Leadership Styles Narrative Essay Example

Disadvantages of the various Leadership Styles 5. Some world Renowned Leaders: An Overview 6. Comparing the Leaders 7. Conclusion 8. Implications of the findings 9. End note 10. References I used to think that running an organization was equivalent to conducting a symphony orchestra. But I don't think that's quite it; it's more like jazz. There is more improvisation. Warren Bennis The best executive is the one who has sense enough to pick good men to do what he wants done, and has self-restraint to keep from meddling with them while they do it. Theodore Roosevelt

Good leaders are made not born. If you have the desire and willpower, you can become an effective leader. Good leaders develop through a never ending process of self-study, education, training, and experience. To inspire your workers into higher levels of teamwork, there are certain things one must be, know, and, do. These do not come naturally, but are acquired through continual work and study. Good leaders are continually working and studying to improve their leadership skills; they are NOT resting on their laurels.  Definition of Leadership Before we get started, lets define leadership.

Leadership is a process by which a person influences others to accomplish an objective and directs the organization in a way that makes it more cohesive and coherent. This definition is similar to Northouse's definition — Leadership is a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal. Leaders carry out this process by applying their leadership knowledge & skills. This is called Process Leadership. However, we know that we have traits that can influence our actions. This is called Trait Leadership

, in that it was once common to believe that leaders were born rather than made.

While leadership is learned, the skills and knowledge processed by the leader can be influenced by his or hers attributes or traits, such as beliefs, values, ethics & character. Knowledge and skills contribute directly to the process of leadership, while the other attributes give the leader certain characteristics that make him or her unique. Four Factors of Leadership There are four major factors in leadership: [pic] Leader You must have an honest understanding of who you are, what you know, and what you can do.

Also, note that it is the followers, not the leader or someone else who determines if the leader is successful. If they do not trust or lack confidence in their leader, then they will be uninspired. To be successful you have to convince your followers, not yourself or your superiors, that you are worthy of being followed. Followers Different people require different styles of leadership. For example, a new hire requires more supervision than an experienced employee. A person who lacks motivation requires a different approach than one with a high degree of motivation.

You must know your people! The fundamental starting point is having a good understanding of human nature, such as needs, emotions, and motivation. You must come to know your employees' be, know, and do attributes. Communication You lead through two-way communication. Much of it is nonverbal. For instance, when you "set the example," that communicates to your people that you would not ask them to perform anything that you would not be willing to do. What and how you communicate either builds or

harms the relationship between you and your employees. Situation All situations are different.

What you do in one situation will not always work in another. You must use your judgment to decide the best course of action and the leadership style needed for each situation. For example, you may need to confront an employee for inappropriate behavior, but if the confrontation is too late or too early, too harsh or too weak, then the results may prove ineffective. Also note that the situation normally has a greater effect on a leader's action than his or her traits. This is because while traits may have an impressive stability over a period of time, they have little consistency across situations.

This is why a number of leadership scholars think the Process Theory of Leadership is a more accurate than the Trait Theory of Leadership. Various forces will affect these four factors. Examples of forces are your relationship with your seniors, the skill of your followers, the informal leaders within your organization, and how your organization is organized. Boss or Leader? Although your position as a manager, supervisor, lead, etc. gives you the authority to accomplish certain tasks and objectives in the organization (called Assigned Leadership), this power does not make you a leader, it simply makes you the boss.

Leadership differs in that it makes the followers want to achieve high goals (called Emergent Leadership), rather than simply bossing people around. Thus you get Assigned Leadership by your position and you display Emergent Leadership by influencing people to do great things. [pic] What makes a person want to follow a Leader? People want to be guided by those they respect

and who have a clear sense of direction. To gain respect, they must be ethical. A sense of direction is achieved by conveying a strong vision of the future.

When a person is deciding if she respects you as a leader, she does not think about your attributes, rather, she observes what you do so that she can know who you really are. She uses this observation to tell if you are an honorable and trusted leader or a self-serving person who misuses authority to look good and get promoted. Self-serving leaders are not as effective because their employees only obey them, not follow them. They succeed in many areas because they present a good image to their seniors at the expense of their workers. Be. Know. Do The basis of good leadership is honorable character and selfless service to your organization.

In your employees' eyes, your leadership is everything you do that effects the organization's objectives and their well-being. Respected leaders concentrate on (U. S. Army, 1983): what they are be (such as beliefs and character) what they know (such as job, tasks, and human nature) what they do (such as implementing, motivating and providing direction). What makes a person want to follow a leader? People want to be guided by those they respect and who have a clear sense of direction. To gain respect, they must be ethical. A sense of direction is achieved by conveying a strong vision of the future.

The Two Most Important Keys to Effective Leadership According to a study by the Hay Group, a global management consultancy, there are 75 key components of employee satisfaction. They found that: Trust and confidence

in top leadership was the single most reliable predictor of employee satisfaction in an organization. Effective communication by leadership in three critical areas was the key to winning organizational trust and confidence: Helping employees understand the company's overall business strategy. Helping employees understand how they contribute to achieving key business objectives.

Sharing information with employees on both how the company is doing and how an employee's own division is doing — relative to strategic business objectives. So in a nutshell — you must be trustworthy and you have to be able to communicate a vision of where the organization needs to go. Principles of Leadership Know yourself and seek self-improvement - In order to know yourself, you have to understand your be, know, and do, attributes. Seeking self-improvement means continually strengthening your attributes. This can be accomplished through self-study, formal classes, reflection, and interacting with others.

Be technically proficient - As a leader, you must know your job and have a solid familiarity with your employees' tasks. Seek responsibility and take responsibility for your actions - Search for ways to guide your organization to new heights. And when things go wrong, they always do sooner or later — do not blame others. Analyze the situation, take corrective action, and move on to the next challenge. Make sound and timely decisions - Use good problem solving, decision making, and planning tools. Set the example - Be a good role model for your employees. They must not only hear what they are expected to do, but also see.

We must become the change we want to see - Mahatma Gandhi Know your people and look out for their well-being -

Know human nature and the importance of sincerely caring for your workers. Keep your workers informed - Know how to communicate with not only them, but also seniors and other key people. Develop a sense of responsibility in your workers - Help to develop good character traits that will help them carry out their professional responsibilities. Ensure that tasks are understood, supervised, and accomplished - Communication is the key to this responsibility.

Train as a team - Although many so called leaders call their organization, department, section, etc. a team; they are not really teams... they are just a group of people doing their jobs. Use the full capabilities of your organization - By developing a team spirit, you will be able to employ your organization, department, section, etc. to its fullest capabilities. The Process of Great Leadership The road to great leadership that is common to successful leaders: Challenge the process - First, find a process that you believe needs to be improved the most.

Inspire a shared vision - Next, share your vision in words that can be understood by your followers. Enable others to act - Give them the tools and methods to solve the problem. Model the way - When the process gets tough, get your hands dirty. A boss tells others what to do, a leader shows that it can be done. Encourage the heart - Share the glory with your followers' hearts, while keeping the pains within your own. Leading & Leadership Goals Your thinking skills can be considered directional skills because they set the direction for your organization.

They provide vision, purpose, and goal definition. These are your eyes and ears

to the future, allowing you to recognize the need for change, when to make it, how to implement it, and how to manage it. You find vision by reaching for any available reason to change, grow, and improve. Just as you perform preventive maintenance on your car, you must perform preventive maintenance on your organization. Do NOT believe in the old adage, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," for the people who do, go broke! Treat every project as a change effort. Treat every job as a new learning experience.

Good organizations convey a strong vision of where they will be in the future. As a leader, you have to get your people to trust you and be sold on your vision. Using the leadership tools described in this guide and being honest and fair in all you do will provide you with the ammo you need to gain their trust. To sell them on your vision, you need to possess energy and display a positive attitude that is contagious. People want a strong vision of where they are going. No one wants to be stuck in a dead-end company going nowhere... or a company headed in the wrong direction.

They want to be involved with a winner! And your people are the ones who will get you to that goal. You cannot do it alone! When setting goals, keep these points in mind: They should be realistic and attainable. They should improve the organization (morale, monetary, etc. ). All the people should be involved in the goal-setting process. A program should be developed to achieve each goal. Inspiring Your Employees Getting people to accomplish something

is much easier if they have the inspiration to do so. Inspire means "to breathe life into. " And in order to perform that, we have to have some life ourselves.

Three main actions will aid you in accomplishing this: 1. Be passionate: In organizations where the is a leader with great enthusiasm about a project, a trickle-down effect will occur. You must be committed to the work you are doing. If you do not communicate excitement, how can you expect your people to get worked up about it? 2. Get your employees involved in the decision making process: People who are involved in the decision making process participate much more enthusiastically than those who just carry out their boss's order. Help them contribute and tell them you value their opinions.

Listen to them and incorporate their ideas when it makes sense to so. 3. Know what your organization is about! : The fundamental truth, as General Creighton W. Abrams used to say in the mid-1970s, is that “the Army is not made up of people. The Army is people. Every decision we make is a people issue. ” Your organization is the same. It may make a product or sell a service, but it is still people! A leader's primary responsibility is to develop people and enable them to reach their full potential. Your people may come from diverse backgrounds, but they all have goals they want to accomplish.

Create a "people environment" where they truly can be all they can be. The 1960's Oscar Ichazo in the 1960’s and expanded by others, this leadership theory breaks the styles down into 9 categories; Idealists, Mentors, Achiever, Innovators,

Synthesizers, Partners, Cheerleaders, Challengers, and Diplomats. Each of these categories is associated with a different central fixation or passion in people’s personalities. It is wise to note that no style reflects better leadership capabilities than any other.

There are equally successful as well as ineffective leaders within each style. Each leadership style is examined below in greater detail. The Idealist: The Idealists are leaders whose fixation is perfection. At their best, Idealists will focus on high standard of excellence. They are seen as wise and discerning leaders with strong personal convictions and are extremely ethical. A highly developed Idealist can provide a proper vision for those they lead, and can be excellent teachers. But the idealist can often lack patient and chastises those around him for falling short of perfection.

They can lapse into self righteousness and intolerance. Anger is said to be the motivating force behind their personality. Since the Idealist is susceptible to anger, he can at times erupt with out warning when someone fails to live up to his high expectation. Example of an Idealist: Mahatma Gandhi The Mentor: The leadership style of the Mentor can often be characterized as compassionate and caring. They are highly empathetic individuals who are able to see the best in others. They are champions of customer service in the work place, and gain their deepest satisfaction from helping to develop others.

The Mentor is motivated by a desired to be loved, needed and appreciated. When this desire is not met, or they perceive they are being betrayal, they can become vindictive. Mentors may also have trouble saying “no” to others. To be at their most effective they need to

set clear boundaries with those they lead. Example of a Mentor: Mother Teresa. The Achiever: Having vanity as their driving force, the Achievers are often go-getters who are willing to take risk to ensure success for the projects or organizations they lead. This type of leader is extremely efficient and goal oriented as well as a great self-promoter.

The Achiever is often seen as charming and gracious. Yet for all his ability to drive toward the goal, the Achiever can at times be blinded to reality or to failures along the way. They may also be viewed as exploitative and opportunistic, setting their personal goals ahead of those of the team. Example of a Achiever: Bill Clinton. The Innovator: Every Organization can use an Innovator in a leadership role. With his unique ability to see things from a different perspective, this style of leadership will usually bring a fresh new outlook to a project or a problem.

They are generally able to learn and master most skills that interest them. The Innovator is fixated on dissatisfaction, and as such always wonders if there is a better way of doing things. Yet dissatisfaction may at times cause Innovators to be unable to live in the moment, and often times they have trouble seeing things the way the rest of the team or organization sees them. Left to their dissatisfaction for long periods of time, the Innovator may withdrawn and become reclusive. Example of an Innovator: Albert Einstein The Synthesizer:

Often capable of exerting influence on those around them, the synthesizer has the ability to see the big picture and quickly find ways to integrate various elements of a project

together. This type of leader may exhibit great insight into problems and the intelligence required to find the proper solutions. At their best, they can be leaders of great vision and strategy. The fixation of the Synthesizer is detachment from emotions. This serves him well in the ability to integrate complex components, but it may lead him to be less than sympathetic to those around them.

This trait may also cause the Synthesizer to be poor at giving positive reinforcement to those he leads. Example of a Synthesizer: Richard Nixon The Partner: With fear as the chief driving force of their personality, the Partner tends to be a highly team oriented leader who bring out the best in others. Their worries can translate well into the ability of challenging others in ways that makes them accountable for their role within the team. Partners are seen as trustworthy, reliable, and capable of sacrifice for others. Fear though can also cause self-doubt within Partners, and they may put off decisive actions on issues that trouble them.

Some may take up the habit of looking for hidden agendas within the sub-ordinates they lead. Example of a Partner: Colin Powell The Cheerleader: The charms and easy going nature of the Cheerleader can play a vital role in an organization. The Cheerleader are generally multi-talented and able to achieve distinction in various roles. Their fixation is on enthusiasm, and their optimistic nature may lead them to focus mostly on the good instead of the bad in a situation. Because of their reluctance to see the bad side of a situation, the Cheerleader may become a poor contingency planner when leading a team,

project or organization.

At times they may gloss over details and not be as analytical as the task may require. Example of a Cheerleader: John F. Kennedy The Challenger: With their extreme self confidence and rather soft heart, the Challenger can inspire loyalty from those he leads. The Challenger is driven by a fixation on power. They can take on vast amounts of responsibility, are highly independent, and show great courage in the face of adversity. Challengers are willing to get in harms way in order to accomplish their goals and objectives. Yet this need for power can sometimes result in the Challenger being viewed as a tyrant.

They can also have problems admitting to any personal weaknesses, and have a tendency to become self absorbed. Example of an Advocate: Fidel Castro The Diplomat: The Diplomat is a leader capable of building cooperation within a project or organization. They are the organization’s referees. Challengers are also gifted at resolving problems between those who work for them, fostering group unity. Diplomats also have the ability to get along with anyone and are trusting of those around them. They are champions of diversity within the work place.

Often the draw back to their abilities to see all sides of an issue is that they may become out of touch with their own wishes. Motivated by a need to find harmony within their environment, the Diplomat may also become neglectful of real problems. Example of a Diplomat: Abraham Lincoln History of Transactional, Transformational & Servant Leadership. Transactional leaders focus on performance. In the late 1970s, leadership theory research moved beyond focusing on various types of situational supervision as a way to

incrementally improve organizational performance (Behling & McFillen, 1996; Hunt, 1991).

Research has shown that many leaders turned to a transactional leadership theory, the most prevalent method of leadership still observed in today’s organizations (Avolio, Waldman, & Yanimarina, 1991; Seltzer & Bass, 1990). Transactional leaders lead through specific incentives and motivate through an exchange of one thing for another (Bass, 1990). The underlying theory of this leadership method was that leaders exchange rewards for employees’ compliance, a concept based on bureaucratic authority and a leader’s legitimacy within an organization (Tracey & Hinkin, 1994; Yukl, 1998).

Avolio, Waldman, and Yammarino (1991) suggest that transactional leadership focuses on ways to manage the status quo and maintain the day-to-day operations of a business, but does not focus on identifying the organization’s directional focus and how employees can work toward those goals, increasing their productivity in alignment with these goals, thus increasing organizational profitability. The idea of transactional leadership is nearsighted in that it does not take the entire situation, employee, or future of the organization into account when offering rewards (Crosby, 1996). Figure 1.

Transactional leadership focuses on leaders managing day-to-day business operations (L=Leader and F=Follower) Transactional Leadership theory focuses on the specific interactions between leaders and followers (Burns, 1978; Heifetz, 1994). These transactions are a method by which an individual gains influence and sustains it over time. The process is based on reciprocity. Leaders not only influence followers but are under their influence as well. A leader earns influence by adjusting to the expectations of followers. Transactional interactions comprise the bulk of relationships between leaders and followers (Burns, 1978).

The underlying theory of this leadership method was that leaders exchange rewards for

employees’ compliance, a concept based in bureaucratic authority and a leader’s legitimacy within an organization (Tracey & Hinkin, 1994; Yukl, 1998). Examples of this reward exchange included the leader’s ability to fulfill promises of recognition, pay increases, and advancements for employees who perform well (Bass, 1990). Transactional leadership is a theory considered to be value-free; however, Heifetz (1994) contends that the values are simply covert.

Transactional leadership focuses on ways to maintain the status quo and manage the day-to-day operations of a business. It does not focus on identifying the organization’s goals and how employees can work toward and increase their productivity in alignment with these goals, thus increasing organizational profitability (Avolio, Waldman, & Yammarino, 1991). Transactional leaders approach followers with a goal of exchanging one thing for another (Burns, 1978). The concept of transactional leadership is narrow in that it does not take the entire situation, employee, or future of the organization in mind when offering rewards (Crosby, 1996).

Transactional leadership focuses on control, not adaptation (Tracey & Hinkin, 1994). The focus of effective leadership began to change. Leaders were no longer required to measure work and ensure that the most effective person did it in the most efficient manner–which did not always increase the organization’s productivity and profitability anyway. Leaders now needed active involvement from the followers to achieve the organization’s goals. Douglas McGregor, closely linked to the work of the behavioral theorists, provided a basis for a new emerging theory of leadership–transformational leadership.

Transformational Leaders focus on Organizations The literature reviewed suggests that traditional power, derived from a leader’s position in a bureaucratic, hierarchical structure, is becoming obsolete and that effective leaders work from the

“inside out” to transform their organization and workers (Burns, 1978). The job of the transformational leader is not to make every decision within the organization, but to ensure that collaborative decision-making occurs (Badaracco & Ellsworth, 1989; Book, 1998; Dixon, 1998; Wheatley, 1994).

This type of leadership motivates individuals to work together to change organizations to create sustainable productivity (Dixon, 1998). In contrast to focusing on where the organization is today and only maintaining the status quo (the end result of transactional leadership), transformational leaders look at where the organization should be heading and determine how to handle internal and external change and employee needs to reach that goal (Avolio, Waldman, & Yammarino, 1991; Pawar & Eastman, 1997; Tichey & Devanna, 1986). Transformational leadership is an expansion of transactional leadership (Bass & Avolio, 1994).

In the field of leadership studies, transformational leadership has been the theory of choice for the past several decades (Patterson, 2003;Pawar & Eastman, 1997; Rainey & Watson, 1996). The theory originated with Burns (1978), was expanded by Bass (1985), and has been further refined by Bass and Avolio (1994). As conceived by Burns (1978), the transformational leader asks followers to transcend their own self- interests for the good of the group, organization, or society; to consider their long-term needs to develop themselves, as opposed to their immediate needs; and to become more aware of what is really important.

Through this interaction, followers are converted into leaders. Bass and Avolio (1988) conclude that transformational leadership is closer to the ne plus ultra that people have in mind when they describe their ideal leader and is more likely to provide a role model with whom subordinates want

to identify. Burns (1978) touts Mahatma Gandhi as the best modern-day example of a transformational leader because he aroused and elevated the hope and demands of millions of his countrymen whose lives were transformed in the process.

Yukl (1998) reports that transformational leadership focuses on a leader’s understanding of their affect on how followers feel trust, admiration, loyalty, and respect toward the leader and how followers are motivated to do more than expected. This type of leader broadens and elevates the interest of his followers by modeling the expected behavior and “stirring” followers to look beyond their own immediate, personal needs to embrace the needs of others.

Bass and Avolio developed Burns’ ideas and posited the formal concept of transformational leadership. Transactional leadership is based on bureaucratic authority, focuses on task completion, and relies on rewards and punishments. Transformational leadership differs substantially from transactional leadership. It is concerned more about progress and development. Furthermore, transformational leadership enhances the effects of transactional leadership on followers.

Figure 2. Transformational leadership With transformational leadership, the leader's focus is directed toward the organization, but leader behavior builds follower commitment toward the organizational objectives through empowering followers to accomplish those objectives. While transactional leaders focus on exchange relations with followers, transformational leaders inspire followers to higher levels of performance for the sake of the organization.

The very definition of transformational leadership states the building of commitment to the organizational objectives (Yukl). The primary focus is on the organization, with follower development and empowerment secondary to accomplishing the organizational objectives. The result, nonetheless, is enhanced follower performance (Burns; Yukl). Avolio, Waldman, and Yammarino (1991) established four primary behaviors that constitute transformational leadership: 1. idealized influence

(or charismatic influence), 2. inspirational motivation, 3. intellectual stimulation, and . individualized consideration. Ultimately, transformational leaders can develop a very powerful influence over followers. Followers respect and trust transformational leaders, so they conform their values to those of the leaders and yield power to them. Peters and Waterman (1982) assert that the true role of leadership is to manage the values of an organization; hence, all leadership is value-laden. For this reason, it is paramount that leaders using the transformational leadership theory understand how their values affect the organization.

Likewise, Barnard (1968) also understood this concept when he wrote, “the endurance of an organization depends upon the quality of leadership; and that quality derives from the breadth of the morality upon which it rests” Through the influence of a leader’s values, transformational leadership requires the leader to balance multiple constituency needs along with individual and organizational values and beliefs (Carlson & Perrewe. Figure 3. Transformational Ledaership Process Keller (1995) suggests that the transformational leader is able to help the employee achieve esteem and self-actualization needs.

Consequently, the followers of transformational leaders are quicker to adapt to changing internal and external environments. Their ability to quickly adapt to change allows them to function well in an increasingly complex environment. A leader must be fully committed to the transformation and the commitment must be visible to organizational members and external stakeholders. Table 3 summarizes some of the strategies and characteristics of transformational leaders proposed by different researchers. Trust between a leader and his or her followers is a cornerstone of trans-formational leadership.

Covey (1989) writes, “Trust is the highest form of human motivation because it brings out the very best

in people”. It creates a moral foundation for extraordinary, values-based transformational leadership, creating effective, sustaining leadership that leads to profitable and successful organizations. Leading from a moral basis allows full organizational transformation to occur as all of the leader’s skills emerge to positively influence followers. This moral basis starts, and ends, with trust.

Trust relies on the leader’s character, which makes values-based leadership possible (Maxwell, 1998). Figure 4. Transformational leadership strategies and characteristics The Servant Leader Focus on the Followers Transformational leadership and servant leadership are both high-order evolutions in leadership paradigms. Both theoretical frameworks emphasize a high concern for people and for production. Servant leadership, however, involves a higher concern for people because the primary focus of the leader is upon his or her followers.

Block (1993) posits that there is a deep hunger within our society for organizations in which people are treated fairly and humanely and supported in their personal growth and where leaders can be trusted to serve the needs of the “many” rather than the “few. ” Block called for a new model of leadership based on teamwork, community, values, service, and caring behavior. This approach to leadership based on the concepts of servant hood serendipitously serves organizations the best in the long run (Caldwell, Bischoff, & Karri, 2002). Servant leadership is a logical extension of transformational leadership.

Servant leaders lead an organization by focusing on their followers, such that the followers are the primary concern and the organizational concerns are peripheral. In contrast to transformational leadership, servant leaders focus first and foremost on their followers. Servant leaders do not have particular affinity for the abstract corporation or organization; rather, they value the

people who constitute the organization. This is not an emotional endeavor but rather an unconditional concern for the well-being of those who form the entity. This relational context is where the servant leader actually leads.

Harvey (2001) states that "chasing profits is peripheral; the real point of business is to serve as one of the institutions through which society develops and exercises the capacity for constructive action" The servant leader does not serve with a focus on results but rather on service. Lubin (2001) proffers that the servant leader's first responsibilities are relationships and people, and those relationships take precedence over the task and product. Servant leaders trust their followers to act in the best interest of the organization, even though the leaders do not primarily focus on organizational objectives.

According to Bass (2000), servant leadership is "close to the transformational components of inspiration and individualized consideration" However, the stress of servant leadership is upon the leader’s aim to serve. This desire to serve people supersedes organizational objectives. Servant leadership is a belief that organizational goals will be achieved on a long-term basis only by first facilitating the growth, development, and general well-being of the individuals who comprise the organization.

Harvey (2001) contends that the servant leader’s primary objective is the workers and their growth, then the customer base, and finally the organizational bottom line. Robert K. Greenleaf (1904-1990) is credited with originating the servant leadership concept among modern organizational theorists. In Greenleaf’s  opinion, leadership must primarily meet the needs of others. The focus of servant leadership is on others rather than upon self and on an understanding of the role of the leader as a servant.

Self-interest should

not motivate servant leadership; rather, it should ascend to a higher plane of motivation. The servant leader’s primary motivation is to serve and meet the needs of others, which should be the prime motivation for all leaders. Servant leaders develop people, helping them to strive and flourish. Servant leaders provide vision, earn followers’ credibility and trust, and influence others. According to Stone and Patterson (2004), the principal difference between transformational leadership and servant eadership is the leader’s focus. The overriding focus of servant leaders is on service to their followers. The extent to which leaders are able to shift the primary focus of their leadership from the organization to the follower is the distinguishing factor in determining whether the leader may be a transformational or servant leader. There is greater emphasis upon service of and to followers in the servant leadership paradigm. Servant leaders gain influence in a nontraditional manner that derives from servant hood itself.

In so doing, they allow extraordinary freedom for followers to exercise their own abilities. They also place a much higher degree of trust in their followers than would be the case in any leadership style that required the leader to be somewhat directive. Patterson's (2005) research has led to a servant leadership model encompassing seven virtuous constructs exhibited as behaviors by a servant leader and their interaction. These seven behaviors are agapao love, humility, altruism, vision, trust, empowerment, and service.

These virtues become constructs when activated within the context of servant leadership behaviors. The model is based in virtuous construct of agapao love, although the desire to serve has to be present to be a possible outcome. Figure 5. The theory

of servant leadership model The servant leader’s motive is not to direct the activities of followers. Instead, the servant leader's behavior motivates, influences, inspires, and empowers followers to focus on ways to serve others better. It is a humble means for affecting follower behavior.

Servant leaders rely upon service to establish the purposes for meaningful work and to provide needed resources. It is a characteristically unique method for stimulating and influencing the behavior of others. Servant leaders, however, derive influence from service itself. They develop relationships where followers are encouraged to follow their lead of service. McKenna (1989) notes that servant-power is a category of influence outside the traditional kinds of power. Real servant hood is a leadership style that relies upon the influence of self-giving without self-glory. Autocratic Leadership What is Autocratic Leadership? Autocratic leadership can be said to be synonymous to dictatorship where only one person has the authority over the followers or workers. Their decision has to be taken as the golden rule and should never be questioned. They plan out everything and order their subordinates to work according to their rules. 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 utilise 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. For instance, if a company has an autocratic leader as the Managing Director, the employees in the company would have to work as

per the rules set down by him. They would not be expected to make any contribution from their side, which may actually help in enhancing the productivity of the company.

In short, the autocratic leader has full control of those around him and believes to have the complete authority to treat them as he wants. History According to Money Zine, "The Autocratic Leadership Style was first described by Lewin, Lippitt, and White in 1938 along with the democratic leadership and the laissez-faire leadership styles. The autocratic leadership style is sometimes referred to as the directive leadership style. " The characteristics include: the boss's ideas rule; there is limited employee input; and the work methods are dictated the the boss.

There is very little flexibility to decision making and rules are strictly adhered to allow the leader of the company full control. This form of control or authority can be viewed as a dictatorship. This type of leader is likely to use force, manipulation or coercion to achieve company objectives. The idea is that employees are not to be trusted, only controlled. Characteristics Of An Autocratic Leader He takes all the decisions. His right to lead is derived from his positional authority. He rewards with wage increases and praise and also punishes by imposing penalties.

He describes each job in detail and imposes rigid work standards on his employees. Tough Autocrat Is Useful When Subordinates are new to the job and have no experience. In an emergency when the decisions must be taken immediately. When a work group becomes complacent and needs to be goaded into action. When a disciplinary action is called for and when hostility and aggressiveness

are to be dealt with effectively. Short term projects with a highly technical, complex or risky element. Work environments where spans of control are wide and hence the manager has little time to devote to each employee.

Industries where employees need to perform low-skilled, monotonous and repetitive tasks and generally have low levels of motivation. Projects where the work performed needs to be completed to exact specifications and/or with a tight deadline. 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. Autocratic Leadership Is Not Desirable When The employees are knowledgeable about their job and have considerable experience.

An established and successful workgroup has already been formed and is working successfully. A job calls for teamwork and cooperation among employees. The supervisor is interested in improving the morale and group attitudes towards the management. Autocratic Leaders in the Workplace The down side is that some studies suggest that organizations with lots of autocratic leaders have higher turnover and absenteeism than other organizations. With today's emphasis on joint decision making and empowerment, employees just entering the workforce will be highly resistant to this management style.

So the autocratic leadership style should be not be used when you want to get your employees engaged in the decision making process. Autocratic leaders are also not very effective in situations where your employees might become resentful or fearful. Finally, if you company is struggling with low morale or is interested in building employee relationships, an autocratic leadership style will only make

things worse. Theories/Speculation In result, this method of leadership may lead to more pressure from the boss on the rest of the employees that push back on that management method.

The lack of harmony in the workplace can go down a slippery slope fast. Theft and other issues may arise due to the lack of workplace satisfaction. In Smart Entrepreneur, "This is one of the least desirable when it comes to building trusting relationships and making friends! In this system, one person has control over all of the workers or followers. " Making friends is an important part of life, and if this is destroyed, it can create an unhappy environment. This translates to the quality of work, and not being seen as human can cause more resistance to new aspects of the job.

A little autonomy and a limited social appeal can make a difference in retaining good workers. Moreover, the lack of sharing responsibility among workers can stifle creative ideas that can eventually make the company more competitive. The End of Autocratic Leadership When leadership is defined as promoting new directions and is not associated with position, then there is no longer any such thing as autocratic leadership. Yes, the person in charge of a group can make unilateral decisions but this is managerial action, not leadership.

On this view, leadership is always based on informal influence or persuasion. Leadership can also be shown by example. The implication of this move is that any time an executive makes a decision that affects the group's well being or direction, the executive is wearing a managerial hat, not showing leadership. In other words, leadership cannot be shown by

telling people what to do. Still, managers need to be autocratic at times, such as emergencies and to resolve conflict that cannot be resolved in any other way. Conclusion The pros and cons of autocratic leadership are clear for certain situations.

For example, emergencies require a strong leader to keep order. However, in less stressful circumstances, it may be better to debate an issue before proceeding for the best result. Autocratic leaders may not be good at communication, but they sometimes have the best ideas. On the other hand, autocratic leaders must also take full responsibility for the results. This last part does not usually occur, and this leaves many employees unhappy and feeling undervalued. Therefore, the dynamic of the relationship in the professional environment must change to become more equal.

Otherwise, you may a have strong leader with no followers, or employees that have no direction. ~Charismatic Leadership The sociologist Max Weber defined charismatic authority as "resting on devotion to the exceptional sanctity, heroism or exemplary character of an individual person, and of the normative patterns or order revealed or ordained by him. " Charismatic authority is one of three forms of authority laid out in Weber's tripartite classification of authority the other two being traditional authority & rational-legal authority.

The concept has acquired wide usage among sociologists. Style The Charismatic Leader gathers followers through dint of personality and charm, rather than any form of external power or authority. The searchlight of attention It is interesting to watch a Charismatic Leader 'working the room' as they move from person to person. They pay much attention to the person they are talking to at any one moment, making

that person feel like they are, for that time, the most important person in the world.

Charismatic Leaders pay a great deal of attention in scanning and reading their environment, and are good at picking up the moods and concerns of both individuals and larger audiences. They then will hone their actions and words to suit the situation. Pulling all of the strings Charismatic Leaders use a wide range of methods to manage their image and, if they are not naturally charismatic, may practice assiduously at developing their skills. They may engender trust through visible self-sacrifice and taking personal risks in the name of their beliefs.

They will show great confidence in their followers. They are very persuasive and make very effective use of body language as well as verbal language. Deliberate charisma is played out in a theatrical sense, where the leader is 'playing to the house' to create a desired effect. They also make effective use of storytelling, including the use of symbolism and metaphor. Many politicians use a charismatic style, as they need to gather a large number of followers. If you want to increase your charisma, studying videos of their speeches and the way they interact with others is a great source of learning.

Religious leaders, too, may well use charisma, as do cult leaders. Leading the team Charismatic Leaders who are building a group, whether it is a political party, a cult or a business team, will often focus strongly on making the group very clear and distinct, separating it from other groups. They will then build the image of the group, in particular in the minds of their followers, as being far

superior to all others. The Charismatic Leader will typically attach themselves firmly to the identify of the group, such that to join the group is to become one with the leader.

In doing so, they create an unchallengeable position for themselves. Alternative views The description above is purely based on charisma and takes into account varying moral positions. Other descriptions tend to assume a more benevolent approach. Conger & Kanungo (1998) describe five behavioral attributes of Charismatic Leaders that indicate a more transformational viewpoint: Vision and articulation; Sensitivity to the environment; Sensitivity to member needs; Personal risk taking; Performing unconventional behaviour.

Musser (1987) notes that charismatic leaders seek to instill both commitment to ideological goals and also devotion to themselves. The extent to which either of these two goals is dominant depends on the underlying motivations and needs of the leader. Is Charismatic Leadership Essential? Charismatic leadership is leadership based on the leader's ability to communicate and behave in ways that reach followers on a basic, emotional way, to inspire and motivate. We often speak of some sports and political leaders as charismatic (or not) -- an example being John F. Kennedy.

It's difficult to identify the characteristics that make a leader "charismatic", but they certainly include the ability to communicate on a very powerful emotional level, and probably include some personality traits. Developing "charisma" is difficult, if not impossible for many people, but luckily charismatic leadership is not essential to be an effective leader. Many other characteristics are involved in leading effectively, and there is significant evidence to indicate that it simply is not necessary to have this elusive charisma to lead others well. Relying on charisma

to lead also can be problematic.

For example, there have been many charismatic leaders who lack other leadership characteristics and skills (e. g. integrity) and lead their followers into situations that turn out horribly -- think political leaders such as Stalin, Hitler, and even business leaders (Enron). Finally, in organizations lead by charismatic leaders, there is a major problem regarding succession. What happens when a leader who relies on charisma leaves? Often the organization founders because the ability to lead rested with one person's charisma. When Is It Used? Charismatic leadership is great for short-term projects.

As long as you are working on a task that can be completed in a semester, you don’t have to worry so much about your group falling apart with the loss of leadership. Charismatic leaders are great for projects that require energy and talent. Drama assignments, writing assignments, sports-related tasks, art projects—these activities could be very successful when led by a charismatic person. Can charisma be learned? Charisma is a special quality that people possess that serves as a magnet, of sorts, but it is really made up of many traits. One of the most important element is self-confidence.

People who appear confident instill confidence in those around them. Another element of charisma is great communication ability—and that starts with a strong and effective vocabulary. It would be a great idea to build upon those elements to make yourself as charismatic as possible! Style Versus Substance If you developed the next Google, iPod or Playstation, people would follow you even if you had zero charisma. You have still shown leadership even if all your followers are total opportunists. Any time you champion

a new product or way of working to your colleagues or superiors, you show thought leadership.

You could be like the stereotypical creative person: obnoxious, unsociable and unpredictable, but if you demonstrate the value of your ideas, you will gain followers. Conversely, charismatic leadership is more about style than substance. Ardent followers will identify with the content promoted by charismatic leaders. But they may not need proof to get on the bandwagon. They may be swayed mainly by the charismatic leader’s charm and magnetic personality. Often we rationalize our devotion to such leaders by pointing to their policies although they may be no different from what competing leaders are offering.

We don’t like to believe that we could vote for someone just because of their looks or sex appeal. The Power of Charisma Is Limited The fact is that we are living in a knowledge-driven world where business is increasingly a war of ideas. The ability to innovate is now an essential source of competitive advantage. In this world, thought leaders rule. As prospective followers, today’s knowledge workers are less swayed by any form of authority. They respect their own knowledge and won’t listen to claims not based on solid evidence. There is still room for charismatic leaders.

First of all, emotional engagement and personal attraction will never disappear. Second, in fields where values carry more weight than facts, such as religion and politics, the charismatic leader can still win large followings. In politics, for example, it is hard to prove that one policy will work better than another and many politicians have very similar policies. So, here it comes down to personal appeal and impact. ~Democratic/Participative Leadership

The democratic leadership style is also called the participative style as it encourages employees to be a part of the decision making.

The democratic manager keeps his or her employees informed about everything that affects their work and shares decision making and problem solving responsibilities. This style requires the leader to be a coach who has the final say, but gathers information from staff members before making a decision. Democratic leadership can produce high quality and high quantity work for long periods of time. Many employees like the trust they receive and respond with cooperation, team spirit, and high morale. Under democratic leadership, the people have a more participatory role in the decision making process.

One person retains final say over all decisions but allows others to share insight and ideas. This is often a highly effective form of leadership. People are more likely to excel in their positions and develop more skills when they feel empowered, and people are empowered when they are involved in the decision-making process. Although it may take some time to achieve full participation from a group, the end result will be rewarding if you can manage to establish a power-sharing environment in your group project. You will find that democratic practices often lead to a more productive and higher quality work group.

Typically the democratic leader: --Develops plans to help employees evaluate their own performance --Allows employees to establish goals --Encourages employees to grow on the job and be promoted -- Recognizes & encourages achievement. Examples of democratic leadership: Asking all group members for ideas and input. Voting on the best course of action in a project. Asking group members to work

with their strengths and provide input on how to divide the work. Enabling members to work at their own pace and set their own deadlines. When should Democratic Leadership be used?

When situations change frequently, democratic leadership offers a great deal of flexibility to adapt to better ways of doing things. Unfortunately, it is also somewhat slow to make a decision in this structure, so while it may embrace newer and better methods; it might not do so very quickly. Democratic leadership style can bring the best out of an experienced and professional team. It capitalizes on their skills and talents by letting them share their views, rather than simply expecting them to conform. If a decision is very complex and broad, it is important to have the different areas of expertise epresented and contributing input – this is where democratic leader shines. When the leader wants to keep employees informed about matters that affect them & wants to share in decision-making and problem-solving duties. The leader wants to provide opportunities for employees to develop a high sense of personal growth and job satisfaction & there is a large or complex problem that requires lots of input to solve. Changes must be made or problems solved that affect employees or groups of employee The manager wants to encourage team building and participation. Democratic leadership should not be used when:

There is not enough time to get everyone’s input. It’s easier and more cost-effective for the manager to make the decision. The business can’t afford mistakes. The manager feels threatened by this type of leadership. Employee safety is a critical concern. Good fits for Democratic Leadership: Creative groups

(advertising, design): ideas need to flow in creative environments to find create new concepts and designs. Consulting: when paid to explore problems and find solutions, your role will be to explore the possibilities in depth, and that means there has to be a great deal of exploration and open discussion.

Much of the Service industry: new ideas allow for more flexibility to changing customer demands. Education: few places need to be open to different ideas than education, both by educators and their students. How to be effective with this position: Keep communication open: If the marketplace of ideas is going to be open for business, everyone needs to feel comfortable enough to put their ideas on the table. The democratic leadership style thrives when all the considerations are laid out for everyone to examine. Focus the discussion: It’s hard to keep unstructured discussion productive.

It’s the leader’s job to balance being open to ideas and keeping everything on-topic. If the conversation begins to stray, remind everyone of the goal on hand and then steer it back. Make sure to take note of off-topic comments and try to return to them when they are pertinent. Be ready to commit: In the democratic leadership style, you get presented with so many possibilities and suggestions that it can be overwhelming and difficult to commit. But as the leader, when the time comes, you have to choose and do so with conviction. The team depends on the clear and unambiguous mandates to be committed.

Respect the ideas: You and your team might not agree with every idea, and that’s ok. It is important, however, that you create a healthy environment where those

ideas are entertained and considered --not maligned-- or the flow of ideas will slow to a trickle. Explain, but don’t apologize: You want the advocates of the solutions that were not selected to understand that their thoughts were considered and had validity, but that ultimately you had strong reasons to go a different direction. It’s important that the decision be communicated, but you should not apologize for deciding on what you think.

Lewin’s study found that participative (democratic) leadership is generally the most effective leadership style. Democratic leaders offer guidance to group members, but they also participate in the group and allow input from other group members. In Lewin’s study, children in this group were less productive than the members of the authoritarian group, but their contributions were of a much higher quality. Participative leaders encourage group members to participate, but retain the final say over the decision-making process.

Group members feel engaged in the process and are more motivated and creative. ~Laissez-faire leadership Non-authoritarian leadership style. Laissez faire (French for, allow to pass or let go) leaders try to give least possible guidance to subordinates, and try to achieve control through less obvious means. They believe that people excel when they are left alone to respond to their responsibilities and obligations in their own ways. The Laissez Faire Leadership Style was first described Lewin, Lippitt, and White in 1938 along with the autocratic leadership and the democratic leadership styles.

The laissez faire style is sometimes described as a "hands off" leadership style because the leader provides little or no direction to the followers. All authority or power is given to the employees and they must determine goals,

make decisions, and resolve problems on their own. Characteristics Allows followers to have complete freedom to make decisions concerning the completion of their work or ask questions of the leader The leader provides the followers with the materials they need to accomplish their goals and answers questions to the follower's questions

Lewin, Lippitt and White were one of the first to categorize leadership styles in terms of behavioral characteristics. Prior to their work, leadership traits were the focus of leadership studies. When Is It Used? --Employees are highly skilled, experienced, and educated. --Employees have pride in their work and the drive to do it successfully on their own. --Outside experts, such as staff specialists or consultants are being used --Employees are trustworthy and experienced. Laissez Faire Style should not be used when: --It makes employees feel insecure at the unavailability of a manager. -The manager cannot provide regular feedback to let employees know how well they are doing. --Managers are unable to thank employees for their good work. --The manager doesn’t understand his or her responsibilities and is hoping the employees can cover for him or her. ~Servant Leadership Servant leadership is a philosophy and practice of leadership coined and defined by Robert Greenleaf and supported by many leadership and management writers such as James Autry, Stephen Covey, Peter Block, Peter Senge, Max DePree, Larry Spears, Margaret, Jim Hunter, Kent Keith, Ken Jennings, Don Frick and others.

Servant-leaders achieve results for their organizations by giving priority attention to the needs of their colleagues and those they serve. Servant-leaders are often seen as humble stewards of their organization's resources (human, financial and physical). Aspects of being a servant

leader In order to be a servant leader, one needs the following qualities: listening, empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship, growth and building community. devote themselves to serving the needs of organization members. focus on meeting the needs of those they lead. evelop employees to bring out the best in them. coach others and encourage their self expression. facilitate personal growth in all who work with them. listen and build a sense of community. History of Servant Leadership The general concept is ancient. Chankya wrote, in the 4th century B. C. , in his book Arthshastra. There are passages that relate to servant leadership in the Tao Te Ching attributed to Lao Tzu who is believed to have lived in China sometime between 570 B. C. and 490 B. C. Jesus urged his followers to be servants first. Jesus also washed the feet of is disciples, as an example of the way in which they were to serve each other. Greenleaf, in his classic essay, The Servant as Leader, described the servant-leader in this manner: The servant-leader is servant first… It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead. That person is sharply different from one who is leader first, perhaps because of the need to assuage an unusual power drive or to acquire material possessions…The leader-first and the servant-first are two extreme types.

Between them there are shadings and blends that are part of the infinite variety of human nature. The difference manifests itself in the care taken by the servant-first to make sure that other people’s highest priority needs

are being served. The best test, and difficult to administer, is: Do those served grow as persons? Do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants? And, what is the effect on the least privileged in society?