Leadership Styles

Seminar Unit #2

Prof. Christopher Howard

• Leadership style is the manner and approach of providing direction, implementing plans, and motivating people. Kurt Lewin (1939) led a group of researchers to identify different styles of leadership. This early study has been very influential and established three major leadership styles. The three major styles of leadership are (U.S. Army Handbook, 1973):

• Authoritarian or autocratic • Participative or democratic• Delegative or Free Reign • Although good leaders use all three styles, with one of them

normally dominant, bad leaders tend to stick with one style. • http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/leader/leadstl.html

Leadership Styles

Authoritarian Style• Authoritarian (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.

• http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/leader/leadstl.html

Characteristics• Authoritarianism is characterized by highly concentrated and centralized power maintained by political repression

and the exclusion of potential challengers. It uses political parties and mass organizations to mobilize people around the goals of the state.[3]

• Authoritarianism emphases the rule of man over the rule of law, it includes election rigging, political decisions being made by a select group of unelected officials behind closed doors, a bureaucracy that operates independently of rules, which does not properly supervise elected officials, and fails to serve the concerns of the constituencies they purportedly serve. Authoritarianism also embraces the informal and unregulated exercise of political power, a leadership that is "self-appointed and even if elected cannot be displaced by citizens' free choice among competitors," the arbitrary deprivation of civil liberties, and little tolerance for meaningful opposition;[3]

• A range of social controls also attempt to stifle civil society, while political stability is maintained by control over and support of the military, a pervasive bureaucracy staffed by the regime, and creation of allegiance through various means of socialization.[3]

• Authoritarian political systems may be weakened through "inadequate performance to demands of the people." [3] Vestal writes that the tendency to respond to challenges to authoritarianism through tighter control instead of adaptation is a significant weakness, and that this overly rigid approach fails to "adapt to changes or to accommodate growing demands on the part of the populace or even groups within the system."[3] Because the legitimacy of the state is dependent on performance, authoritarian states that fail to adapt may collapse. [3]

• Authoritarianism is marked by "indefinite political tenure" of the ruler or ruling party (often in a single-party state) or other authority.[3] The transition from an authoritarian system to a democratic one is referred to as democratization.[3]

• John Duckitt of the University of the Witwatersrand suggests a link between authoritarianism and collectivism, asserting that both stand in opposition to individualism.[4] Duckitt writes that both authoritarianism and collectivism submerge individual rights and goals to group goals, expectations and conformities.[5] Others argue that collectivism, properly defined, has a basis of consensus decision-making, the opposite of authoritarianism.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism

Totalitarianism• Totalitarianism is an extreme version of authoritarianism. Authoritarianism primarily differs from

totalitarianism in that social and economic institutions exist that are not under governmental control. Building on the work of Yale political scientist Juan Linz, Paul C. Sondrol of the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs has examined the characteristics of authoritarian and totalitarian dictators and organized them in a chart:[6]

• (1) Unlike their bland and generally unpopular authoritarian brethren, totalitarian dictators develop a charismatic 'mystique' and a mass-based, pseudo-democratic interdependence with their followers via the conscious manipulation of a prophetic image. (2) Concomitant role conceptions differentiate totalitarians from authoritarians. Authoritarians view themselves as individual beings, largely content to control; and maintain the status quo. Totalitarian self-conceptions are largely teleological. The tyrant is less a person than an indispensable 'function' to guide and reshape the universe. (3) Consequently, the utilisation of power for personal aggrandizement is more evident among authoritarians than totalitarians. Lacking the binding appeal of ideology, authoritarians support their rule by a mixture of instilling fear and granting rewards to loyal collaborators, engendering a kleptocracy.[6]

• Thus, compared to totalitarian systems, authoritarian systems may also leave a larger sphere for private life, lack a guiding ideology, tolerate some pluralism in social organization, lack the power to mobilize the whole population in pursuit of national goals, and exercise their power within relatively predictable limits.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism

When to use style• When to use this style• When is it proper to use an authoritarian form of management, and what is the best way to proceed? It is

acceptable to use an authoritarian management style when the safety of your coworkers is at risk, and there is no time to take a survey of opinions. In this case, you as a member of management are responsible for the safety and welfare of those around you. When these situations arise that you must take swift and decisive action, you must do it properly. There are also times when a decision simply must be made very quickly. It's important, when this happens, to later assure the staff there wasn't time to seek their imput, but that under normal circumstances their opinions are valued.

• There will be occasions where those around you may not recognize the need for your decisions, and you may not have time to discuss your decisions with them. You may raise your voice to be heard, but the tone and inflection of your voice must be without emotion. Remember, it is your responsibility to see that everyone is safe, and your actions must clearly demonstrate your calmness and concern for them.

• Under ordinary situations, it is generally wise to try to understand the needs of the staff and to value their expertise in their own jobs. No one knows a job better than the person doing it, and when that person feels trusted and valued as an expert, he will generally rise to the reputation you create for him. A person who is often told, "You are so good at figuring out the most efficient way to do this" will work even harder at becoming more efficient. People will do almost anything to live up or down to expectations. When it is necessary to step in, they are more likely to accept counsel from someone if they know that person respects them. It does not undermine a boss to take advice from someone on his staff; in fact, it elevates him because he gains the respect of those he leads.

• http://www.tml-business-services.com/Articles/Authoritarian_Management_Style.html

Fact Pattern• Jan had been with the company for many years. She had worked in many departments, and

could always be counted on to take good care of her customers. She worked hard, and demonstrated to her managers she was a capable and loyal employee.

• As time went on, she was given assignments that tested her supervisory abilities. She was effective at performing these duties, and was finally promoted to a supervisory position. The employees who worked with Jan enjoyed her enthusiasm, and felt that they enjoyed her trust and confidence in them. They believed that because she had come from their ranks, she would understand their jobs.

• Jan was promoted to the position of supervisor. This made Jan very proud, and she set about formulating a plan that would allow her to demonstrate to management they had made the right decision. She felt that if she demonstrated to management that she was good at this position, her rise to the top would be rapid and successful.

• Jan began her new position by meeting with each person in the department to review what they did, and how they accomplished their duties. During these sessions she kept notes, and instructed each employee as to the changes she wanted implemented in their roles. When employees attempted to discuss the changes, she reminded them she was in charge and that “some changes needed to take place.” Because of Jan’s decisions, output dropped, and absenteeism rose. Efforts to retrain Jan were unsuccessful. She seemed unable to understand the true role of manager as a leader, not a boss.

• When it became clear Jan had not lived up to her promise, she was fired because her relationship with those she had been assigned to lead had so deteriorated she would not have been able to return to working with them as a member of a team. This made demotion impossible.

• http://www.tml-business-services.com/Articles/Authoritarian_Management_Style.html

Participative/Democratic

• Participative (democratic)• 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.

• http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/leader/leadstl.html

Challenges• Challenge #1: Competency• First, the democratic leadership style requires that employees are competent enough to be involved in the decision-making process. In a

democratic leadership setting, employees have to be competent enough in the affairs of the company in order to make decisions that are appropriately framed. As such, employees have to be privy to a greater amount of information, some of which could cause issues, such as employee salaries or executive spending.

• Challenge #2: Crises• Second, the democratic process within the system must be agile and expedient enough to enable the organization to respond quickly to

crises scenarios. For example, if a computer company is facing pressure from a rapidly changing market and it responds by appointing committees to review the situation and advise a course of action, the company may be blindsided by a subsequent change in the market, such as the introduction or popularization of a new technology.

• Challenge #3: Consensus• Third, the more people involved in a decision process, the more difficult it is to reach a consensus. The decision-making process is long

and involved. There may be sessions that are nothing more than lengthly debates and conjecture. Opinions may or may not be founded. In addition, the goals of the organization and the way that a proposed move will affect those goals must be considered. It can be difficult to get employees to focus on the welfare of the company as opposed to their own (e.g. proposed layoffs) or the welfare of the company over the welfare of their respective departments (e.g. Proposed outsourcing of the marketing department).

• Challenge #4: Pseudo-participation• Fourth, there is a danger of a democratic style of management being adopted only in name and not in practice. If a company claims that it

has a democratic leadership style and it makes decisions autocratically, before or after employee consultation, that company will likely experience greater employee dissatisfaction and discontent that had it stated the case accurately.

• Challenge #5: Adherence• Fifth and lastly, one of the greatest challenges of the democratic style of leadership is that leadership must emerge from the bottom, that

is the “people’s choice”. If the consensus of the group goes against that of management, management has to be willing to adopt the consensus. If the management of the company overrides the decision of the group, it is likely that the group will assume that management is only pretending to have a democratic leadership style and the same consequences of pseudo-participation will be experienced.

•

Read more: http://www.brighthub.com/office/project-management/articles/75628.aspx#ixzz1DHvci2xi

Traits• The democratic leadership style can be one of the most effective styles of leadership. This leadership style values collaboration and affirmation of

followers. • A democratic leader shares the decision-making and problem-solving responsibilities with his or her employees, while retaining the ultimate say in the

final resolution. This style of leadership encourages employee involvement, engagement, and participation.

Environments with democratic leaders often yield followers with high morale who are more motivated to generate and offer up creative solutions, and it produces an atmosphere of cooperation and team spirit.

The democratic leadership style is also known as the “participative” leadership style because it depends on employee participation. The goal of a democratic leader is to foster employee investment in the organization by investing workers in their role in the company.

This type of leader encourages employees to set workable goals and recognizes their achievements. They develop plans with their employees to help them evaluate their own performances, and push their employees to grow on the job, while supporting them in their promotions and advancements.

This style of leadership is ideal for a leader who wishes to keep employees informed about matters that may affect them, and who want employees to participate in problem solving and decision making. It is for leaders who want to provide continual opportunities for their followers to develop a sense of personal growth and job satisfaction and for leaders who would like to encourage collaboration and team building.

Democratic leadership works well for leaders who value flexibility and adaptation. Democracy in leadership is often most effective when a leader is working with highly skilled or experienced workers. It allows the leader to capitalize on their employees’ individual talents and strengths, while also benefiting from the power of the whole. It is best employed in cases where the department or business is looking to implement operational changes or when a leader or manager is attempting to resolve problems either individually or within the group.

Of course, the democratic leadership style is not always appropriate. This style should be put on the back burner when it isn’t time-effective or cost-effective to collect everyone’s input, or when the company is in a difficult position and it cannot afford mistakes. Moreover, there is never any room for participative leadership when employee safety is on the line. Democratic leaders keep the lines of communication open. In collaborative settings, they help to focus discussion and find the balance between being open to new ideas and keeping things productive and on track. This type of leader should respect everyone’s input and ideas, but be ready to commit to a path of action with conviction and certainty. A participative leader can explain a choice or a decision that they make, but they should never apologize.

A democratic leadership style requires a strong individual, and it’s not recommended for leaders or managers who feel threatened by the flexibility and the commitment it requires. However, for those who can wield it effectively, this style of leadership can create a dynamic working environment filled with motivated employees who are eager to succeed.

http://www.action-wheel.com/democratic-leadership-style.html

Pros and Cons• Pros of this leadership style:• Broad participation augments the diverse points of view and the amount of

information – which in turn improves the quality of the decisions. • This involvement and participation … • Increases employees’ motivation and commitment to the decision made • Helps employees strengthen their professional development by participating

in meaningful dialogues • It improves job satisfaction • Cons of this leadership style:• The decision-making process takes longer because of the broad

participation. • If the employees lack enough experience and/or knowledge, this leadership

style is not appropriate. • http://www.skills2lead.com/democratic-leadership-style.html

Delegative Style• Delegative (free reign)• 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!

• NOTE: This is also known as laissez faire (or lais·ser faire), which is the noninterference in the affairs of others. [French : laissez, second person pl. imperative of laisser, to let, allow + faire, to do.]

• http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/leader/leadstl.html

Hands Off Approach• The delegative leadership style is also known as the laissez-fair style of leadership. It is not

among the most effective types of leadership styles. • Delegative leadership is a somewhat hands off approach in which the leader places great

responsibility on lower level managers and employees. Thus the term laissez faire (or lais·ser faire), which is French for the noninterference in the affairs of others. Employees who have the skills to analyze situations, and the confidence to implement decisions, may thrive under this style of leadership.

Many followers, however, are uncomfortable with having leadership responsibility delegated in this manner. Other employees may take advantage of a "less than fully engaged" leader to avoid getting crucial tasks completed. This leadership style often leads to poorly defined roles and a lack of motivation.

This is one of the styles of leadership that has value in specific situations and also has to be used wisely. A leader who uses this leadership style to shift blame or avoid responsibility is mis-using their leadership role.

Delegative leadership, on the other hand, is a useful way for a leader to prioritize tasks and show their followers that they trust their abilities to lead certain initiatives. Do not be afraid to use this leadership style when it is in your, and your orgaization's best interest, however, use it wisely!

Remember that you, as the leader, are still responsible for the decisions that are made.

http://www.action-wheel.com/delegative-leadership-style.html

Type of Organization• The delegative leadership style is best suited for larger organizations where the

people with good talent is available at lower ranks. The leader instead of being expert in any field must be expert of the experts. He must have the capability to pick the best man from his team and assign the job which can be done by his men better than the leader. In the words of Theodore Roosevelt, The best executive is the one who has sense enough to pick good men to do what he wants done, and self-restraint to keep from meddling with them while they do it.

• The nature of delegated work should be important but routine in nature and no major creativity should be required by the delegated leader. There must be absolute trust between the leader and the led. The delegative style of the leader makes the leader free to focus on the more important issues and concentrate his energy on realization of the vision of the organisation. It is difficult to say which style is the best? A good leader must use all the three styles of leadership for leading his people. Every good organisation has all three types of work, all three types of situations and all three types of persons. A leader must know how to make the best use of all for achieving the vision of the organisation.

• http://www.leadership-development-training.info/2010/07/which-is-best-style-of-leadership.html

Wrapping It Up

• Authoritative Style• Characteristics• Totalitarianism• When to Use • Fact Pattern• Democratic Style• Challenges• Traits• Pros and Cons• Delegative Style• Hands off Approach• Type of Organization