Leadership Styles

Leadership style is the manner and approach of providing direction,

implementing plans, and motivating people. As seen by the employees,
it includes the total pattern of explicit and implicit actions performed by
their leader (Newstrom, Davis, 1993).
The first major study of leadership styles was performed in 1939 by
Kurt Lewin who led a group of researchers to identify different styles of
leadership (Lewin, Lippit, White, 1939). This early study has remained
quite influential as it established the three major leadership styles:
(U.S. Army, 1973):
o authoritarian or autocratic - the leader tells his or her employees what
to do and how to do it, without getting their advice
o participative or democratic - the leader includes one or more
employees in the decision making process, but the leader normally
maintains the final decision making authority
o delegative or laissez-fair (free-rein) - the leader allows the employees
to make the decisions, however, the leader is still responsible for the
decisions that are made

Although good leaders use all three styles, with one of them normally
dominant, bad leaders tend to stick with one style, normally autocratic.

Authoritarian or Autocratic
Leadership

I want both of you to. . .

This style is used when leaders tell their employees what they want
done and how they want it accomplished, without getting the advice of
their followers. Some of the appropriate conditions to use this style is
when you have all the information to solve the problem, you are short
on time, and/or your employees are well motivated.
Some people tend to think of this style as a vehicle for yelling, using
demeaning language, and leading by threats. This is not the
authoritarian style, rather it is an abusive, unprofessional style called
bossing people around. It has absolutely no place in a leader's
repertoire.
The authoritarian style should normally only be used on rare occasions.
If you have the time and want to gain more commitment and motivation
from your employees, then you should use the participative style.

Participative or Democratic
Leadership

Let's work together to solve this. . .

This style involves the leader including one or more employees in the
decision making process (determining what to do and how to do it).
However, the leader maintains the final decision making authority.
Using this style is not a sign of weakness, rather it is a sign of strength
that your employees will respect.
This is normally used when you have part of the information, and your
employees have other parts. A leader is not expected to know
everythingthis is why you employ knowledgeable and skilled people.
Using this style is of mutual benefit as it allows them to become part of
the team and allows you to make better decisions.

Even if you have all the answers, gaining different perspectives

and diversity of opinions normally provide greater creativity than
insularity. As Katherine Phillipswrote ,
So as you think about diversity and its effects in organizations during this tough
economic time, recognize that the most robust practical value of diversity is that
it challenges everyone in an organization. We are more thoughtful, and we
recognize and utilize more of the information that we have at our disposal, when
diversity is present. That is diversitys true value.

Delegative or Laissez-faire
Leadership

You two take care of the problem while I go. . .

In this style, the leader allows the employees to make the decisions.
However, the leader is still responsible for the decisions that are made.
This is used when employees are able to analyze the situation and
determine what needs to be done and how to do it. You cannot do
everything! You must set priorities and delegate certain tasks.
This is not a style to use so that you can blame others when things go
wrong, rather this is a style to be used when you fully trust and have
confidence in the people below you. Do not be afraid to use it, however,
use it wisely!
NOTE: Laissez-faire (or laisser faire) is the noninterference in the
affairs of others. [French : laissez, second person pl. imperative of
laisser, to let, allow + faire, to do.]

Fo r c e s

A good leader uses all three styles, depending on what forces are
involved between the followers, the leader, and the situation. Some
examples include:

o Using an authoritarian style on a new employee who is just learning the

job. The leader is competent and a good coach. The employee is
motivated to learn a new skill. The situation is a new environment for the
employee.
o Using a participative style with a team of workers who know their jobs.
The leader knows the problem, but does not have all the information. The
employees know their jobs and want to become part of the team.
o Using a delegative style with a worker who knows more about the job
than you do. You cannot do and know everything and the employee needs
to take ownership of her job! In addition, this allows you to be more
productive.
o Using all three styles: Telling your employees that a procedure is not
working correctly and a new one must be established (authoritarian).
Asking for their ideas and input on creating a new procedure
(participative). Delegating tasks in order to implement the new procedure
(delegative).

Forces that influence the style to be used include:

o Amount of time available
o Are relationships based on respect and trust or on disrespect?
o Who has the informationyou, the employees, or both?
o How well your employees are trained and how well you know the task
o Internal conflicts
o Stress levels.
o Type of task, such as structured, unstructured, complicated, or simple?
o Laws or established procedures, such as OSHA or training plans

Continuum of Leader Behavior

In 1958 Tannenbaum and Schmidt (1973) expanded on Lewin, Lippit,

and White's three leadership styles by extending them to seven styles
and placing them on a continuum as shown in the diagram below:

Notice that as you go from left to right, it moves from manager-oriented

decision making to team or subordinate oriented decision making, thus
the teams freedom increases while the managers authority decreases.
Depending upon the present level of your team's experience and skills,
you select a starting point and as the team grows and develops, you
move from on to the next one:
1. Manager makes decision and announces it The team has no role in the
decision-making role. Coercion may or may not be used or implied.

2. Manager Sells decision Rather than just tell, the manager needs to
sell the decision, as there is a possibility of some resistance from team
members.
3. Manager presents ideas and invites questions This allows the team to
get a fuller explanation so they can gain a better understanding of what
the manager is trying to accomplish.
4. Manager presents a tentative decision that is subject to change This
action invites the team to have some influence regarding the decision;
thus, it can be changed based on the team's input.
5. Manager presents the problem, gets suggestions, and then makes the
decision Up to this point the manager has always presented the
decision, although the last style allows it to change based upon the
team's input. Now the team is free to come up with options, however, the
manager still has the final say on those options.
6. Manager defines limits, and requests the team to make a decision The
manager delegates the decision making to the team; but instills specific
limits on the team's solution.
7. Manager allows team to function within limits Now the team does the
decision making, however, the manager's superior may have placed
certain limits on the options they can make. If the manager sits in on the
decision making, he or she attempts to do so with no more authority than
the other members do.

Basically, the first two styles or behaviors are similar to the

authoritarian style, the next three are similar to the participative style,
while the last two are similar to the delegative style. This approach
gives the leader more options that can be refined to specific situations
or environments.

5+2 Major Behavior Patterns of

Leaders
This page describes seven behavior patterns or styles of leaders, to
include Social Leadership as described by Howell and Costley (2001).

Positive and Negative Approaches

Leaders approach their employees in different ways. Positive leaders
use rewards, such as education, new experiences, and independence,
to motivate employees, while negative employers emphasize penalties
(Newstrom, Davis, 1993). The negative approach has a place in a
leader's repertoire of tools in certain situations; however, it must be
used carefully due to its high cost on the human spirit.
Negative leaders act domineering and superior with people. They
believe the only way to get things done is through penalties, such as
loss of job, days off without pay, reprimanding employees in front of
others, etc. They believe their authority is increased by frightening
everyone into higher levels of productivity. Yet, what normally happens
when this approach is used is that morale falls, which leads to lower
productivity.
Most leaders do not strictly use one or another, but are somewhere on
a continuum ranging from extremely positive to extremely negative.
People who continuously work out of the negative are bosses, while
those who primarily work out of the positive are considered great
leaders.
A similar theory is McGregor's Theory X and Theory Y .

Use of Consideration and Structure

Two other approaches that leaders use are (Stogdill, 1974):
o Consideration (employee orientation) leaders are
concerned about the human needs of their employees. They
build teamwork, help employees with their problems, and
provide psychological support.
o Structure (task orientation) leaders believe that they get
results by consistently keeping people busy and urging them to
produce.

There is evidence that leaders who are considerate in their leadership

style are higher performers and are more satisfied with their job
(Schriesheim, 1982).
Also notice that consideration and structure are independent of each
other, thus they should not be viewed on a continuum (Stogdill, 1974).
For example, a leader who is more considerate does not necessarily
mean that she is less structured.
Blake and Mouton's Managerial Grid is a good example of a leadership
model based upon the concept of consideration and structure.

Paternalism
Paternalism has at times been equated with leadership styles. Most
definitions of leadership normally state or imply that one of the actions
within leadership is that ofinfluencing. For example, the U.S. Army
(1983) 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 there is 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 examplegood or badwith
every action you take and word you utter, on or off duty. Through your words
and example, you must communicate purpose, direction, and motivation.

Paternalism is defined as (Webster Dictionary):

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.

Geert Hofstede (1997) studied culture within organizations. Part of his

study was on the dependence relationship or Power Differencethe
extent to which the less powerful members of an organization expect
and accept that power is distributed unequally. Hofstede gave this story
to illustrate the concept of Power Difference:
The last revolution in Sweden disposed of King Gustav IV, whom they
considered incompetent, and surprising invited Jean Baptise Bernadotte, a
French general who served under Napoleon, to become their new King. He
accepted and became King Charles XIV. Soon afterward he needed to address
the Swedish Parliament. Wanting to be accepted, he tried to do the speech in
their language. His broken language amused the Swedes so much that they
roared with laughter. The Frenchman was so upset that he never tried to speak
Swedish again.
Bernadotte was a victim of culture shocknever in his French upbringing and
military career had he experienced subordinates who laughed at the mistakes of
their superior. This story has a happy ending as he was considered very good
and ruled the country as a highly respected constitutional monarch until 1844.
(His descendants still occupy the Swedish throne.)

Sweden differs from France in the way its society handles inequality
(those in charge and the followers). To measure inequality or Power
Difference, Hofstede studied three survey questions from a larger
survey that both factored and carried the same weight:
o Frequency of employees being afraid to express disagreement
with their managers
o Subordinates' perception of their boss's actual decision making
style (paternalistic style was one choice)
o Subordinates' preference for their boss's decision-making style
(again, paternalistic style was one choice)
He developed a Power Difference Index (PDI) for the 53 countries that
took the survey. Their scores range from 11 to 104. The higher the
number a country received, the more autocratic and/or paternalistic the
leadership, which of course relates to employees being more afraid or
unwilling to disagree with their bosses. While lower numbers mean a

more consultative style of leadership is used, which translates to

employees who are not as afraid of their bosses.
For example, Malaysia has the highest PDI score, being 104, while
Austria has the lowest with 11. And of course, as the story above
illustrates, Sweden has a relative low score of 31, while France has a
PDI of 68. The United States' score is 40. Note that these scores are
relative, not absolute, in that relativism affirms that one culture has no
absolute criteria for judging activities of another culture as low or
noble.

Keeping the above in mind, it seems that some picture paternalistic

behavior as almost a barbaric way of getting things accomplished. Yet,
leadership is all about getting things done for the organization. And in
some situations, a paternalistic style of decision-making might be
required; indeed, in some cultures and individuals, it may also be
expected by not only those in charge, but also by the followers.

That is what makes leadership styles quite interestingthey basically

run along the same continuum as Hofstede's PDI, ranging from
paternalistic to consultative styles of decision making. This allows a
wide range of individual behaviors to be dealt with, ranging from
beginners to peak performers. In addition, it accounts for the fact that
not everyone is the same.
However, when paternalistic or autocratic styles are relied upon too
much and the employees are ready for a more consultative type of
leadership style, then it can becomes quite damaging to the
performance of the organization if change is not advanced.

Next Steps
Learning Activity: Leadership Style Survey
Next chapter: Character and Traits of Good Leaders
Related page: Path-Goal Theory
Main Leadership Menu

References
Hofstede, G. (1997). Culture and Organizations: Software of the Mind .
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Howell, J.P., Costley D.L. (2001). Understanding Behaviours for
Effective Leadership . NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Lewin, K., Lippit, R., White, R.K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive
behavior in experimentally created social climates. Journal of Social
Psychology, 10, 271-301.
Newstrom, J.W., Davis, K. (1993). Organizational Behavior: Human
Behavior at Work . New York: McGraw-Hill.
Schriesheim, C.A. (1982). The Great High Consideration: High Initiating
Structure Leadership Myth: Evidence on its Generalizability. The
Journal of Social Psychology, April, 116, 221-228.

Stogdill, R.M. (1974). Handbook of Leadership: A Survey of Theory and

Research . New York: Free Press.
Tannenbaum, A.S., Schmidt, W.H. (1973). How to Choose a Leadership
Pattern.Harvard Business Review Reprint, 36, May-June, 4-12.
U.S. Army. (1983). Military Leadership. Field Manual 22-100.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.