**5. Discussions**

The findings offer insights into the preferred leadership styles of management students at the University of Professional Studies - Accra. Most students were males

#### *Assessing Leadership Styles in Student Unions: A Quantitative Survey in Ghana DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.108323*

between the ages of 21–30. Students preferred being led by leaders who adopted democratic leadership styles, followed by laissez-faire leadership. Findings from this study corroborate the works of [48–51, 56].

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

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

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

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

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