There are many styles of leadership. We will focus here on two opposite styles: Autocratic leaders who tell their employees what they want them to do, and Democratic leaders who let members of the group take a more participative role in the decision-making process.
Other types, such as, Laissez-faire leaders encourage employees to make their own decisions.
The leadership styles are
1. Visionary – normally to give a new direction (Steve Jobs)
2. Coaching – it should not be too micromanaging
3. Affiliative – team work
4. Democratic
5. Pacesetting – lead by example
6. Commanding - military
The style will have to match the requirements of the organization. Leader has to have to all styles and use them as required for a given situation.
Leadership style is often presented as an either/or proposition with regards to how leaders deal with people. “Autocratic” and “democratic” are terms used to define end points of a continuum developed over the years by those who study such things.
According to Bernard Bass, the autocratic leader tends to:
-be arbitrary, controlling, power-orientated, coercive, punitive, and close-minded;
-foster in subordinates greater resentment, less loyalty, less commitment, less involvement, and less satisfaction;
-take full and sole responsibility for decisions and control of followers’ performance;
-stress obedience, loyalty, and strict adherence to the rules; and
-make and enforce the rules and see that decisions are carried out.
Democratic leaders on the other hand demonstrate the following attributes:
-leadership is considerate, consultative, participative, consensual, employee-centered, concerned with people, concerned with the maintenance of good working relations, supportive and orientated toward facilitating interaction, and relations-orientated;
-a belief that workers are internally motivated to do well and seek autonomy and the opportunity to prove their worth; and
-move decision-making to lower levels, encourage questioning and ideas, open to criticism, treat subordinates’ mistakes as learning opportunities, celebrate subordinates’ accomplishments, promote subordinates’ ideas to higher authority.
So which is better style of leadership? In my opinion, it depends of the particular situation the leader has to face. In general, the democratic approach is often considered “better”. However, the autocratic approach is best applied when organizations need to be turned around quickly; it is also most frequently associated with workers quitting their jobs. Autocratic leadership tends to be more punitive and the inherent close supervision increases role ambiguity, reduces productivity, and decreases group harmony.
The democratic approach on the other hand works best when it is visibly supported by higher authority, members are well-educated, leaders have the skills to conduct meetings with the members, and time can be afforded for trust to develop. If these factors exist, then the democratic approach results in higher rates of productivity, reduced personnel turnover, reduced absenteeism, and better employee physical and mental health.
Democratic leadership is desirable in situations where the workforce becomes educated and seeks greater participation, when business becomes more complex, and when the use of advanced technology increases and there is greater emphasis on team expertise. Immature, dependent, and inexperienced subordinates are more likely to expect and accept authoritarian direction, whereas a democratic approach results in more rapid employee development.
We are often presented with a value judgment of autocratic leadership as bad and democratic leadership as good. This is not always the case. Authoritarian leadership works best with authoritarian followers in an authoritarian culture. There are times when an authoritarian approach is appropriate, as the leader of a high performing group can afford to be more democratic than the leader of a poor performing group.
Taking an autocratic approach can become a self-fulfilling prophesy, creating crisis situations that justify an autocratic leader’s preferred method. However, adopting strict collaborative democratic approach is not always the best option. A balance is needed and there are times to operate in either mode, but leadership should always begin with a regard for the individual within the organisational objectives and alignment with the leader’s core values.
Well, I believe in democratic leaders, by this strategy every employee will feel that he is one of the main members in his company, sincere and responsible of any decision. But to be honest to you, this style of leadership can't be successful in every society, because it depends on the people mentality and their attitudes.
Leadership is really hard to define and to limit. However, I think we all agree that a leader and a manager/boss/controler are different people. While a boss demands to see productivity, a leader inspires his/her human resources to increase their efficiency by motivating them. This has a double positive effect: staff morale rises and in a business your benefits will increase. Now, with the research about leadership you can mention hundreds of leadership styles. I've seen some of the contributions above and I agree with what they said, but in my eyes there are only 5 types that you should consider:
1- autocratic;
2-democratic;
3-laissez-faire;
4-transactional.
5-transformational.
Surely, a better leader is the one who does not have a specific style but the one who can lead his team to success the best way possible. However, about your question I believe in some situations a democratic leadership style works best. When you have full trust on your staff it may be a good idea to discuss every issue with them and let them express their feelings and ideas. On the other hand, an autocratic leadership style may be more adequate to bigger enterprises as there tends to be more hierarchical levels and it is hard for the leader to attend to everybody's needs. I hope I helped with this contribution but if you want to learn more about leadership, as said above, Bernard Bass, Bruce J Avolio and Peter Northouse all explain what leadership is using different concepts and examples.
Here are the references of B.M.Bass on leadership
Bass, B. M., & Bass, R. (2009). The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications. Simon and Schuster.
Bass, B. M. (1991). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational dynamics, 18(3), 19-31.
(http://www.ucdenver.edu/academics/colleges/SPA/BuechnerInstitute/Centers/DCLF/dclf2013/Week%201%20documents/Transformational/Transformational%20-%20Bernard%20Bass%20(2).pdf)
Like most other contributors I also prefer democratic leaderships. Though it has certain advantages and disadvantages as well.
Advantages:
a) Active participation in the management by labor assures rising productivity and satisfaction.
b) Workers develop a greater sense of self - esteem, due to importance given to their ideas and their contributions.
c) They become more committed to changes that may be brought about by policy changes, since they themselves participate in bringing about these changes.
d) The leadership induces confidence, cooperation, and loyalty among workers.
e) It results in higher employment morale.
http://www.preservearticles.com/2012051932585/5-important-advantages-of-participative-or-democratic-leadership.html
Disadvantages:
a) The democratic leadership requires some favorable conditions in that the labor must be literate, informed and organised. This is not always possible.
b) This approach assumes that all workers are genuinely interested in organisation and that their individuals are goals successfully fused with the organisational goals. This assumption may not always be valid.
c) There must be a total trust on the part of management as well as employees. Some employees may consider this approach simply an attempt to manipulate them. Accordingly the employees must be fully receptive to this approach to make it meaningful.
d) Some group members may feel alienated, if their ideas are not accepted for action. This may create a feeling of frustration and ill-will.
e) This approach is very time consuming and too many view-points and ideas may take the- solid decision more difficult and may be a source of frustration to impatient management.
f) Some managers maybe uncomfortable with this approach because they may fear erosion of their power base and their control over labor.
g) This approach relies heavily on incentives and motivation of recognition, appreciation, status and prestige. The labour may be more interested in financial incentives instead of prestige.
http://www.preservearticles.com/2012051932586/7-disadvantages-of-participative-or-democratic-leadership.html
My style is transformational leadership; a term that is wider than democratic leadership. It is also the one of the most recent approaches to leadership, as it is responding to the challenges of the globalization.
In this era, it is becoming difficult for organizations to attract and retain talent so as to build a high performance work culture. So they are looking for transformational leaders:
1, Builds Vision, inspires Ideas & creates shared “dreams”--involves her/his people in this process, like it is done in Tata Steel in India
2 . Integrity: Honesty & credibility; acts out of conviction
3. Charisma: practices humility, uses emotion for faith, loyalty, pride, TRUST; these create and attract charismatic faith of her/his people in her/his leadership
4. Empowers and involves in decision-making: delegates challenging work
5, Helps his people develop themselves
6. Symbolism: Identifies “heroes,”: conducts ceremonies to celebrate excellence
7. Builds the desired culture that is necessary for realizing the vision Teaches—Uses 8. Uses Innovative interventions that are needed to solve problems
9. Builds leaders for the good of the organization; like jack Welch did in GE
10. Uses metrics to see the progress in the realization of the vision
For me, I prefere autocratic style, because the employees respect when they have a leader to tell them or making rules and the objectives as resulte.
@Mahfuz, due to Kurt Lewin, three are three main styles of leadership:
"Autocratic style – leads take control and make decisions
Democratic style – consultative approach involving people
laissez-faire style – Stepping back and not interfering"!
I find myself somewhere between autocratic and democratic style!
I "practice ", as I can say so a democratic style of leadership. My authoriies as well as students agree with it . Their approval of my way of professional behaviour is for me the proof of their trust and also the source of professional satisfaction.
Ljubomir, your answers are always so concisely a nd precisely constructed that I can learn a lot from you.Many thanks. Regards.
Dear All, Lijo Francis, Patrick Low and others that you know are not able any longer to log in their RG account from yesterday. RG suspended their accounts without any reason. I don't know why, but I find this an outstanding abuse. Please help them and inform all other participants as this is a signal that things are not going in the right way in RG before it happens to you!
Regards
Gianni
3 Studies Prove Servant Leadership Good for Business
http://modernservantleader.com/servant-leadership/studies-prove-servant-leadership-good-business/
The Best Leadership Model for Organizational Change Management: Transformational Verses Servant Leadership | Tim Lowder - Academia.edu
http://www.academia.edu/948791/The_Best_Leadership_Model_for_Organizational_Change_Management_Transformational_Verses_Servant_Leadership
I don't know the reason behind your question. That is quite e restricting classification. However, I might say that I highly encourage participative and empowering leadership and I try to apply myself. Empowering is the only tool to develop followers and to create a sense of responsibility. Otherwise, it is difficult to sustain success. Of course. that depends highly on the level of education and preparedness of the followers.
The way of functioning of the leader combines many styles simultaneously. The leader can be participative, ethical, transformational and visionary. Unfortunately, the research design captures in most studies a part of the leader, not the whole leader and relate that to certain constructs. In real life, the leader operates with many personal attributes (like honesty, integrity, articulation, technology savvy), interpersonal behavior (like empowerment, empathy, social bonding), with a concern for the enterprise (like quality consciousness, cost optimization, justice orientation). Rather than putting the leader into certain category, a combination of categories can define the activities of the leader or leadership.
@Kamal,
Your answer is so good that I have to accept it fully and can't add anything else.
I am more democratic and focus a lot on teamwork. I find that my team members surpass themselves and perform their tasks in a much better manner than I could have instructed them to.
@Mahfuz, I have not given a link for picture I have had used in my answer 3 weeks ago. It is a good reading on "Different leadership styles"! Here it is!
http://www.defining-leadership.com/leadership-theories/different-leadership-styles/
There are so many available publications about this issue at Research Gate. Here is the link!
https://www.researchgate.net/search.Search.html?type=publication&query=leadership%20styles
I think leadership style can not be classified easily. Situations, nature of organization and its organizational culture, and type of people involved are very important to forming a leadership style. However, the question is excellent.
I personally do not believe that leadership style is so easily classified as one thing or another, although various styles have been identified. As a former business owner of over 15 years I can easily identify my leadership style under a variety of different scenarios. In times of crisis I was autocratic for the employees looked to me for clear guidance. Since I am a visionary, able to see the big picture and inspire others, and since I mentored and encouraged employees to be self-directed, creative, and allowed them voice - I was also a democratic and transformational leader. I suppose that is also why I am a pragmatist who loves mixed methodology in research, rather than being boxed into a quant or qual corner...
Your question raises another question in my mind: is leadership style situational?
Leadership is situational, includes many attributes/dimensions, and differs in different levels of managerial hierarchy. For example, the top level leadership will differ from the bottom level on the basis of skill requirements and roles.
Leadership style is situational, but the preferred go to method of each individual leader will be fairly consistent in the approach they use overall. This is where tutelage (I.e. education and mentors), experience, and personality type differentiate the method used for each situation. A 'stress' test (crisis) will usually bring out the person's natural response system to the forefront. For example, some leaders will naturally go to the autocratic method not because it's the right method for the situation (although it might be on occasion), but simply because taking control is their first response when facing anxiety. This approach won't work in all crises, and an experienced leader should be able to delineate the variables and people involved in the situation, along with their own strengths to carry out needed actions. Knowing how your strengths create their own set of weaknesses is key in becoming a more effective leader.
Thank you Dr Bani Hani and other colleagues who supported the notion of situational leadership... in fact, probably the best leaders are those who have the ability to maneuver and learn. Learning leadership leads to enhancing a pro-active and positive leadership. However, leadership, regardless of its type, must NOT ignore or undermine the moral aspects of leading.
I also believe in situational leadership and that the same people at different (organizational, personal, team or propject) times need different leadership styles- both for leaders and followers.
I believe that national or regional culture will also influence leadership styles. For example, I believe that in western industrial cultures people may become autocratic when they feel threatened, but in eastern collective cultures it may actually be the opposite.
Yes, I do agree with statement "situational leadership",as my predecessors have introduced. I do recommend the following paper on this issue!
It is a pleasure dear @Janina and @Kamal! Right information just on time! :)
One of the things that has become more apparent in my studies of leadership is that one cannot properly define it, mainly because there are sooo many types of leadership models. Many are just descriptions of the what and how of certain aspects of positional leaders/managers and how they may approach this. Also, at what level are we talking about when we speak about leadership? Is it supervisor, manager or CEO...or owner of a business. This then pends the question of leadership style/model best suits them.
However, I agree with John Maxwells's thoughts that leadership is not a noun but a verb. To define leadership means to operationalize it, and this might be related to outcomes. For example, situational leadership tends to examine situations within the organisation. Although this is needed, one also needs to examine positional leader's skills in exploring external opportunities and embedding strategies within the organisation and how to do this, in relation to obtaining commitment and motivation among employees (something akin to transformational leadership as well as strategic leadership).
Perhaps the new models of leadership, for example servant and authentic leadership (that also includes aspects of PsyCap) may be a reaction to the recent depersonalisation in many organisations, e.g., restructuring, retrenchments and loss of trust. Therefore leadership approaches may very well relate to the tenor of the time/s. Therefore, the tenor of the time/s may be important regarding what outcomes one may want to achieve (and handle) and how this may be achieved while still maintaining motivation, commitment and feelings of safety (see Simon Sinek on ted.com in relation to this) among employees.
Alex@Thanks a lot for sharing your views on the contemporary model of leadreship in a very up to date style. I honestly agree with you that there is a need for a renewal of leadership, in general.
The era of autocratic leadership is over! It only results in chaos leading to silent protests and withdrawal. If you desire to kill an organization, practice it.
It is impossible to grow an organization with totalitarianism. Yes, we still need authority to smoothly run a democratic organization.
Leadership can be seen as a kind of relationship or emotional contract between a leader and followers. The choice of style depends on present context within both sides operate and it may vary very much. Leader is responsible for future results which have to be achieved. From both my experience and research there are different ways of leading in different situations, but this kind of emotional equilibrium is always important. If one focus on achieving well defined set of goals it is possible to use autocratic leadership. However, if your people feel they have a choice to change a leader or a workplace easily, it is much more difficult to be autocratic and then other styles are more effective. Other key element is the individual stage of employee's development . If people start working they learn and they may accept autocratic system, but later it often fails (in terms of effectiveness). The real challenge is to build the environment (culture) which will help to drive people constantly (by challenging them). This kind of system can build and maintain only few leaders. Other factor is culture...
Article Efficiency of Leaders in Micro, Small and Medium-sized Enter...
There are different models to classify leadership style. If we use Fiedler's approach, we would be classifying leadership style into task oriented or relationship oriented. Task oriented leadership style refers to one that deals primarily with accomplishing the task at hand, whereas relationship oriented refers to a leadership style that is used to improve relationships between the leader and follower.
Kurt Levin's model classifies leadership style into democratic, autocratic, and Laissez-Faire, as described in the posted question.
Burns classifies leadership style into transformation and transactional. Transactional leadership refers to offering incentives for performance or imposing a penalty for non-desirable behavior. Transformation leadership, on the other hand, refers to the leadership style of creating an intrinsic motivation or vision among the followers.
Leadership styles, in practice, do not neatly fall into one category or the other, but instead can be a mix of multiple styles.
Yes, dear Nitin. Leadership styles, in practice, can be a mix of multiple styles.
When we are in a mission, that requires specialties, it is logical to be leaded by an expert. This does not give him the right to generalise his temporary leadership. What I describe is natural leadership. This leadership can never be named "autocratic". It is democratic since we decide to be leaded by the expert.
According to Situational leadership, the leader of an organization adjusts her/his style to fit the development level of the followers he is trying to influence.
As we are speaking about four quadrants of Leadership of learning, as @Nirmal have mentioned, here is a fine paper about this issue :"A Four-Quadrant Model for Continuous Evaluation and Development of Programs in Leadership and Reflective Practice"! Very fine reading!
Dear Ljubomir, I read the paper you attached, it is short and at the same time informative.
Indeed it captures the essence of Leadership of Learning theory. However, I do not see the leadership selection model that requires to fit in the organisation centred one!. Case in point , IBM,when it was ailing and crumbling, Louise Gerstner, jr was brought in who without domain knowledge brought the Elephant to dance!
Leadership is like coaching a horse to the edge of the water and forcing it to drink despite all challenges; although no coach can win without talent in his/her team (Charles, 2009). Solving organizational problems is a process of sometimes leading, delegating, and empowering subordinates with the authority and responsibility to perceive participation in power sharing for making and implementing decisions (Yukl, George, & Jones, 2009). The process of empowering followers to assume ownership, become active co-participants, and contribute positively to a leader’s vision requires a hybrid of democratic and autocratic management especially in the 21st century. The common catalyst in leadership phenomena is that views vary on concepts because decisions usually involve different people at different times. Leaders must be aware of the cycles necessary for problem resolution and recognize that supplementary models may be useful in helping to gather factual information from various sources to promote relational leadership for intrinsic and extrinsic work motivation (Bjugstad, Thach, Thompson, & Morris, 2006; Yukl et al., 2009). It is more effective to employ autocratic leadership where others have no direct influence, opinion, nor suggestions, or become consultative where decisions are made after serious consideration of varying opinions depending on the follower/s (Yukl et al., 2009).
References
Bjugstad, K., Thach, E. C., Thompson, K. J., & Morris, A. (2006). A fresh look at followership: A model for matching followership and leadership styles. Journal of Behavior and applied Management, 7(3), 304-311, 313-319.
Charles, R. (2009). Followership as a complement to leadership: An analysis of the relationship between leader member exchange and followership types. Carpella University.
Yukl, G., George, J. M., & Jones, G. R. (2009). Leadership: Building sustainable organizations. Laureate Education, Inc., (custom ed.). New York Custom Publishing.
I agree with you Godwin. But I think Leadership is not... like coaching a horse to the edge of the water and forcing it to drink despite all challenges; although no coach can win without talent in his/her team (Charles, 2009). It is in fact like coaching a horse to the edge of the water and letting or making....
I do not think that leadership is forcing people to do things. I think leadership is helping people want to do things because they see the benefit in doing them. Sometimes unhealthy people see benefit in things that do not benefit them. Sometimes a leader without scruples may deceive people into thinking that something is good for them when it is not. But leaders can lead because they help fulfill a need of their followers.
If someone coaxes or forces people into doing things that they do not want to do, they are not leaders but manipulators or dictators. It is only fair to say, however, that some people really like to be told what do do- and that following instructions may satisfy their needs for structure and control.
Leadership is enlighting people to speed up every phase of work depending on the need. The primary task of the leader is to find suitable set of individuals to release their talent and potencial to serve business.
Leadership is mentoring and embracing potential Mentors. ^Winning^ by John Welch
My dear
According to theory of Behavioral Complexity in Managerial Leadership, a leader must simultaneously focus on paradox styles. For example, leaders must simultaneously focus on the task and interpersonal aspects of a leadership.
The actual name is John Francis Welch, Jr. Jack is the nick name of John though it is now established as a name in its own right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Welch
I prefer a contingency model of leadership (similar to that proposed by Tannenbaum & Schmidt). A manager is confronted with a whole array of leadership possibilities, ranging from autocratic to democratic/participative--including tell, sell, test, consult join and relinquish. The manager's job is to select the appropriate leadership style (e.g. decision-making style) after taking all relevant factors into account. These relevant factors include such things as the nature of the problem, the experience of subordinates, the amount of trust the manager has in subordinates, whether the subordinates even want to participate in decision-making, amount of time available for making a decision, and cultural considerations (are you managing employees in the U.S., in Mexico, in India, etc.). These factors, and others, will impact a manager's choice in selecting the most appropriate leadership style.
Fiedler’s (1967) contingency theory holds that situational factors interact with leader traits and behavior to influence leadership effectiveness. There is no ideal leadership behavior. All leadership styles can be effective if their orientation fits the situation.
ANY LEADER WITH A FIXED AND IDENTIFIABLE STYLE HAS A POOR UNDERSTANDING OF THE LEADERSHIP DRAMA
I think the style of leadership depends on the situation and many of the leadership models say this but in different ways. For example Adair states it depends on the task and the level of experience or expertise of your team and individuals. The less experienced an individual is the more hands on the leader needs to be. As Fielder highlights it also depends on the situation and the control the leader has over the team and the situation. When considering leadership in my own context I am autocratic when there is a medical emergency to deal with as I don't have time to consider options but democratic when setting up new systems as people engage better in something they have ownership of.
Dear @Mahfuz, dear friends, you may visit, new, but related thread to this one.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Which_style_of_Leadership_is_considered_best_in_organisations
There are many leadership theories in this field, suvh as Great Man Theory, Trait Theory, Behavioral Theories. Role Theory, Participative Leadership, Lewin's leadership styles, Situational Leadership, Hersey and Blanchard's Situational Leadership, Contingency Theories, and Transactional, service, and Transformational Leadership. Which theory or theories you would see more appropriate.
There are several 'levels of leadership' (see my chart)
Poster Leadership Levels
My personal preference is level 6 (Gold - Integrative-Synergistic) but it all depends on who is to be led.
Poster Values Based Leadership Algorithm
The leadership style I apply is associated with authentic leadership. Ethics is the starting point; improving team members' "soft skills" is one of my main goals.
The most optimum leadership style would be a mixture of both autocratic and democratic, as a leader your foundations should be morals and ethics, as these qualities determine your acceptance at your workplace.
A leader should be willing to listen to opinions, and suggestions, and work with the requests of the public for changes and improvements, however, there will be certain urgent scenarios where immediate action and decision-making are required and there is no time to seek opinions and go in the democratic route. So in short there is a mixture of democratic and autocratic leadership styles.
New leadership styles require new leadership skills. Such skills are outcome of good practice. It is process of continuous learning and acquiring new skills, which enable someone to be a good leader!
Dear RG friends, I would describe my style of leadership boards as authoritative and assuming self-determination. Have fun today, Carl
Hello Mahfuz Judeh and Colleagues,
This is a brilliant question.
Defining types of leadership is a noble thing to do, except that we are at a time when much of leadership and management and their practice are highly pragmatic and contextual.
That said, one can not have a single disposition of leadership that they solely function in but rather possess those characteristics that are dominant in the context of given situations they are operating in.
If we look at Steve Jobs, for example, he was a visionary, pacesetter yet autocratic - bordering on militancy. We can also look at Jack Walsch, brilliant team coaching, pacesetting yet very authoritative in decision making.
We can list millions of leaders and how they practice their craft, and the above may be telling the truth.
So then what do we do?
We change the way we assign definitions and characteristics in a holistic manner when dealing with physiological, economic, rational and sometimes irrational human beings who function according to a given scenario.
Shall we move from the classical eras where specificity was the goal of theorizing or practice to the meta-modernist era of pragmatic, contextual, sometimes volatile application? This is relevant because it accounts for far more el leadership disposition; the,howholistically assign definitions and characteristicsageincludesaborate ways to approach leadership that is inclusive of the leader and the led ecosystem.
In conclusion, I am a meta-modernist, pragmatic in my approach yet respectful of context, culture and results.
Thank you all.
Best wishes.
Chilumba K. Bwalya
For the climate we need to be back to Autocracy, democracy brought in too many cooks ruining the broth!
Creating a positive learning culture in school is what is one of the most important and challenging jobs for any teacher. That’s because education is not only about going to school and giving a lecture. It also has a lot to do with instilling confidence and inspiration in young minds as well as to motivate them to do well in their lives. That is why it is vital to learn about effective leadership practices that can be followed in school...
5 Effective Leadership Styles in Education:
- The Democratic Style.
- The Instructional Style.
- The Authoritative Style.
- The Coaching Style.
- The Transformational Style...
I do practice democratic style!
https://www.acquisition-international.com/5-effective-leadership-styles-in-education/
Fatema Miah : Democracy has been hijacked by autocratic political leaders in many countries. Democracy is financed by corporate and hence also controlled by the same. Such democracies are pseudo-democracies, oligarchies, or autocracies.
If democracy means inclusiveness, it is better for environmental protection also. Exclusive growths are against human development and environmental protection also.
The political class must be educated, so that it can take proper decisions for the societies to which it represent.
Autocracies do not guarantee to protect rights of commons (humans or non-humans).
Prabhat Ranjan, democracy hijacked you saying I won't argue on that. Though. I will add that Democracy what was initiated by the thought of equal right and freedom of voice, never been applied in. It's the politicrats been playing with word democracy. And who are they politicrats? The Autocrats been playing in the from of bureaucrats.
Regards,
Fatema Miah
Fatema Miah : I agree with your words. History has seen very less people and leaders devoted to the democracy. However, autocratic world will not sustain for long. Humanity may be perished before searching new planets to live in. The issues of pollution and climate changes are frightening.
Democratic leaders are visionary because they step forward with their people. They believe in overall development. It is very important for all of us to make checks and balances through which take lessons from the past.
We live in a competitive world. Responsibility is an opportunity to participate. I believe,therefore, in democracy that allows for responsibility
Referencing Tannenbaum-Schmidt, I must answer...it depends on the situation. When faced with urgent life threatening decisions leadership inclines to autocratic. When the situation needs creativity and time is available leadership should incline more to democratic. Blended situations exist and the wisdom of the leader is tested on which one to use more or less.
I believe these two traits of leadership are like two sides of coin. When situation demands autocracy is highly essential in decision making in this competitive world . But as a researcher our views and opinions must look forward democratic style.
There are many traditions of leadership that do not fit into this forced choice. Partticularly if you look internationally at many European countries, non-Western countries and indigenous communities.
Both approaches are valid. It depends from the status of the group you have to lead. In case of a well organised group you goversus a more democratic and evolutionary approach. In case of a difficult situation, where in a short time you have to restore the basic of a fruitful cooperation, a more autocratic approach is requested and more effective.
Again, this depends very much on which country you are in, the political system, the cultural norms, styles of social interaction, belief system, etc.
Transformational leadership, lead the change and influence the employee
Leadership is a journey, one that you must embrace as a way of life. Leadership is an attitude you take for yourself, your team, and your organization...
All leadership styles serve a purpose depending on the situation, type of organization or industry, and the personalities of the leadership and employees involved. The best approach is to become familiar with all leadership styles and understand the applications of each style. You will likely have a default style of leadership that you naturally exhibit or turn to. However, it is important that you are flexible in how you lead others.
To understand when to employ each type of leadership style it is essential to develop your ability to diagnose needs, communicate effectively, and be flexible in how you make decisions and interact with others...
https://peregrineglobal.com/which-leadership-style/
Amidst conditions of despair, panic and fear, we are drawn to symbols of order, to "führers", to "saviors", to models of a "totalitarian state", which will "take charge" - on our behalf.
Karl Young
21st Century is full o f despair, panic, fake news, conspiracy theories, truth and false are difficult to discriminate, so Karl Young applies and we see everywhere totalitarian states, coming into politics. Democracy and liberal states are in danger.
We should plan the future, in order to have an acceptable way of state. Decentralization should be in the heart of the future state
I think the most effective way is to combine different leadership styles (because there are different situations and different people to work with).Coaching is good for maintaining good relationships with people, but it is very time-consuming, and it doesn't work at all in crisis situations.
Best regards.
A modern leadership style that can translate vision into action, create a clear vision, motivate employees to be creative and innovative, build a learning culture and build effective communication.
Leadership approach is a journey in itself. It depends on the situational challenge , your own ideology, motives and the organisational requirement . Both the approaches are valid and one must have the vision , clear understanding of action and the way of dealing the employees, team ,group etc.
I am not a stupid man to choose to be governed by ugly dispecable totalitarian or autocratic criminals and mafia thieves and corrupt leaders like Putin and Lukashenko and that idiot Syrian al-Assad or like that sick-mentally foolish Khamenei of Iran or the zombie rocket man Kim Jung-un.
- Badges
- Science topic