A total of 123 nurses participated in this study, of whom 34.96% have a position as assistance nurse, 13.01% work as a senior nurse, and 52.03% as a nursing supervisor/coordinator, which indicates that the majority have considerable experience in the area of leadership.
Table 1 presents the sociodemographic data of the participants. 74.8% were female, and 78.9% work in the public service. 63.42% worked at the hospital, under an official contract, showing that although they work in the public service, they belong to an “Organização Social de Saúde” (OSS), a private non-profit making hospital, whose services are contracted by the government.
Table 1 – Sociodemographic data of the sample, Brazil, 2021
|
N¹
|
%
|
95%CI.lo²
|
95%CI.hi³
|
Sex
|
|
|
|
|
Female
|
92
|
74.8
|
66.42
|
81.68
|
Male
|
31
|
25.2
|
18.33
|
33.58
|
Marital status
|
|
|
|
|
Married
|
50
|
40.65
|
32.38
|
49.49
|
Single
|
25
|
20.33
|
14.11
|
28.34
|
Divorced
|
34
|
27.64
|
20.48
|
36.16
|
Stable union
|
14
|
11.38
|
6.79
|
18.32
|
Sector
|
|
|
|
|
Emergency department
|
2
|
1.63
|
0.08
|
6.10
|
Clinic
|
10
|
8.13
|
4.32
|
14.48
|
ICU
|
24
|
19.51
|
13.42
|
27.45
|
Surgical centre
|
21
|
17.07
|
11.37
|
24.77
|
Emergency
|
13
|
10.57
|
6.16
|
17.37
|
Nursing supervision
|
19
|
15.45
|
10.04
|
22.95
|
Teaching and research
|
34
|
27.64
|
20.48
|
36.16
|
Present position
|
|
|
|
|
Assistant nurse
|
43
|
34.96
|
27.09
|
43.74
|
Supervision/coordination
|
64
|
52.03
|
43.28
|
60.67
|
Senior nurse
|
16
|
13.01
|
8.07
|
20.19
|
Service
|
|
|
|
|
Public
|
97
|
78.86
|
70.78
|
85.20
|
Private
|
26
|
21.14
|
14.80
|
29.22
|
Family income
|
|
|
|
|
1 to 2 minimum salaries
|
4
|
3.25
|
1.00
|
8.34
|
2 to 3 minimum salaries
|
11
|
8.94
|
4.92
|
15.45
|
4 to 6 minimum salaries
|
53
|
43.09
|
34.68
|
51.92
|
More than 6 minimum salaries
|
55
|
44.72
|
36.22
|
53.53
|
Type of employment
|
|
|
|
|
Official contract
|
78
|
63.42
|
54.61
|
71.41
|
Self-employed
|
9
|
7.32
|
3.73
|
13.49
|
Statutory civil servant
|
36
|
29.27
|
21.93
|
37.86
|
Time as leader
|
|
|
|
|
Less than 6 months
|
1
|
0.81
|
0.00
|
4.91
|
From 6 months to 1 year
|
6
|
4.88
|
2.03
|
10.46
|
From 1 to 2 years
|
10
|
8.13
|
4.32
|
14.48
|
From 2 to 5 years
|
30
|
24.39
|
17.61
|
32.72
|
From 5 to 10 years
|
55
|
44.72
|
36.22
|
53.53
|
More than 10 years
|
21
|
17.07
|
11.37
|
24.77
|
Total
|
123
|
100
|
|
|
Note: ¹N - number of nurses, ²CI.lo - lower limit of confidence interval,
³CI.hi - upper limit of confidence interval
Finally, 44.72% of the interviewees have been working for 5 to 10 years, and another 17.07% have more than 10 years of experience in nursing, which demonstrates that a large number of the group of people interviewed have experience in nursing.
The indices considered satisfactory for the Quality of Work Life (QWL) of the QWLQ-bref start from 55 points. The average QWLQ-bref in this study was 68.56% (satisfactory), and all four domains maintained a satisfactory score, namely: physical/health domain: 62.75%, psychological domain: 73.44%, personal domain: 75.36%, professional domain: 62.69%.
Table 2 presents the MSAS leadership style factors. This scale shows three factors that together determine the managerial style perceived by the studied group. The highest means of the MSAS belonged to the task-based leadership style (mean 3.53, SD 0.77) and the lowest means belonged to the situational leadership style (mean 3.12, SD 0.76).
Table 2 - Descriptive presentation on the Management Style Assessment Scale, Brazil, 2021
|
N¹
|
Average
|
SD²
|
Min³
|
1stQ4
|
Median
|
3rdQ5
|
Max
|
95%CI.lo6
|
95%CI.hi7
|
MSAS.
Relationship
|
123
|
3.40
|
0.69
|
1.889
|
2.889
|
3.333
|
3.889
|
5
|
3.28
|
3.52
|
MSAS.
Situational
|
123
|
3.12
|
0.76
|
1.833
|
2.5
|
3
|
3.667
|
5
|
2.99
|
3.26
|
MSAS.
Task
|
123
|
3.53
|
0.77
|
2
|
3
|
35
|
4
|
5
|
3.39
|
3.66
|
Note: 1N - number of nurses, 2SD - standard deviation, 3Min - minimum, 41stQ - 1st quartile, 53rdQ - 3rd quartile, 6CI.lo - lower limit of confidence interval, 7CI.hi - upper limit of confidence interval
For the correlation analyses between the 'Quality of Life' and 'Leadership Styles' instruments, the Kruskal-Wallis and ANOVA tests were used. For all analyses, a significance level of 5% was considered.
Tables 3 and 4 show that there is no evidence of correlation between EAG and QWLQ-bref. The coefficient varies between -1 and 1 and a considerable correlation is usually around 0.7 or greater, so none of the correlations achieve this result, which is indicative of the absence of association.
Table 3 - Hypothesis Test - Correlation between Quality of Work Life and Leadership Style, Brazil, 2021
|
Method
|
Statistic
|
df1
|
p-value2
|
QWLQ.Psychological
|
Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test
|
0.7582
|
2
|
0.684
|
QWLQ.Professional
|
Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test
|
0.8542
|
2
|
0.652
|
QWLQ.Physical
|
Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test
|
4.6159
|
2
|
0.099
|
QWLQ.Personal
|
One-way ANOVA
|
0.6109
|
2.120
|
0.545
|
QWLQ.Total
|
Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test
|
0.3864
|
2
|
0.824
|
MSAS.Relationship
|
Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test
|
1.8696
|
2
|
0.393
|
MSAS.Situational
|
Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test
|
0.4213
|
2
|
0.810
|
MSAS.Task
|
One-way ANOVA
|
0.5446
|
2.120
|
0.582
|
Note:¹Statistic - statistic, 2df - degree of freedom, 3p-value - significant result
Table 4 – Correlation of Personal Values with QWL and Leadership Style, Brazil, 2021
Variable
|
Personal values
|
N¹
|
Mean
|
SD2
|
Min3
|
Median
|
Max4
|
95%CI.lo5
|
95%CI.h6
|
QWLQ.Psychological
|
Own Interest
|
19
|
11.95
|
1.93
|
8
|
12
|
15
|
11.14
|
12.83
|
|
Transformation
|
36
|
11.58
|
1.79
|
8
|
12
|
15
|
11.00
|
12.15
|
|
Common Good
|
68
|
11.90
|
1.92
|
8
|
12
|
15
|
11.44
|
12.34
|
QWLQ.Professional
|
Own Interest
|
19
|
31.53
|
6.47
|
19
|
31
|
45
|
28.90
|
34.59
|
|
Transformation
|
36
|
32.03
|
5.51
|
23
|
32
|
45
|
30.29
|
33.84
|
|
Common Good
|
68
|
31.34
|
6.09
|
18
|
31
|
45
|
29.93
|
32.80
|
QWLQ.Physical
|
Own Interest
|
19
|
12.26
|
2.47
|
8
|
12
|
16
|
11.16
|
13.32
|
|
Transformation
|
36
|
13.39
|
2.51
|
8
|
13.5
|
19
|
12.59
|
14.20
|
|
Common Good
|
68
|
13.71
|
2.78
|
8
|
14.5
|
18
|
13.03
|
14.34
|
QWLQ.Personal
|
Own Interest
|
19
|
16.32
|
2.06
|
12
|
17
|
19
|
15.33
|
17.31
|
|
Transformation
|
36
|
15.72
|
2.16
|
9
|
16
|
20
|
14.99
|
16.45
|
|
Common Good
|
68
|
16.16
|
2.30
|
11
|
16
|
20
|
15.60
|
16.72
|
QWLQ.Total
|
Own Interest
|
19
|
72.05
|
11.45
|
53
|
70
|
95
|
67.43
|
77.50
|
|
Transformation
|
36
|
72.72
|
10.10
|
56
|
74
|
96
|
69.50
|
76.00
|
|
Common Good
|
68
|
73.10
|
11.30
|
48
|
73
|
96
|
70.42
|
75.75
|
MSAS. Relationship
|
Own Interest
|
19
|
3.57
|
0.67
|
2.333
|
3.444
|
4.778
|
3.29
|
3.88
|
|
Transformation
|
36
|
3.38
|
0.77
|
2
|
3.278
|
5
|
3.14
|
3.64
|
|
Common Good
|
68
|
3.36
|
0.65
|
1.889
|
3.222
|
4.889
|
3.21
|
3.52
|
MSAS.Situational
|
Own Interest
|
19
|
3.00
|
0.70
|
2.167
|
2.833
|
4.667
|
2.74
|
3.37
|
|
Transformation
|
36
|
3.14
|
0.80
|
2
|
2.917
|
5
|
2.91
|
3.43
|
|
Common Good
|
68
|
3.14
|
0.77
|
1.833
|
3
|
4.833
|
2.97
|
3.33
|
MSAS.
Task
|
Own Interest
|
19
|
3.57
|
0.74
|
2.5
|
3.5
|
5
|
3.21
|
3.93
|
|
Transformation
|
36
|
3.63
|
0.75
|
2.25
|
3.75
|
5
|
3.37
|
3.88
|
|
Common Good
|
68
|
3.46
|
0.79
|
2
|
3.5
|
5
|
3.27
|
3.66
|
Note: ¹N - number of nurses, ²Mean - mean, 3SD - standard deviation, 4Min - minimum, 5Median – median, 6Max - maximum, 7CI.lo – lower limit of the confidence interval, 8CI.hi – upper limit of the confidence interval
Table 5 shows the percentages of personal values according to the Barrett Model. As for the personal values measured by this model, it can be observed that 15.45% of the sample have the values to a greater degree in Own Interest, 29.27% in Transformation and 55.29% in Common Good.
Table 5 - Percentages of personal values according to the Barrett Model, Brazil, 2021
Factor
|
Barrett Domain
|
N¹
|
%
|
95%CI.lo²
|
95%CI.hi³
|
Personal values
|
Own Interest
|
19
|
15.45
|
10.04
|
22.95
|
|
Transformation
|
36
|
29.27
|
21.93
|
37.86
|
|
Common Good
|
68
|
55.29
|
46.47
|
63.78
|
Note: ¹N - number of nurses, ²CI.lo – lower limit of the confidence interval, 3CI.hi – upper limit of the confidence interval.