Common Leadership Styles

To decide on the “best leadership style” one has to enumerate the merits and demerits of each, evaluate their effectiveness and efficiency and more than anything else, see whether they deliver the goods”. Analysis of the various leadership styles conclusively proves that there does not exist something as the “best” leadership style. If there existed one, it should have proved successful under all circumstances. It can be observed that different leadership styles produce the best results under different conditions and circumstances.

That which results in the most favorable and desirable outcome under any particular circumstances is the “right” leadership style in that context.The success of the manager depends on his/her ability to identify the “right” leadership style in any given situation and then exhibit enough flexibility and adaptability to practice hat style.

Sources of Leader Influence on Followers

What provides a leader with the capacity to influence followers? Why will subordinates respond to the influence attempts of a leader by doing that the leader intends or wishes them to do? In other words, what is the source of the leader’s power over subordinates? Five distinct sources of leader power or influence have been identified. Any particular leader may have at his or her disposal any combination of these different sources of power.

1. Reward Power refers to the leader’s capacity to reward followers. To the extent that a leader possesses and controls rewards that are valued by subordinates, the leader’s power increases. Rewards at a leader’s disposal fall into two categories. Rewards such as praise, recognition and attention are sources of personal power possessed by the leader as an individual. In addition, a leader also usually controls certain organizational rewards, such as pay raises, promotions and other perquisites. These are sources of power that depend upon the leader’s position in the organization.

2. Coercive power is the flip side of reward power and refers to the leader’s capacity to coerce or punish followers. Sources of coercive power also break down into personal and positional components. Leaders personally possess coercive power to the extent that followers experience criticism or lack of recognition from their leader as unpleasant or punishing. In addition, leaders possess coercive power to the extent that their position permits them to administer organizational sources of punishment (such as demotion, with holding of pay increases or firing) to followers.

3. Legitimate power refer to the power a leader possesses as a result of occupying a particular position or role in the organization. In every organization, certain types of requests and directions issued by leaders to subordinates are viewed to be legitimate and valid. Subordinates are obligated to comply with such requests because of the norms, policies, and procedures accepted as legitimate by all members of the organization. Legitimate power is clearly a function of the leader’s position in the organization and is completely independent of any of the leader’s personal characteristics.

4. Expert power refers to power that a leader possesses as a result of his or her knowledge and expertise regarding the tasks to be performed by subordinates. Subordinates are most likely to respond positively to a leader’s attempts to influence their behavior if they view the leader as a competent and in possession of knowledge and information regarding effective task performance that they themselves lack. The possession of expert power by a leader obviously depends upon the personal characteristics of the leader (ie. his or her personal expertise) and is not determined by the formal position that the leader occupies in the organization.

5. Referent power is dependent upon the extent to which subordinates identify with, look up to and wish to emulate the leader. The more that subordinates admire and identify with the leaders, the greater the leader’s referent power over subordinates. Referent power, like expert power, is totally dependent upon the personal characteristics of the leader and does not depend directly upon the leader’s formal organizational position.

Current Issues in Leadership

In addition to focusing on the different powers discussed above, leadership researchers have also recently identified a number of new and important issues that deserve our attention.

Leadership as Mutual Influence

The very term leadership naturally serves to draw our attention to leaders themselves and focuses our interest on the ways in which leaders influence their followers. As a result, research on leadership has tried to understand how different types of leaders and different types of leader behaviors cause follower to react in different ways.

An important contribution of recent research on leadership has been to point out the shortsightedness of this view of leader-follower relations. While it is no doubt true that leaders can and do influence their followers, it is also true that leaders and followers engage in interaction with one another, which necessarily implies the existence of mutual influence. In other words, not only is it true that leaders influence followers, but it is equally true that followers influence leaders.

Leadership Categories

Leadership Categories:

In every individual, all kinds of leadership skills may be present but their relative concentrations vary.The implication for the top management is that organizational success depends on allocating tasks and responsibilities to individuals based on their talents and capabilities. The message for the individual is that one should identify where his/her predominant leadership skills lie and as far as possible try to seek tasks which are in tune with them. When there is little scope for choosing tasks in accordance with ones leadership endowments, developing skills required for the tasks at hand become imperative.

Leadership Styles

Based on “how” a leader performs his/her tasks, various leadership styles can be identified, viz.

(i) - Authoritarian

(ii) - democratic

(iii) - Laissez faire (free rein)

The basis for the above classification is two fold, viz.,

(i) - mode of decision making

(ii) - manner of implementation

(i) Autocratic leadership style : As the term suggests, this is a leader-centered style where followers are reduced to insignificance. The autocratic leadership style itself has two variations, viz., authoritarian and paternalistic.

(a) Authoritarian Leadership Style : The authoritarian leader takes all decisions by himself/herself and will try to implement them even resorting to the use of force or coercion. The authoritarian leader is only concerned about the “tasks” but not the “people” with whom the tasks have to be achieved. If his/her followers/subordinates approach him/her with a problem, they face in implementing the leaders decisions or carrying out his/her orders, the leader takes the stand, I am not bothered about your problems. You …………… expedite and report”.

(b) Paternalistic leadership style: Leaders who exhibit this style assume the parental role for

themselves. They also take all decisions like the authoritarian leaders, but when it comes to

implementation they resort to tact and diplomacy rather than force and coercion.

The paternalistic leader considers his followers as immature children incapable of making decision and needing about the task as well as the people. If subordinates approach a paternalistic leader with their problems, they can expect empathic understanding and consideration. The paternalistic leader may be expected to sit with the subordinates to sort out their problems and help them reach or identify solutions.

(ii) Democratic leadership style: The style of leadership which recognizes and respects every member of the group or team as an individual with capabilities, rights and responsibilities and a potential contributor to the group processes including task achievements, is called democratic leadership style. Where democratic leadership style is followed, decision making and implementation are consultative and participative processes. It should be appreciated that the situation is not akin to one, where say, in a group of w00, what 51 people suggest is accepted and the opinions and suggestions of the remaining 49 are rejected mercilessly. That at best be termed monocracy. Where democratic leadership style is practiced, one is free to express his/her opinions as everybody’s opinions and their right to express them is respected. A member gets an opportunity to understand why his/her suggestions are not accepted as the group’s decision, even when that is the case. The ultimate group decision is everybody’s. When one had a say in the making of a decision, a high level of commitment may be expected to be exhibited by the group members for its achievement.

(iii) Laissez faire or free rein leadership style: Whether one follows autocracy or democracy as a leadership style, the leader will be performing the basic functions of providing direction and control to the group. The autocratic and democratic leaders differ only in the manner in which they perform the direction and control functions. Apart from this, there are leaders who follow a policy of “no intervention” in group processes. Their style is called “Laissez faire” or “free rein”.

There are behavioural scientists who even object to considering this as “leadership” as the “leader” does not discharge the basic functions of direction and control. However, one may find many in leadership positions practicing this style.

Leadership an Introduction

Leadership is an integral part of management and plays a vital role in managerial operations. If there is any single factor that differentiates between successful and unsuccessful organizations, it could be considered as dynamic and effective leadership. Perhaps, it would be a valid assumption to state that the major cause of most business failures would be ineffective leadership.

All managers, in a way, are business leaders, even though management primarily relies on formal position power to influence people whereas leadership stems from a social influence process.

However, management is an integral component of technical as well as social processes. A question which many a novice in Management ask and experts echo is whether “Manager” and

“Leader” is synonymous terms.

 Are the functions of the ‘Manager’ the same as those of the Leader? 

Are the two roles the same? 

Are they different? If they are – are there or rather aren’t there areas of functional similarities? To what extent do they differ in direction and/or magnitude? 

Before attempting to answer the million dollar question “Are all leaders managers or are all managers leaders?

It will be prudent to clarify the concepts of leadership and management. An extremely simplistic yet profoundly meaningful definition of leadership states it as the

“Phenomenon of one person influencing the thinking or  action or both of another person or groups of persons”.

Management has been defined in various ways by different authors. In fact, there exist almost as many definitions for management as there are authors on the topic. There is neither the scope nor the need to examine the various definitions of management in this discussion. However, two of them may be considered.

One of the earliest universally accepted definitions of management considered it as the “process of getting things done through and by people”. One of the modern definitions of management describes it as “the process of ensuring effectiveness and efficiency in achieving goals or objectives”.

From the above discussion, it is clear that whenever one influences the thinking or action or both of another person or a group, he/she is a leader and the phenomenon of leadership exists. This is so irrespective of what the “influence” aims or achieves. Even if the followers are “influenced” for some antisocial activities, the phenomenon involved is leadership and the one exhibiting it is a leader.

Managers have to influence their “people” for achieving organizational objectives, which, we assume, to be morally right and legally straight. So, all managers have a leadership role to play. But all that every leader does may not be very “Managerial”.

In short, all managers are leaders, but all leaders need not necessarily be managers. It should be remembered that this statement is made considering the roles of “leaders” and “managers” and not with reference to any individual with a managerial title or acceptance as a leader.

Categories of leaders: Based on the functions they perform, leaders can be classified into:

(i) Entrepreneurial

(ii) Administrative and

(iii) Political

(i) Entrepreneurial Leaders: As the term indicates, these are leaders who build organizations; these institution builders perform the tasks of initiation and structuring. They organize the required resources and put them in to effective and efficient use to create institutions of various sizes, nature and scope eg. Trade unions,  hospitals, schools, colleges, places of worship, cultural organizations etc.

Entrepreneurial leaders are highly motivated self starters who can get along reasonably well with a wide range of people with whom they can co-operate and from whom they can get co-operation. They will not be dispirited with setbacks and will not take “no” for an answer.

(ii) Administrative leaders: These are leaders whose performance will be at its peak when they are put in charge of running organizations they work for the maintenance and growth of the organizations; they plan, organize, staff, direct and control the organizations which may be expected to “safe” in their hands. They ensure that right men occupy right positions and that tasks are carried out effective and efficiently. 

They undertake environmental scanning and do SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) analysis, based on which they define and redefine the mission of their organizations, set targets and objectives and formulate policies and strategies. They have a clear idea of what the organization should be at present and where it should be in the future.

(iii) Political leaders: By “political leaders” are meant those who act as representatives or spokesmen of their groups and strive for the redressal of the grievances of their groups in general and its members in particular. Many of them act on an ‘ad hoc’ basis not being very visible normally but appearing on the scene all of a sudden when a problem crops up, the tackling of which requires their attention. They may even leave the scene once the issue has been settled.