The Description Of Leadership Styles

Organizational achievements are directly affected by type of leadership which their leaders are applying. So it’s important to review the literature on leadership styles. Throughout leadership history, many researchers have tried to explain about all or some part of typicality collection which results a successful leadership. Some of the most often quoted historical authors include Plato, Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Locke from the West and Confucius and Xunxi from the East (J.R. Turner & R. Muller, 2005). Barnard (1938) defined the leader’s basic functions. Based on his suggestion, an executive leader should have managerial and emotional attitudes. Managerial attitudes relapsed to cognitive and emotional attitudes refer to cathectic skills. Cognitive skills contain guiding, perfusing aims and directing related tasks. Cathectic skills contain motivational functions for making goal-seeking thoughts and increasing commitment between team members or a sample group. Aristotle defines three specifications for a good leader:

1. Developing relationships between all followers

2. Advocating an ethic vision

3. Leading by logic to manage activities.

Researches have dedicated different dividing for leadership styles. At first we review divisions based on current sects over the recent seventy years. Handy (1982), Partington (2003) and Dulewicz & Higgs (2003) have defined six main sects for leadership theory:

The trait approach

The style approach

The contingency approach

The charismatic approach t

The EI (emotional intelligence) approach

The competency approach

The Trait Sect approach was pervasive until 1940s. It assumes leadership ability as an inborn specification not an acquisitive one. Turner (1999) through his studies found seven traits for effective executive leaders (e.g., ability of solving problems, negotiation and result-based mind). Kirkpatrick and Locke (1991) defined six topicalities as traits for an effective leader.

Get Help With Your Essay

If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!
Find out more about our Essay Writing Service

The style approach was pervasive between 1940s-1960s. The basis of this sect is based on assuming leadership as an acquisitive concern. The most applicable theories in this frame place leaders on one or two dimensional metric by comparing them with one or two parameters. It’s seeable in Adair (1983), Blake & Mouton (1978) and Slevin’s (1989) works.

The contingency sect was pervasive up to 1970s. Instead of last sects for finding fix attitudes for leadership, it suggests that being an effective leader depends on the pertinences of situations. It’s typified in House (1971), Fiedler (1967) and Robbins’s (1997) works. This sect tends to follow a process containing these steps:

1. Apprising the leader’s characteristics

2. Evaluating mentioned situation based on main contingency variables

3. Seeking an accordant between the situation and the leader.

House (1971) based path-goal theory as a contingency theory considering leader as a guider for helping the team in both finding goal and the process of finding.

Path-goal theory defines four leadership types (Directive, Supportive, Participative and Achievement-oriented leaders). These should be matched with subordinate and environmental factors. Fiedler’s (1967) different leadership types were based on defining three main variables for determining desirability between leadership style and situation. Such determination will affect the role of the leader.

The charismatic approach was pervasive between 1980s- 1990s. it based on analyzing the behaviors of leaders which were successful in leading their organizations in changing situations. Based on Bass’s (1990) suggestion there are two leadership styles; transactional and transformational. Cognitive roles of Barnard are in accordance with the transactional leader’s attitudes. Barnard’s cathectic roles are adaptable with The transformational leader’s attitudes. Bass (1990) provided the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) for evaluating type of leaders (transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire). MLQ is the most applicable questionnaire of evaluating leaders. Dulewicz and Higgs (2004) have adjoined more scales for both Organizational Concept and Organizational Commitment. By adding these scales, the weaknesses of primary MLQ has rectified.

The IE (Emotional Intelligence) approach has been pervasive since the late 1990s. It’s based on considering the emotional intelligence of leaders as the most important factor in success of them. Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee (2002) has Developed four dimensions for intellectual capability of a leader. These four dimensions lead to create six different leadership styles (Visionary, Democratic, Coaching, Pacesetting, Affiliative and Commanding). They assume that first four styles accelerate the responsibility in the team working and improve the performance but tow remained styles can lead to decrease both the responsibility and the performance. But in some cases these two styles (regarding the situation) might be useful. They also have demonstrated the correlation between IE, leadership style and organizational performance.

Since the late 1990s the advertency of studies has moved to identification of Effective leader’s competencies. All the efforts about such identifications return to competency approach. It might be considered as the similarity between competency approach and trait approach. But it’s important to emphasize that competencies are not inborn so it’s possible to make an effective leader. Different combined competencies will result different types of leadership which is suitable for different situations; Producing transactional leaders in situations of low complexity and transformational leaders in situations of high complexity (J.R. Turner & R. Muller, 2005). Competencies are derived from mental or technical or bases. Dulewicz and Higgs (2003) have shown a comprehensive overview for competency approach and its functions.

For ending the literature about leadership styles, it’s necessary to review basic leadership styles. Demonstrating three basic leadership styles by Kurt Lewin (1939) and his research group was the first try in defining leadership styles. As an early study, they demonstrate the main compartment containing Autocratic, Democratic and Laissez-Faire styles. Dyer’s study in 1986 showed that there are five separate approaches to leadership- participative, autocratic, laissez-faire/ mission, expert and referent. Recent classification assumes more divisions.

There are six basic styles of leadership (Goleman, 2000) which containing coercive, authoritative, affiliative, democratic, pacesetting and coaching styles. Considering recent research results, effective leaders have ability to use their emotional intelligence for matching the assorted leadership style with particular situation. These six main styles are using different aspects of emotional intelligence for different situations. The ability for switching between these types for current situation of organization will make an effective leadership.

Coercive style as an approach is using for compulsive situation. Such approach must be used warily because in most of situations, it may have negative effects on motivation and flexibility of employees. Authoritative style is less rigid than Coercive style by giving just freedom to employees for selecting the way of achieving the goal which has determined decisively by the leader. Affiliative style is based on giving no advice to employees. It’s suitable for increasing coordination and sodality between leader and employees but may create employee’s instability. Democratic style makes an open area for decision making. Such approach increases the responsibility and flexibility throughout the organization but may create dispersion and decentralization disadvantages.

Pacesetting style shows some kind of leadership who tries to make both high level for employee’s performance and advantages for competent workers. Such approach usually makes inverse results based on leader’s idealism tendency.

Coaching style signify the leader’s focus on personality of workers more than their tasks. It causes improving weaknesses but may have inverse effect on rigid employees.

Executives use six leadership styles, but only four of the six consistently have a positive effect on climate and results (Goleman, 2000). Whatever the leader has more domination on coaching, democratic, authoritative and affiliative styles, organizational achievement will be increased.

Focus on Autocratic Leadership Style and its Applications and its Failure and Success Cases – 3 pages

In autocratic leadership style, workers and followers are controlled by one person as a leader. There’s no collaborative decision making and no concrescence between leaders and staff. Workers lose their responsibility, initiative and accountability. Such approach has negative effects on compensating process. In most of cases, autocratic style can be used for resurrecting a failing business by determining new ways of survival with a top-down set of procedures. The autocratic style should be used only with extreme caution and in the few situations when it is absolutely imperative (Goleman, 2000). A long term use of such approach will cause reducing employee’s performance by damaging their morale.

Observations of the effects of leadership style (i.e., autocratic vs. democratic) on the atmosphere of small groups process analyses of interactions in laboratory discussion tasks, and reports of industrial workers on the behavioral styles of their supervisors sought to identify patterns of leader behavior associated with high productivity or good morale (Chemers, 2000).

Vroom and Yetton (1973) developed a decision-making model for integrating decision of leaders by applying occasional factors considering a wide range of decision-making for leaders varying from autocratic approaches to participative approaches. Such model defines that in case that the work is distinctive and employees are able enough, tending to autocratic approach gives better results. Overhand in unclear situation with no enough information participative approach will help making a better decision. In some situations when leader has not enough support, using participative strategy will help him assuring followers about the equality of decision making’s weigh between them. Empirical research on the normative decision model is not extensive but is generally supportive of its basic premises (Field & House, 1990).

Both Normative decision theory and contingency model are focused on as the leadership as a core of decision making. It means that these approaches are considering leader as a person who gains the support of followers for implementing the best solution. Meanwhile these two methods are focusing on applying Autocratic style for situations with a clear short-term aim and supportive followers but p participative approach should be used for less clarified situation.

Both Fiedler’s (1967; Fiedler & Chemers, 1974, 1984) contingency model and Vroom and Yetton’s (1973) normative decision model are built around the notion that internal group processes, such as decision-making processes, must match with external task demands to ensure high levels of group performance (Chemers, 2000). It seems autocratic approach can be used in predictable circumstances and in more unclear and less predictable situation there is more need to use participative approaches. Identifying environmental factors like attitudes of followers can help a leader for choosing the best style of leadership matched with current situation.

Dyer’s (1986) study shows that adopting participative, expert, or referent leadership styles by managers will result in higher employee satisfaction and better business performance. In contrast, applying autocratic or laissez-faire/ mission leadership style will result in negative effects regard to employees’ satisfaction and business performance (R. L. Sorenson, 2000). There was a significant relationship between the project leader’s professional qualification, his leadership style, and team composition and overall project performance (Odusami, 2003). Clift and Vandenbosch (1999) mentioned that autocratic leadership style is more common in short-cycle simple projects and participative leadership style is more common in short-cycle complex projects. Moreover, the long-cycle project leaders have also more tendencies to use the autocratic approach to lead the project. The Vroom and Yetton (1973) normative contingency model emphasizes increased follower involvement in decision making ranging from autocratic, consultative, to group leadership styles (Hollander & Offermann, 1990).

Baker (1980) has suggested studying the model because it can be useful for leaders in decision making and improving its process. Likert (1961) showed that a top level leader can issue his leadership style for the next leaders and make it as a leadership culture for the organization. For instance, a highly placed autocratic leader, who is low on input and participation from subordinates, can set a climate that limits the ability of leaders below to be participative (Hollander & Offermann, 1990).

Subordinate participation in decision making (PDM) as a human relation-based approach gave more tools for decision making. Schweiger and Leana (1986) by using PDM showed that no participation level (from fully autocratic to fully participative) can be employed for all followers in all kind of circumstances.

Autocratic- oriented leadership may assume that his own awareness and information is enough for important decision making and followers are always less qualified for commitment. Such view point is unlike the participative leadership style.

Job Satisfaction Description (Definitions and Business Impacts) 4 pages

As one of the most important issues in organizational behavior, Job satisfaction considered as “an attitudinal variable measuring the degree to which employees like their jobs and the various aspects of their jobs” (Spector, 1996; Stamps, 1997). Locke (2002) gives a definition for job satisfaction as “a pleasurable or a positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job experience.” it can be defined also as “… the feelings a worker has about his or her job or job experiences in relation to previous experiences, current expectations, or available alternatives” (Balzer, 1997). As Begley & Czajka (1993) Chiu (2000) and Tharenou (1993) said, job satisfaction is related to increase Job performance, positivity of work values, raising the motivation of employees and decreasing the absenteeism’s rates and so on. In fact the whole Attitudes of members in an organization constitute the Job satisfaction. Responding employees into their job descriptions indicates their obligation toward employers. Re-engineering and minifying of the organization can help employers specifying efficient employees.

Robbins’s (1998) suggestion shall be considered about being the basis of job satisfaction’s measurement on the difference between the amounts of actual receiving compensate and the amount of which they are expected to receive.

There are too many studies about Job satisfaction as one the organizational behavior’s main factors. The relationship between job satisfaction and other organizational outcomes like absenteeism, performance, organizational commitment and turnover leads to focus on it. Changing situation of every organization especially hospitality industry led to focus on how to made employees efficient and effective, and thus for reaching the answers that was necessary to start studying about job satisfaction.

Motivation theories (Herzberg, Maslow, and Vroom) are the basis for most of job satisfaction’s approaches. Maslow’s (1943) hypothesis is based on a hierarchy containing five needs (psychological, safety, social, esteem and self actualization needs). It assumes such proposition; “although no need is ever fully gratified, a substantially satisfied need no longer motivates” (Faulk, 2002). So it’s critical for an organization to identify the level of every employee on the hierarchy and try to satisfy him/her at that or hyper level.

Motivation-hygiene theory of Herzberg (1966) suggests two factors affecting on the satisfaction or dissatisfaction of employees. According to this two-factor theory, inner factors are related to job satisfaction (opportunity of personal achievement, essence of work and possibility of growing). Conversely, outer factors are related with job dissatisfaction (organizational policy, conditions of works and etc.

Expectancy theory of Vroom (1964) hypothesizes a relationship between the tendency to behave in a certain way, strength of a given outcome and the attractiveness of that outcome to employees. It proposes that an employee will perform at the best level of possibility if he/she be sure of existing one strong relationship between endeavor and performance, performance and compensates, compensates and satisfaction of personal aims.

As a measurable thing, job satisfaction can be assumed as global feeling related to job and its factors. A job satisfaction facet can be related to any aspect of a job, including rewards, coworkers, supervisors, the work itself, and the organizational (Faulk, 2002)

Based on Spector (1997) studies, such approach can prepare one more clear perspective of employee’s job satisfaction than a global approach. The reason is about having various feelings of different facets of the job.

There are two job satisfaction measurement tools containing the Job Descriptive Index (JDI) and the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ). Both tools are developed for measurement of job satisfaction applying facet approach. Both of them measure the job satisfaction level by scaling satisfaction with distinctive facets of every employee’s job.

The score of all facets including essence of work, competitors, supervisory and payment methods is gathered to make the summarized job satisfaction levels. Thereafter studies began to focus on using JDI and MSQ payment sub-scales for accretion of validity and making opportunity for comparing different results of studies (e.g., Berger & Schwab, 1980; Blau, 1994; Capelli & Sherer, 1988; Dreher, 1981; Dyer & Theriault, 1976; Schwab & Wallace, 1974).

Organizational commitment is an important factor in organizational studies. It has a strong correlation with work-based factors like absenteeism, turnover, job satisfaction, leader-worker relationships (Arnolds & Boshoff, 2004; Bagraim, 2003; Buck & Watson, 2002; Eby, et al., 1999; Farrell & Stamm, 1988; Lance, 1991; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Michaels & Spector, 1982; Tett & Meyer, 1993; Wasti, 2003). Turn over can be defined as a “states the individuals intentions to leave the organization” (Faulk, 2002). It’s another factor which has been considered having a relation to job satisfaction. Brockner et al. (2002) present that attention to justice in layoffs leads to increasing desirable reactions of workers for reaching the outcomes. Greenberg (1990a) showed the linkage of procedural justice with system satisfaction. Moreover he found the relativity between distributive justice and outcome satisfaction.

Next studies support such model defining not only the impact of procedural justice on every organizational factor like organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behaviors but the impact of distributive justice on job specifications like job satisfaction. Such proceeding can be applied as a practical action for every organization. For increasing the level of commitment in organization, it’s necessary to focus proceedings on procedural justice perceptions. Otherwise for increasing the level of job satisfaction organization should focus on increasing distributive justice.

Judge et al (2001) provided a review of relationship between job satisfaction and job performance qualitatively and quantitatively. They described 7 past qualitative models and finally because of un-integrity between all of them, used a new meta-analysis and developed a procedure for next researches about relationship between job satisfaction and job performance.

Rusbult and Farrell (1983) studied The Impact of a longitudinal test of the investment model on job commitment, satisfaction and turnover of employees their study showed the differences between leavers and those who stayed in each factor of this model. Arvey et al (1989) examined environmental and genetic component on job satisfaction by using monozygotic twins and their findings was in consistent with genetic hypothesis and were applied as supplements of job satisfaction theories.

Impacts of Autocratic Leadership Style on Employee’s Job Satisfaction – 2 pages

There are many worthy researches about leadership since the 1950s. This has divided into three areas: task-oriented, relation-oriented and participative leadership (Yukl, 2001). May be it is a common assumption that leadership style is based on everyone’s personality but functionally, it should be an optional choice. Leaders should have a wide range of behavioral solutions for every particular occasion. Goleman (2000) has defined six basic leadership styles deriving from various levels of emotional intelligence and applicable in specific situations. Each style has led organizational achievement with a specific manner.

Our own working experiences tell us these are incontrovertible facts (Solutions & Zones 2004). If we consider the autocratic management style as a kind of transactional style of leadership, there are a vast researches and applied findings about its relation with workers’ motivation, subordinates’ commitment and job satisfaction. The transformational leadership style has a positive association with work performance and organizational commitment of subordinates more than the transactional style. Transformational leaders produce higher leadership outcomes as well (Stephen & Ogunlana, 2008). Also, Savery (1994) investigates on democratic style of leadership which is in opposite of autocratic one and says that “The democratic style of leadership leads to a more positive organizational commitment from the individual and also higher job satisfaction…”.

Rad & Yarmohammadian (2006) found that Employees’ job satisfaction depends upon the leadership style of managers. The research shows that participative management is not always a good management style. Managers should select the best leadership style according to the organizational culture and employees’ organizational maturity (Rad & Yarmohammadian, 2006). We indicate specific instances where it has been shown that an appropriate leadership style, and the competence and emotional intelligence of the leader, delivers better results (J.R. Turner & R. Muller, 2005)

Research has shown that the most successful leaders have strengths in the following emotional intelligence competencies: self-awareness, self-regulation, motivation, empathy, and social skill (Goleman, 2000).

Autocratic style as an approach must be used by a calculable method because in most of situations, it may have negative effects on motivation and flexibility of employees.