The Various Leadership Styles Management Essay

Published: Last Edited:

This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.

Every organization has its own goals and achievements, to achieve these goals and tasks , the organization needs a direction, for example in shooting a movie or a television picture there is always a director, the purpose of the director is to direct the movie along the path to make it a block buster. Same is the case with the organization; the firm needs a one person to show the specific path for achieving the targets. In a business terminology it is known as a leader.

Thus we may say that: Leadership is stated as the "process of social influence in which one person can enlist the aid and support of others in the accomplishment of a common task."Leadership is ultimately about creating a way for people to contribute to making something extraordinary happen.

Leaders are not only meant for the directions but they serve many tasks for the firm as well as the social environment of the firm, to influence the employees.

Leaders are generally meant for the following purposes:

·        Focus the employees and their work, and also sort the critical work situations facing by the employees.

·        Do the right things on the right that is the key point of the success.

·        Inspiration, setting as an example for the rest of the employees.

·        Influential work or the progress is shown by the leaders.

·        A supreme element of motivation is always the main ingredient to become a leader.

·        Strong built personality, which means that the leader should be dominant.

·        Shape entities.





Every organization or a team has its own leader, but similarly like a dynamic world every leader is different from the other with respect to its field.

But by the philosophers there are four types of leaders:


·        Autocratic leaders.

·        Democratic leaders.

·        Laissez-Faire

·        Paternalistic


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 them until they feel it is needed by the rest of the group.

Autocratic leadership is a classical leadership style with the following characteristics:

1. Manager seeks to make as many decisions as possible

2. Manager seeks to have the most authority and control in decision making

3. Manager seeks to retain responsibility rather than utilize complete delegation

4. Consultation with other colleagues in minimal and decision making becomes a solitary process

5. Managers are less concerned with investing their own leadership development, and prefer to simply work on the task at hand.

The autocratic leadership style is seen as an old fashioned technique. It has existed as long as managers have commanded subordinates, and is still employed by many leaders across the globe. The reason autocratic leadership survives, even if it is outdated, is because it is intuitive, carries instant benefits, and comes natural to many leaders. Many leaders who start pursuing leadership development are often trying to improve upon their organizations autocratic leadership style.






 2. The Benefits of the Autocratic Leadership Style

Despite having many critics, the autocratic leadership styles offer many advantages to managers who use them. These include:

·        Reduced stress due to increased control. Where the manager ultimately has significant legal and personal responsibility for a project, it will comfort them and reduce their stress levels to know that they have control over their fate.

·        A more productive group 'while the leader is watching'. The oversight that an autocratic manager exerts over a team improves their working speed and makes them less likely to slack. This is ideal for poorly motivated employees who have little concern or interest in the quality or speed of work performed.

·        Improved logistics of operations. Having one leader with heavy involvement in many areas makes it more likely that problems are spotted in advance and deadlines met. This makes autocratic leadership ideal for one-off projects with tight deadlines, or complicated work environments where efficient cooperation is key to success.

·        Faster decision making. When only one person makes decisions with minimal consultation, decisions are made quicker; this will allow the management team to respond to changes in the business environment more quickly.


3. The Disadvantages of the Autocratic Leadership Style

·        Short- termite approach to management. While leading autocratically will enable faster decisions to be made in the short term, by robbing subordinates of the opportunity to gain experience and start on their own leadership development,  and learn from their mistakes, the manager is actually de-skilling their workforce which will lead to poorer decisions and productivity in the long run.

·        Manager perceived as having poor leadership skills. While the autocratic style has merits when used in certain environments (as highlighted below), autocratic leadership style is easy yet unpopular. Managers with poor leadership skills with often revert to this style by default.

·        Increased workload for the manager. By taking on as much responsibility and involvement as possible, an autocratic leader naturally works at their full capacity, which can lead to long term stress and health problems and could damage working relationships with colleagues. This hyper-focus on work comes at the expense of good leadership development.

·        People dislike being ordered around. They also dislike being shown very little trust and faith. As a result, the autocratic leadership style can result in a demotivated workforce. This results in the paradox that autocratic leadership styles are a good solution for demotivated workers, but in many cases, it is the leadership style alone that demotivates them in the first place. Generation Y employees particularly dislike this style.

·        Teams become dependent upon their leader. After becoming conditioned to receive orders and act upon them perfectly, workers lose initiative and the confidence to make decisions on their own. This results in teams of workers who become useless at running operations if they lose contact with their leader. This is the result of a lack of time dedicated to leadership development on the employee's part.


4. The Autocratic Leadership Style Effective

Following on from the merits and drawbacks listed above, the autocratic leadership style is useful in the following work situations:

1. Short term projects with a highly technical, complex or risky element.

2. Work environments where spans of control are wide and hence the manager has little time to devote to each employee.

3. Industries where employees need to perform low-skilled, monotonous and repetitive tasks and generally have low levels of motivation.

4. Projects where the work performed needs to be completed to exact specifications and/or with a tight deadline.

5. Companies that suffer from a high employee turnover, i.e. where time and resources devoted to leadership development would be largely wasted. Although one could argue that a lack of leadership development in the first place caused the high turnover.






 5. Democratic Leaders

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 cooperation 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.

Democratic Leadership is the leadership style that promotes the sharing of responsibility, the exercise of delegation and continual consultation. The style has the following characteristics:

 1. Manager seeks consultation on all major issues and decisions. 

2. Manager effectively delegate tasks to subordinates and give them full control and responsibility for those tasks. 

3. Manager welcomes feedback on the results of initiatives and the work environment.

 4. Manager encourages others to become leaders and be involved in leadership development.


 6. The Benefits of the Democratic Leadership Style


·        Positive work environment. A culture where junior employees are given fair amount of responsibility and are allowed to challenge themselves is one where employees are more enthused to work and enjoy what they do.

·        Successful initiatives. The process of consultation and feedback naturally results in better decision making and more effective operations. Companies run under democratic leadership tend to run into fewer grave mistake and catastrophes. To put it simply - people tell a democratic leader when something is going badly wrong, while employees are encouraged to simply hide it from an autocrat.

·        Creative thinking. The free flow of ideas and positive work environment is the perfect catalyst for creative thinking. The benefits of this aren't just relevant for creative industries, because creative thinking is required to solve problems in every single organization, whatever its nature.

·        Reduction of friction and office politics. By allowing subordinates to use their ideas and even more importantly - gain credit for them, you are neatly reducing the amount of tension employees generate with their manager. When autocratic leaders refuse to listen to their workers, or blatantly ignore their ideas, they are effectively asking for people to talk behind their back and attempt to undermine or supersede them.

·        Reduced employee turnover. When employees feel empowered through leadership development, a company will experience lower rates of employee turnover which has numerous benefits. A company that invests in leadership development for its employees is investing in their future, and this is appreciated by a large majority of the workforce.

·        What Are The Disadvantages Of The Democratic Leadership Style?

·        Lengthy and 'boring' decision making. Seeking consultation over every decision can lead to a process so slow that it can cause opportunities to be missed, or hazards avoided too late.

·        Danger of pseudo participation. Many managers simply pretend to follow a democratic leadership style simply to score a point in the eyes of their subordinates. Employees are quick to realize when their ideas aren't actually valued, and that the manager is merely following procedure in asking for suggestions, but never actually implementing them. In other words, they're simply exerting autocratic leadership in disguise.


The Democratic Leadership Style Effective

Now you've heard about the benefits and drawbacks of this leadership style, let's look at where it's actually implemented in the business world.

1. Democratic leadership is applied to an extent in the manufacturing industry, to allow employees to give their ideas on how processes can become leaner and more efficient. While 'Faradism' is still applied in some factories across the country, truth is that production managers are now really starting to harness the motivational bonuses associated with not treating employees like robots anymore.

2. Democratic leadership is effective in professional organisations where the emphasis is clearly on training, professional & leadership development and quality of work performed. Democratic procedures are simply just one cog in the effective leadership mechanisms firms like The Big Four have created over the years.

3. Nonprofit organizations also tremendously benefit from drawing upon the creative energies of all their staff to bring about cost cutting techniques or fund raising ideas.


Laissez-Faire or Free Rein Leaders

The phrase is French and literally means "let do", but, in a leadership context, can be roughly translated as "free rein".

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 that which most effectively achieves the objectives of the group while balancing the interests of its individual members.

This leadership style is concerned with ensuring workers follow rules and procedures accurately and consistently.

1. Leaders expect a employees to display a formal, business-like attitude in the workplace and between each other.

2. Managers gain instant authority with their position, because rules demand that employees pay them certain privileges, such as being able to sign off on all major decisions. As a result, leaders suffer from 'position power'. Leadership development becomes pointless, because only titles and roles provide any real control or power.

3. Employees are rewarded for their ability to adhere to the rules and follow procedure perfectly.

4. Bureaucratic systems usually gradually develop over a long period of time, and hence are more commonly found in large & old businesses.


 The Benefits of the Bureaucratic Leadership Style


·        Increased safety. In dangerous workplaces where procedures save lives, a bureaucratic management style can help enforce health and safety rules.

·        Quality work. Some tasks, such as completing professional work or medical examinations, need to be done in a meticulous fashion to be done correctly. Laziness can result in poor work, and hence one solution is to enforce the rules via the bureaucratic leadership style.

·        Ultimate control. An environment whereby employees are intrinsically motivated to follow rules in order to be promoted and succeed results in the tightest control management can ever assume over a company. This control can be used to cut costs or improve productivity.

·        What Are The Disadvantages Of The Bureaucratic Leadership Style?

·        Dehumanizes the business. Bureaucratic companies tend to remove as much potential for 'human error' out of the picture as possible. Unfortunately this also has the effect of removing all the enjoyment and reward that comes from deciding how to do a task and accomplishing it.

·        Lack of self-fulfillment. The bureaucratic way of working hampers employee's efforts to become successful and independent, because the system becomes too constraining.

·        Parkinson's Law. Cyril Northolt Parkinson made the scientific observation that the number of staff in bureaucracies increased by an average of 5%-7% per year "irrespective of any variation in the amount of work (if any) to be done."". He explains this growth by two forces: (1) "An official wants to multiply subordinates, not rivals" and (2) "Officials make work for each other." Parkinson's findings suggest that bureaucratic leadership encourages inefficiency and waste of internal resources in the long run.

·        'Position power' obsession. After working in an environment that reinforces the idea that authority is created by rules which in turn support senior positions. Employees become attached to the idea that simply being in a job position creates authority. This can lead to intense office politics, arrogant leaders and little incentive to perform well once an employee has landed a top job.

·        Lack of creativity. It goes without saying that a rule-based culture hinders creativity and encourages workers to simply perform puppet-like work rather than think independently. This may result in a lack of growth in the business due to employees simply not thinking out of the box or looking for new areas to develop.

·        Poor communication. A common feature of a bureaucratic system is a complicated network of communication lines. Managers who don't want to be 'bothered' by junior staff simply create procedures that allow them to avoid communicating with those below them. 'Go through the formal process', 'Talk to my secretary' and 'my schedule is full' are common rule-based excuses for blocked contact. Barriers to communication can hinder the success of any company. For example, the board may be charging ahead with a doomed product simply because their shop floors workers cannot pass on the message that customer are giving very negative feedback.


The Bureaucratic Leadership Style Effective

Bureaucratic leadership is found in extremely large corporations such as General Electric, Daimler and General Motors. However these cultures have evolved due to the age and size of these companies, and are generally blamed for the slow growth and recent failures at these companies.

1. Governmental bodies often have bureaucratic systems, and while these are often despised by the public, they ensure accountability to the tax payer and fair treatment for all. Excessive form-filling also serves the purpose of passing effort from the government authority (with a tight budget) onto the individual, helping to save costs.

2. Dangerous workplaces such as mines, oil rigs, construction sites and film sets all benefit from the tight control over health and safety that rules offer. 



Paternalism has at times been equated with leadership styles. Yet most definitions of leadership normally state or imply that one of the actions within leadership is that of influencing. For example, the Army uses the following definition:

Leadership is influencing people -- by providing purpose, direction, and motivation -- while operating to accomplish the mission and improving the organization."

The Army further goes on by defining "influence" as a:

Means of getting people to do what you want them to do. It is the means or method to achieve two ends: operating and improving. But there¹s more to influencing than simply passing along orders. The example you set is just as important as the words you speak. And you set an example -- good or bad -- with every action you take and word you utter, on or off duty. Through your words and example, you must communicate purpose, direction, and motivation.

While "paternalism" is defined as (Webster):

A system under which an authority undertakes to supply needs or regulate conduct of those under its control in matters affecting them as individuals as well as in their relationships to authority and to each other.

Thus paternalism supplies needs for those under its protection or control, while leadership gets things done. The first is directed inwards, while the latter is directed outwards.


An organization that is established as an instrument or means for achieving defined objecHYPERLINK ""tives has been referred to as a formal organization. Its design specifies how goals are subdivided and reflected in subdivisions of the organization. Divisions, departments, sections, positions, jobs, and tasks make up this work structure. Thus, the formal organization is expected to behave impersonally in regard to relationships with clients or with its members. According to Weber's definition, entry and subsequent advancement is by merit or seniority. Each employee receives a salary and enjoys a degree of tenure that safeguards her/him from the arbitrary influence of superiors or of powerful clients. The higher his position in the hierarchy, the greater his presumed expertise in adjudicating problems that may arise in the course of the work carried out at lower levels of the organization. It is this bureaucratic structure that forms the basis for the appointment of heads or chiefs of administrative subdivisions in the organization and endows them with the authority attached to their position.




7. Explain the difference between a manager and a leader by giving a suitable example.


Over the years the philosophical terminology of "management" and "leadership" have, in the organizational context, been used both as synonyms and with clearly differentiated meanings. Debate is fairly common about whether the use of these terms should be restricted, and generally reflects an awareness of the distinction made by Burns between "transactional" leadership and "transformational" leadership.


Both a manager and a leader may know the business well. But the leader must know it better and in a different way. S/he must grasp the essential facts and the underlying forces that determine the past and present trends in the business, so that s/he can generate a vision and a strategy to bring about its future. One telling sign of a good leader is an honest attitude towards the facts, towards objective truth. A subjective leader obscures the facts for the sake of narrow self-interest, partisan interest or prejudice.

Effective leaders continually ask questions, probing all levels of the organization for information, testing their own perceptions, and rechecking the facts. They talk to their constituents. They want to know what is working and what is not. They keep an open mind for serendipity to bring them the knowledge they need to know what is true. An important source of information for this sort of leader is knowledge of the failures and mistakes that are being made in their organization.

To survive in the twenty-first century, we are going to need a new generation of leaders - leaders, not managers. The distinction is an important one. Leaders conquer the context - the turbulent, ambiguous surroundings that sometimes seem to conspire against us and will surely suffocate us if we let them - while managers surrender to it.

Leaders investigate reality, taking in the pertinent factors and analyzing them carefully. On this basis they produce visions, concepts, plans, and programs. Managers adopt the truth from others and implement it without probing for the facts that reveal reality.

There is profound difference - a chasm - between leaders and managers. A good manager does things right. A leader does the right things. Doing the right things implies a goal, a direction, an objective, a vision, a dream, a path, a reach.

Lots of people spend their lives climbing a ladder - and then they get to the top of the wrong wall. Most losing organizations are over-managed and under-led. Their managers accomplish the wrong things beautifully and efficiently. They climb the wrong wall.

Managing is about efficiency. Leading is about effectiveness. Managing is about how. Leading is about what and why. Management is about systems, controls, procedures, policies, and structure. Leadership is about trust - about people.

Leadership is about innovating and initiating. Management is about copying, about managing the status quo. Leadership is creative, adaptive, and agile. Leadership looks at the horizon, not just the bottom line.

Leaders base their vision, their appeal to others, and their integrity on reality, on the facts, on a careful estimate of the forces at play, and on the trends and contradictions. They develop the means for changing the original balance of forces so that their vision can be realized.

A leader is someone who has the capacity to create a compelling vision that takes people to a new place, and to translate that vision into action. Leaders draw other people to them by enrolling them in their vision. What leaders do is inspire people, empower them.

They pull rather than push. This "pull" style of leadership attracts and energizes people to enroll in a vision of the future. It motivates people by helping them identify with the task and the goal rather than by rewarding or punishing them.

There is a profound difference between management and leadership, and both are important "To manage" means "to bring about, to accomplish, to have charge of or responsibility for, to conduct." "Leading" is "influencing, guiding in direction, course, action, opinion." The distinction is crucial.

Management is...                                   Leadership is....

Coping with complexity                          Coping with and promoting change

Planning and Budgeting                           Setting a Direction

Organizing and Staffing                           Aligning People

Controlling and Problem Solving              Motivating and Inspiring People

Effective Action                                       Meaningful Action

8. Both are necessary and important.

Managers are people who do things right and leaders are people who do the right thing. The difference may be summarized as activities of vision and judgment - effectiveness -versus activities of mastering routines - efficiency. The chart below indicates key words that further make the distinction between the two functions:

· The manager administers; the leader innovates.

· The manager is a copy; the leader is an original.

· The manager maintains; the leader develops.

· The manager accepts reality; the leader investigates it.

· The manager focuses on systems and structure; the leader focuses on people.

· The manager relies on control; the leader inspires trust.

· The manager has a short-range view; the leader has a long-range perspective.

· The manager asks how and when; the leader asks what and why.

· The manager has his or her eye always on the bottom line; the leader has his or her eye on the horizon.

· The manager imitates; the leader originates.

· The manager accepts the status quo; the leader challenges it.

· The manager is the classic good soldier; the leader is his or her own person.

· The manager does things right; the leader does the right thing.

The most dramatic differences between leaders and managers are found at the extremes: poor leaders are despots, while poor managers are bureaucrats in the worst sense of the word. Whilst leadership is a human process and management is a process of resource allocation, both have their place and managers must also perform as leaders. All first-class managers turn out to have quite a lot of leadership ability.

























Establishing shared goals and engendering commitment requires a particular set of skills that are more often associated with a transformational rather than transactional style of leadership. There is a frequent mistake made by transactional leaders think that if they have a