countries. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24, 178-196.
Gil, A. C. 2002. How to develop research projects. 4th ed. São Paulo: Atlas.
Gil, A. C. 2007. Social research methods and techniques. 5th ed. São Paulo: Atlas.
Hair, J. R. et al. 2010. Multivariate Data Analyses. 7th ed. New Jersey: Pearson.
Lakatos, E. M; Marconi, M. A. 2010. Fundamentals of scientific methodology. São Paulo: Atlas.
Lucatelli, F., Tormen-Ferreira, J. A., Alberton, A., & Marinho, S. V. 2021. A convinced pessimist on my team: leadership styles and motivation. Revista Gestão Organizacional, 14(2), 6-24.
Marconi, M. De A.; Lakatos, E. M. 2003. Fundamentals of scientific methodology. 5th ed. São Paulo: Atlas.
Maximiano, A. C. A. 2011. Introduction to administration. 8th rev. and enl. ed. – São Paulo: Atlas, 2011.
Molina, J. V., & Molina, A. L. 2022. Motivation and leadership in organizations: literature review. Revista Ibero-Americana de Humanidades, Ciências e Educação, 8(8), 194-207.
Oliveira, D. P. R. 2012. General theory of administration. 2nd ed. São Paulo: Atlas.
Oliveira, F. N. 2021. The impact of transformational and transactional leadership on work engagement: a comparison between temporary and permanent workers. Dissertation (Master in Human Resource Management). Lisbon: Lisbon School of Economics & Management.
Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. 1990. Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leaders, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107-142.
Robbins, S. P. 2002. Organizational behavior. São Paulo: Prentice Hall.
Robbins, S. P. 2005. Organizational behavior. 11th ed. São Paulo: Prentice Hall.
Salomão, P. E. A., de Castro Nery, D. G., de Matos Rodrigues, D., de Matos, G. C., Marquez, J. A. R., de Souza, M. H. X., … & de Azevedo Teixeira, D. 2025. Mental Health And Well-Being At Work: The Impact Of Stress And Burnout On Productivity. Revista Multidisciplinar do Nordeste Mineiro, 1(2), 1-10.
Silva, B. E., Ruffato, J., & Gonçalves, J. 2023. Leadership Styles and Work Engagement in Agricultural Sector Workers. Revista de Administração FACES Journal.
Soares, S. N. 2021. Influence of leadership on employee motivation: comparison between small and large companies. Dissertation (Master in Management and Entrepreneurship), Polytechnic Institute of Lisbon.
Sobral, F. 2008. Administration: theory and practice in the Brazilian context. Ed. São Paulo: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Tadeucci, M. S. R. 2011. Motivation and leadership. Curitiba: IESDE Brasil S. A.
Tajra, S. F.; Santos, N. 2014. Planning and leadership: concepts, strategies and human behavior. 1st ed. São Paulo: Érica.
Vizeu, F. 2011. An approach between transformational leadership and communicative action theory. Mackenzie Adm. Review, vol. 12. No. 01, 53-81.}

---

Executive Summary from the Final Coursework of the Specialization in People Management of the MBA USP/Esalq

_{Learn more about the course; click here:}