Leadership Styles
Leadership style is the manner and approach of providing direction, implementing plans, and motivating people.
Leadership style refers to a leader's behaviour. It is the result of the philosophy, personality and experience of the leader.
Authoritarian or autocratic
This style is used when leaders tell their employees what they want done and how they want it accomplished, without getting the advice of their followers. Some of the appropriate conditions to use it is when you have all the information to solve the problem, you are short on time, and your employees are well motivated.
Some people tend to think of this style as a vehicle for yelling, using demeaning language, and leading by threats and abusing their power. This is not the authoritarian style, rather it is an abusive, unprofessional style called “bossing people around.” It has no place in a leader's repertoire.
The authoritarian style should normally only be used on rare occasions. If you have the time and want to gain more commitment and motivation from your employees, then you should use the participative style.
Under the autocratic leadership style, all decision-making powers are centralized in the leader, as with dictator leaders.
They do not entertain any suggestions or initiatives from subordinates. The autocratic management has been successful as it provides strong motivation to the manager. It permits quick decision-making, as only one person decides for the whole group and keeps each decision to himself until he feels it is needed to be shared with the rest of the group.
Management may not be the worlds ‘oldest profession’, but the autocratic leadership style is probably the original type of management style ever employed. Simple at heart, the autocratic style of management involves making the decisions yourself and passing them onto subordinates. In the autocratic world, leaders are there to make the decision, and followers are there to follow. This promotes an ‘obedient’ style of follower present in the army, and perhaps some of the ‘tougher’ working cultures such as farming, logging, haulage and fishing.
This isn’t to say that an autocratic leader would fail miserably in, say, customer service. However, the more those workers are left to do imaginative or creative tasks largely on their own, the less likely an autocratic leadership style would really ‘bring the best’ out of the average worker.
This is often considered the classical approach. It is one in which the manager retains as much power and decision-making authority as possible. The manager does not consult employees, nor are they allowed to give any input. Employees are expected to obey orders without receiving any explanations. The motivation environment is produced by creating a structured set of rewards and punishments.
Autocratic leaders make decisions without consulting their teams. This is considered appropriate when decisions genuinely need to be taken quickly, when there's no need for input, and when team agreement isn't necessary for a successful outcome.
This leadership style has been greatly criticized during the past 30 years. Some studies say that organizations with many autocratic leaders have higher turnover and absenteeism than other organizations. Certainly Gen X employees have proven to be highly resistant to this management style. These studies say that autocratic leaders: --Rely on threats and punishment to influence employees
--Do not trust employees
--Do not allow for employee input
Yet, autocratic leadership is not all bad. Sometimes it is the most effective style to use. These situations can include:
--New, untrained employees who do not know which tasks to perform or which procedures to follow
--Effective supervision can be provided only through detailed orders and instructions
--Employees do not respond to any other leadership style
--There are high-volume production needs on a daily basis
--There is limited time in which to make a decision
--A manager's power is challenged by an employee
--The area was poorly managed
--Work needs to be coordinated with another department or organization
The autocratic leadership style should not be used when:
--Employees become tense, fearful, or resentful
--Employees expect to have their opinions heard
--Employees begin depending on their manager to make all their decisions
--There is low employee morale, high turnover and absenteeism and work stoppage
Participative or democratic Leadership Style
This style involves the leader including one or more employees in the decision making process (determining what to do and how to do it). However, the leader maintains the final decision making authority. Using this style is not a sign of weakness; rather it is a sign of strength that your employees will respect.
This is normally used when you have part of the information, and your employees have other parts. Note that a leader is not expected to know everything — this is why you employ knowledgeable and skillful employees. Using this style is of mutual benefit — it allows them to become part of the team and allows you to make better decisions.
The democratic leadership style favors decision-making by the group as shown, such as leader gives instruction after consulting the group.
They can win the co-operation of their group and can motivate them effectively and positively. The decisions of the democratic leader are not unilateral as with the autocrat because they arise from consultation with the group members and participation by them.
The democratic leadership style is probably the most popular leadership style in the 21st century management arena. It’s a style that remains popular due to the positive reaction employees have towards it. If you lean towards the democratic leadership style, this means that you seek to consult your employees or team members over decisions that will affect them. Naturally, followers prefer this strategy for several reasons. Either their self-interest attracts them towards managers that allow them to make the choices that benefit them, or it’s the euphoric confidence bounce they experience when they’re allowed to make decisions that were previously ‘above’ them.
However, be warned. The democratic leadership style isn’t perfect in every occasion. Democratic decisions aren’t perfect, in the sense that they take longer to make. When one only has to consult oneself, a decision can be made almost instantaneously. In a war-time, life-threatening or high-risk situation, ‘democratic’ debate simply isn’t relevant. It simply isn’t optimal. Examples of these high pressure decision-making jobs include surgeons, army generals, fire-marshals and air traffic controllers.
The democratic process is used best in simple manufacturing sectors, where a respite from the harsh and ‘robotic’ leadership styles recommended by Ford or other factory managers of times gone by.
The democratic leadership style is also called the participative style as it encourages followers/employees to be a part of the decision making. The democratic manager keeps his or her employees informed about everything that affects their work and shares decision making and problem solving responsibilities. This style requires the leader to be a coach who has the final say, but gathers information from staff members before making a decision.
Democratic leaders allow the team to provide input before making a decision, although the degree of input can vary from leader to leader. This type of style is important when team agreement matters, but it can be quite difficult to manage when there are lots of different perspectives and ideas.
Democratic leadership can produce high quality and high quantity work for long periods of time. Many employees like the trust they receive and respond with cooperation, team spirit, and high morale. Typically the democratic leader:
--Develops plans to help employees evaluate their own performance
--Allows employees to establish goals
--Encourages employees to grow on the job and be promoted
--Recognizes and encourages achievement.
Like the other styles, the democratic style is not always appropriate. It is most successful when used with highly skilled or experienced employees or when implementing operational changes or resolving individual or group problems.
The democratic leadership style is most effective when:
--The leader wants to keep employees informed about matters that affect them.
--The leader wants employees to share in decision-making and problem-solving duties.
--The leader wants to provide opportunities for employees to develop a high sense of personal growth and job satisfaction.
--There is a large or complex problem that requires lots of input to solve.
--Changes must be made or problems solved that affect employees or groups of employees.
--You want to encourage team building and participation.
Democratic leadership should not be used when:
--There is not enough time to get everyone's input.
--It's easier and more cost-effective for the manager to make the decision.
--The business can't afford mistakes.
--The manager feels threatened by this type of leadership.
--Employee safety is a critical concern.
Delegative or Free Reign Leadership Style
In this style, the leader allows the employees to make the decisions. However, the leader is still responsible for the decisions that are made. This is used when employees are able to analyze the situation and determine what needs to be done and how to do it. You cannot do everything! You must set priorities and delegate certain tasks.
This is not a style to use so that you can blame others when things go wrong, rather this is a style to be used when you fully trust and confidence in the people below you. Do not be afraid to use it, however, use it wisely!
This is also known as laissez faire (or lais·ser faire), which is the noninterference in the affairs of others
Although good leaders use all three styles, with one of them normally dominant, bad leaders tend to stick with one style.
Laissez-faire or free rein style
A free-rein leader does not lead, but leaves the group entirely to itself as shown; such a leader allows maximum freedom to subordinates, i.e., they are given a free hand in deciding their own policies and methods.
Different situations call for different leadership styles. In an emergency when there is little time to converge on an agreement and where a designated authority has significantly more experience or expertise than the rest of the team, an autocratic leadership style may be most effective; however, in a highly motivated and aligned team with a homogeneous level of expertise, a more democratic or laissez-faire style may be more effective. The style adopted should be the one that most effectively achieves the objectives of the group while balancing the interests of its individual members.
The Laissez-Faire Leadership Style
Laissez-Faire literally means ‘leave alone to act freely’. It’s the complete opposite to the autocratic style, and you’d expect as a result to find leaders in completely different industries. As I said above, autocracy doesn’t apply well to creative industries, so as you’d expect, fashion designers, film directors and photographers are given plenty of ‘room’ by their managers to do their day-to-day work, but the laissez faire leadership style isn’t just great for creative industries, it’s also useful in the professional jobs.
I’m talking about lawyers, doctors, accountants, surveyors, architects and also teachers. These are individuals whom have spent upwards of 3 years in a training contract and have emerged into either a well paid or respected job. As a result, they expect a certain degree of ‘laissez faire’ from management in the way they work. In other words, they expect to be entrusted with plenty of responsibility and be left to discharge their professional duties with less supervision than say, a sous chef.
Laissez-Faire Leadership Style
The laissez-faire leadership style is also known as the "hands-off¨ style. It is one in which the manager provides little or no direction and gives employees as much freedom as possible. All authority or power is given to the employees and they must determine goals, make decisions, and resolve problems on their own.
Laissez-faire leaders don't interfere; they allow people within the team to make many of the decisions. This works well when the team is highly capable and motivated, and when it doesn't need close monitoring or supervision. However, this style can arise because the leader is lazy or distracted, and, here, this approach can fail.
This is an effective style to use when: --Employees are highly skilled, experienced, and educated.
--Employees have pride in their work and the drive to do it successfully on their own.
--Outside experts, such as staff specialists or consultants are being used
--Employees are trustworthy and experienced.
This style should not be used when:
--It makes employees feel insecure at the unavailability of a manager.
--The manager cannot provide regular feedback to let employees know how well they are doing.
--Managers are unable to thank employees for their good work.
--The manager doesn't understand his or her responsibilities and is hoping the employees can cover for him or her.
Narcissistic leadership
Narcissistic leadership is a common form of leadership. The narcissism may be healthy or destructive although there is a continuum between the two. To critics, "narcissistic leadership is driven by unyielding arrogance, self-absorption, and a personal egotistic need for power and admiration."
Toxic leadership
A toxic leader is someone who has responsibility over a group of people or an organization, and who abuses the leader-follower relationship by leaving the group or organization in a worse-off condition than when s/he first found them.
The Bureaucratic Leadership Style
Bureaucratic leadership is often met with a wince from a management team. (Almost) everybody dislikes the idea of bureaucracy. Almost by definition, bureaucracy involves time-intensive and often time-wasting rules and procedures within a rigorous and slow framework. Followers/employees operating within a bureaucracy are given very little choice as to how they play their roles. The vast majority of their day-to-day tasks will be governed by the rule book. You may be wondering who this actually benefits. The answer is you, as the bureaucratic leader! Forcing followers/employees to perform tasks in an efficient and prescribed manner will usually facilitate in a speedy review by yourself, or perhaps lower maintenance costs, or even more productivity of workers who use the data further in the process. The restraint and ‘discipline’ put in by your bureaucratic workers will have the exact effect you designed the procedures have, therefore you have great control. The drawback is that your employees feel that they’re being controlled, each rule at a time. Also, in a high-wage economy, bureaucracy can be a very expensive use of employee time.
Bureaucratic leadership is where the manager manages "by the book¨ Everything must be done according to procedure or policy. If it isn't covered by the book, the manager refers to the next level above him or her. This manager is really more of a police officer than a leader. He or she enforces the rules.
This style can be effective when:
--Employees are performing routine tasks over and over.
--Employees need to understand certain standards or procedures.
--Employees are working with dangerous or delicate equipment that requires a definite set of procedures to operate.
--Safety or security training is being conducted.
--Employees are performing tasks that require handling cash.
This style is ineffective when:
--Work habits forms that are hard to break, especially if they are no longer useful.
--Employees lose their interest in their jobs and in their fellow workers.
--Employees do only what is expected of them and no more.
Charismatic leadership
A charismatic leadership style can seem similar to transformational leadership, because these leaders inspire lots of enthusiasm in their teams and are very energetic in driving others forward. However, charismatic leaders can tend to believe more in themselves than in their teams, and this creates a risk that a project, or even an entire organization, might collapse if the leader leaves. In the eyes of the followers, success is directly connected to the presence of the charismatic leader. As such, charismatic leadership carries great responsibility, and it needs a long-term commitment from the leader.
Servant leadership
This term describes a leader who is often not formally recognized as such. When someone, at any level within an organization, leads simply by meeting the needs of the team, he or she is described as a "servant leader."
In many ways, servant leadership is a form of democratic leadership, because the whole team tends to be involved in decision making.
Supporters of the servant leadership model suggest that it's an important way to move ahead in a world where values are increasingly important, and where servant leaders achieve power on the basis of their values and ideals. Others believe that in competitive leadership situations, people who practice servant leadership can find themselves left behind by leaders using other leadership styles.
Task-Oriented leadership
Highly task-oriented leaders focus only on getting the job done, and they can be quite autocratic. They actively define the work and the roles required, put structures in place, plan, organize, and monitor. However, because task-oriented leaders don't tend to think much about the well-being of their teams, this approach can suffer many of the flaws of autocratic leadership, with difficulties in motivating and retaining staff.
Transactional leadership
This style of leadership starts with the idea that team members agree to obey their leader totally when they accept a job. The "transaction" is usually the organization paying the team members in return for their effort and compliance. The leader has a right to "punish" team members if their work doesn't meet the pre-determined standard.
Team members can do little to improve their job satisfaction under transactional leadership. The leader could give team members some control of their income/reward by using incentives that encourage even higher standards or greater productivity. Alternatively, a transactional leader could practice "management by exception" – rather than rewarding better work, the leader could take corrective action if the required standards are not met.
Transactional leadership is really a type of management, not a true leadership style, because the focus is on short-term tasks. It has serious limitations for knowledge-based or creative work; however it can be effective in other situations.
Transformational leadership
As we discussed earlier, people with this leadership style are true leaders who inspire their teams constantly with a shared vision of the future. While this leader's enthusiasm is often passed onto the team, he or she can need to be supported by "detail people." That's why, in many organizations, both transactional and transformational leaderships are needed. The transactional leaders (or managers) ensure that routine work is done reliably, while the transformational leaders look after initiatives that add new value.
This leadership styles discussed above proves that leadership styles are the characteristics that critically define the leaders in our organizations. They’re a mix-and-match of various traits, and goes a long way influence the culture of the whole company and or organization.
