Perspectives: Choosing Appropriate Leadership Styles

Transcription

1 Perspectives: Choosing Appropriate Leadership Styles Many theorists have applied themselves to the questions of how managers and other business leaders approach the task of leading others. An accomplished leader should know which leadership style to apply in any given situation. It is not a case of labelling one style as good and another as bad. Each has their advantages and must be matched to circumstances as they occur. The Autocratic or Authoritarian style is characterised by firm control over subordinates. Communication is strictly unidirectional. Orders come down from the leader to the lower orders and must be followed without question. There is no opportunity for employees to offer opinions or use initiative. McGregor s X manager would favour this approach. While this seems like a waste of employee talent and a recipe for high turnover of staff, there are situations where this style works very well. The armed forces and emergency services utilise this leadership style as there is often a need for subordinates to follow orders without question to ensure safety or that procedures are carried out in a standard way. When done well, this management style has important advantages, the chief of which is that it gets things done, quickly and consistently. Employees are also clear about what is expected of them. When done badly, or applied to the wrong situation, this style makes subordinates feel unvalued and put upon and thus achieves poor results. 1

2 The Democratic leadership style values the opinions and ideas of employees and includes mechanisms to ensure participative decision making. McGregor s Y Manager would use this approach and there are also links with Herzberg Motivators (from a 1959 motivational study of engineers and accountants). This style was used widely in the Quality Circles of pre-recession Japan. This works well in situations where one wishes to make the most of employee talent. Creative industries and innovative technology companies use this approach to good effect. Done well it is highly motivating, as employees feel valued and able to develop. This is not an approach to use if a project needs to be completed in a hurry. Democratic decisionmaking can be time consuming and there is a possibility that consensus may never be reached. Democratic leadership also assumes that all employees want to be actively involved in decision-making with the responsibility that goes with it. This may not always be the case. Paternalistic leaders provide very well for those who work for them. For the archetypal example of the paternalistic employer, look to George Cadbury who built an entire village, including schools and shops (and gardens) for his chocolate factory workers at the end of the nineteenth century. Modern paternalistic employers would provide benefits ranging from health and life cover to cheap housing or subsidised school fees. The British army could be considered a paternalistic employer; as could Royal palaces or some boarding schools. While Cadbury s philanthropy was required to counter the unethical treatment of industrial workers in the nineteenth century, the benefits offered by paternalistic employers often come at a high price today. Inability to separate work and home or a feeling of being 2

3 permanently on call can be a feature of jobs within these organisations. Dependency can easily occur if your job is tied up with keeping your home. Charismatic leaders are generally born, not made. These leaders inspire great respect and love, and employees are likely to offer extraordinary commitment to the goals and values of the leader. Leaders like this are few and far between, and that may be no bad thing. This style could work well in almost any kind of organisation and situation (except those requiring creative input from employees) but only if the goals of the leader are desirable ones. There are too many examples of what can happen if a charismatic leader is able to lead their followers in more distasteful directions. By definition, organisational goals will be those of the leader and the leader alone, but many may find themselves carried along. Laissez-faire leaders assume self-motivation on the part of their subordinates. They set overall objectives and then leave their employees to achieve these objectives using their own initiative and resources. Links exist to Manager Y and Herzberg motivators. This is the kind of leadership style which would be used in research departments or other organisations where subordinates have specific expertise which the leader does not have. Faculties within academic institutions would be another example. Good Laissez-faire leaders have perfected the art of delegation. They will be able to communicate corporate goals clearly and will thoroughly know the capabilities of their staff. Delegation, for the effective leader is a matter of handing over responsibility while retaining accountability. Bad Laissez-faire leaders are often simply lazy. The ultimate price that the organisation will pay for this is failure, as roles, responsibility and accountability will be poorly defined and inappropriately assigned. 3

4 Situational leaders are often trouble shooters with a particular skill set appropriate to a (often crisis) situation. They either rise to the top because their skill set is recognised; or they are specifically brought in when everything goes wrong. Often, they become surplus to requirements when the situation changes. Churchill s election loss after the Second World War is an example of this phenomenon. These leaders may adopt other leadership styles as appropriate to the circumstances. In a crisis, for example, a situational leader may found an autocratic approach the most effective. The appropriateness of this approach may decline over time and good situational leaders must recognise that and be prepared to move on to other situations where they will be best utilised Bureaucratic leaders follow the rules. They show enormous regard for doing it by the book. The bureaucratic style is often the butt of jokes, but it does have a place. Finance departments work well under this kind of regime. Organisations which have to adhere to legislation need to take this approach. A pharmaceutical company managed by leaders with no grasp of their regulatory obligations would soon run into trouble. Disadvantages or pitfalls of this approach are the dangers of self-generating busywork and the time consuming nature of bureaucracy. An effective bureaucratic leader will carry out regular audits of the bureaucracy itself to ensure that procedures are as streamlined as possible. 4

5 The important thing to remember is that these are descriptions of styles, not people. As a manager you do not have to adopt one style and stick to it. Your personality will inform how you interact with employees, but your behaviour should be versatile and appropriate. Examine each of the leadership tasks you have to undertake and match the style which fits it best. For more information McGregor s Theory X and Y at Wikipedia Herzberg s Two-Factor Theory at Wikipedia 5