Leadership will take many forms, but you can find three styles of leadership that can be the most prevalent. Good management does not take one type and stick to it – they are for the right situations for every style. However, good management knows their superior style and monetizes on the benefits of that model. Let’s look at the three management styles and the potential downfalls of each. Think about which model is yours – and how you could modify it in various cases.
Autocratic leadership is also labeled as authoritarian leadership. In this model, the leader commonly outlines what he or she wants and how this can be achieved. In many ways, autocratic leadership isn’t leadership in any respect but a form of disciplinarian management. Are there situations where that style is effective? First of all, consider the organization. An autocratic situation could be practical if the organization is well motivated and adult. Let’s say you have the vast majority of information you need, but the time to achieve a specific goal is minimal. In a well-motivated organization, you may probably give an autocratic order and not be concerned about precisely how it will be taken – given that this does not become your principal style.
If you are a consistent autocratic leader, you’re probably not finding a good response from your corporation. One of the pitfalls of autocratic leadership is the possibility of decreasing into an abusive or demeaning pattern – that is why you should only use an autocratic stance in rare situations and certainly not regularly. If you relate to a dominant autocratic fashion, consider transitioning into a far more participative style of leadership.
Participative or democratic leadership can be a type in which the leader still sets out a goal but allows several inputs from the organization regarding how the goal will be reached. But a democratic innovator still makes it necessary to acquire approval for decisions from any member of the team. In cases where information is disseminated between the leader and the associates, a democratic style might work. This style may also be an appropriate way for an autocratic leader to transition from that style – without having to give total control over the team.
This leadership design empowers squads that have not felt strengthened before. It’s also a great way to analyze the knowledge and ability of any team before transitioning into a much less controlling leadership fashion. Because this leadership style is essentially one step up from autocracy, it may be easy for a leader for you to fall back into a rigorous stance. If the team does not work out or falls short, democratic leadership allows them to re-formulate plans and activities – without telling them precisely what to do.
The third and most strengthening form of leadership is the laissez-faire or delegative style. The actual delegative leader sets a general priority, goal, or coaching but then stands out of the method to let things happen. Employing this style, a leader takes obligation for all decisions – but leaves the decision to the team. This also implies that team members are expected to analyze, assess, and change issues and problems as they move coupled. This leadership style is correct with mature or more senior citizen teams – the ones who have obtained the time to prove themselves to the leader and have the confidence to manage all issues. One of the biggest problems of this type of leadership consists of failure. If something moves wrong, this is not the place for the leader to blame the team rapidly, and this is more than likely an organic reaction for a laissez-faire chief.
Now that we’ve seen the three dominant leadership styles, what type are you? Remember that the tag of a good leader may be the ability to use various designs depending on the situation – a poor leader always sticks with the same style. So what are a couple of the situations where every style is appropriate? If you have a brand new team, you may want to use the autocratic style to evaluate the group and its people.
But what if you are placed in a posture where most teams understand their tasks well and would not react well to an autocratic stance? Use a participative style in this situation – allow the teams to enter into the decision-making process. Do not forget that you can empower yourself being a leader as well as a team by using this style. Finally, what if your team members know more about the situation you do? Take a delegative technique and let the teams make their unique decisions while reminding these people that you will be responsible for the outcomes.
Giving up cigarettes and deciding what leadership fashion to take are a few things to consider. To start with, how much time do you have? If you’re very restricted in time, participative or autocratic may be the best style. Naturally, this also depends on the team and its particular makeup – if you have a seasoned team and a limited period, there is no need to use an autocratic stance. Simply explain, along with emphasizing that time is limited.
You must also consider who has the information associated with the project or job at hand – if info is divided amongst a person, the leader, and the team, you might want to take a participative stance. If your team has all the information, have a delegative stance – be sure to let them use their information to create the best solutions. Also, consider the kind of task you’re looking at — how complicated is it? Evaluate this with the skill of the team, and you should be able to select an appropriate leadership style.
In case your dominant style is more autocratic, you may want to examine what’s maintaining you from moving into a participative stance. If you are one of the other two sorts, you’re probably getting a satisfactory response from your teams. Remember to alter your leadership fashion based on situations – and stick to one style regardless. When you begin to move around the different models, you’ll find that your teams can respond.