The ability of a person or group of people to manage and direct the team inside an organization is known as leadership. Every group or organization needs strong leadership to ensure its continued development and seamless operation. Theories of leadership instruct a person on how to lead effectively. These ideas inspire and direct someone to become a great leader. The one with the biggest influence over the behaviors and ideologies of the group is the leader. At the center of all operational actions is the person who takes the initiative, issues commands, renders judgments, resolves disputes amongst group members, inspires others, sets an example, and leads by example.
Leaders are essential to achieving the objective. Decisions on what has to be done and how are made by leaders. Without leaders, it is reasonable to assume that the organization will achieve or reach its objective. In actuality, individuals form groups to meet a variety of demands, such as social and task needs.
What is Leadership?
A leader’s defining behaviors when managing or leading groups of people are referred to as their leadership style. A person’s default leadership style is the one in which they are most at ease guiding people towards their goals. The impact of leadership effectiveness on team performance and attitudes was assessed by Barchiesi et al. (2007). The researchers discovered that although high leadership score indices are unrelated to a team’s historical performance, they are linked to both a higher likelihood that the team’s performance would improve going forward and a better level of trustworthiness for the organizations these teams are affiliated with. Managers can benefit greatly from knowing about leadership styles since it makes them aware of how other people see them. With this understanding, leaders can more effectively communicate, gauge the needs of others, and build strong bonds.
Lewin’s Leadership Styles
The goal of Lewin (1939) and his associates was to categorize various leadership philosophies. Lewin’s original study served as a foundation for more specific leadership ideas, even if other researchers have found more. By 1939, Lewin et al. had started conducting experimental studies on group dynamics and leadership, focusing on how various leadership philosophies may affect productive work ethics.
Lewin supervised an arts and crafts project after dividing the students into three groups and assigning them to an authoritarian, democratic, or laissez-faire leader.
Autocratic Leadership Style
Alternatively referred to as autocratic leadership, this style centers on the leader. Clear expectations about what must be done, when it should be done, and how it should be done are provided by authoritarian leaders. Because the group’s leader takes decisions on their own, there is a rift between them as a result.
Unlike other leadership styles, this one allows for significantly speedier decision-making since it involves just one person as the decision-maker. This can help some groups perform better and experience less stress, such as tiny teams or nations engaged in a life-or-death battle. On the other hand, followers of autocratic leaders may become fearful and furious because they believe their opinions are not being heard.
At the highest level, an authoritarian leadership style might result in the leader missing out on fresh opportunities from people behind them and, eventually, a breakdown in communication. Decision-making hence tends to be less original. Lewin also came to the conclusion that switching from an authoritarian to a democratic leadership style—or vice versa—is harder than switching between other forms of leadership.
For these reasons, the optimal times to employ autocratic leadership styles are when prompt choices are required, strict monitoring is needed, and workflows need to be expedited. The most well-known autocrats are tyrants like Adolph Hitler and Napoleon Bonaparte, but under some circumstances, the approach may work well.
Think about how supplies are distributed and evacuation strategies are implemented both before and after a natural catastrophe. Those who typically make judgments about things like rescuing people and distributing food would not have much time if this natural calamity was really unexpected. Autocratic leadership, which enables the leader to make choices rapidly, has several advantages over democratic or laissez-faire leadership, which slows down the rate of decision-making. When subordinates lack the time or knowledge to learn about the issue at hand, autocratic leadership styles can also be helpful. Think of an airplane that lands on water, for instance. There is a time constraint on the flight attendants to get the passengers onto specially designed life rafts for evacuation. In this case, the flight attendants could take an authoritarian stance and give the passengers detailed directions on how to do the task at hand.
Democratic Leadership
According to Lewin’s original (1939) research on schoolchildren, democratic or participatory leadership was typically the most successful when it came to creating arts and crafts. Democratic group leaders provide direction, but they also welcome involvement and ideas from other members. Although the productivity of the youngsters in this group was lower than that of the authoritarian group, the quality of their contributions was greater.
Democratic leaders put more emphasis on the team than autocrats do, which means that team members collaborate to make decisions. Since each member contributes their unique perspective to the decision-making process, democratic teams that practice shared decision-making not only increase team morale but also foster a more cooperative work environment. This lowers the danger of total failure. The drawbacks of democratic leadership include the potential for delayed decision-making and an excessive reliance on individual members of the team. The combination of these two elements may result in a collaborative burden.
Lewin contends that ownership must be established and that skilled team members are the ideal candidates for democratic leadership. Democratic leaders want to give their followers more power by including them in decision-making, but they still retain the final say. The successful democratic leadership of Nelson Mandela and General Dwight Eisenhower are two historical examples.
In the business sector, a democratic CEO could take part in meetings with their subordinates where attendees can voice their thoughts. To ensure that all viewpoints are heard, quiet team members are expressly solicited for their comments. For instance, the democratic leader may take into account the input and viewpoints of a sizable group before determining how much to charge for a product.
Laissez-faire Leadership
Leaders that adopt a laissez-faire or free rein approach involve taking a passive position, refraining from trying to coordinate or guide the group, evaluating them neither favorably nor unfavorably, and adhering to the principle of minimal accountability.
In simpler words, rather than actively influencing decision-making, a laissez-faire leader lets the team make its own decisions. Subordinates are given complete control over goal-setting, problem-solving, and decision-making under this model. Building a solid team and then avoiding intervention is the aim of laissez-faire leadership, according to the leader. Laissez-faire leaders usually worry about how to create and communicate their vision, as well as what actions to take to make it a reality. But when the team has heard the leader out, it is their job to find out how to put the vision into action. In high-level organizations, laissez-faire leadership is typically implemented by senior leaders who designate other senior leaders and delegate specific problem-solving authority to them (Lewin, 1939).
Laissez-faire leadership has the benefit of instilling personal accountability. Another is that it facilitates speedy course corrections since driven individuals operating independently solve issues and change their route significantly more quickly than they would if they had to ask for permission.
In conclusion, laissez-faire leadership encourages better employee retention in businesses (Chaudhry & Javed, 2012). When an organization’s team members are highly talented and can get over obstacles more rapidly than they could if they were waiting for the leader to come up with a solution, laissez-faire leadership typically works best. Warren Buffet is arguably the most well-known example of laissez-faire leadership in the business sector.
Think of a research facility, for instance, where several highly qualified scientists are each working on their respective tasks. The lab leader may sit in the chair during the group discussion, but they will only speak up if a team member directly asks them to. Not the team leader, but individual members are free to discuss issues and work together to find solutions. Because of this, any scientist may work independently and feel accountable for their own study.
Summary
To sum up, strong leadership is essential to the development and prosperity of any company. The differences between laissez-faire, democratic, and authoritarian leadership philosophies highlight the many strategies that managers might use to motivate and direct their staff. Every style has advantages and disadvantages, proving that the demands and circumstances of the group are key factors in identifying the best leadership strategy. Understanding one’s leadership style improves individual performance and creates a more engaged and cooperative team environment, as demonstrated by several theories and research.
Author
