Dear All,
I got an article on the styles of leadership. I thought it would be good to share with all of you here.
The Coercive Style
leader is one who demands immediate compliance to his dictates. His style is 'Do What I Tell You'. He creates a reign of terror, bullying and demeaning his executives, roaring his displeasure at the slightest missteps in achieving the business goals. This style is the least effective, because of top-down decision making; it snuffs the ideas and the creativity from the bottom rung of employees. And, high-performing employees who are motivated by more than money, this style erodes their performance. But it has its use. It can break failed business habits, shock people into new ways of working. And in turning around a company or when a hostile takeover is looming.
The Authoritative Style
leader is a visionary; he motivates people by making clear to them how their work fits into a larger vision of the organization. This style maximizes commitment to the organization's goals and strategy. By framing the individual tasks within a grand vision, this leader defines standards - giving performance feedback positive and negative - which revolves around that vision. This style works well in almost any business situation, particularly, when a business is adrift. But while working with a team of experts or peers, who are more, experienced than the authoritative leader, it gives an impression that the leader is being pompous and out-of-touch. If this leader becomes overbearing, he also undermines the egalitarian spirit of an effective team.
The Affiliative Style
revolves around its people - its proponents value individuals and their emotions more than tasks and goals. The leader keeps his employees happy and creates harmony among them, which has positive effect on communication leading to sharing ideas, inspiration and building trust. Because of this style, flexibility also rises among employees giving employees freedom to do their job in the way they think is most effective. This leader gives ample positive feedback on their day-to-day efforts, which is all the more motivating. These leaders are natural relationship builders. This style should not be used alone. Its exclusive focus on praise can allow poor performance to go uncorrected, employees may perceive that mediocrity is tolerated. If one uses this style in close conjunction with the authoritative style, he would have a potent combination.
The Democratic Style
leader builds trust, respect and commitment by spending time, getting his people's ideas and buy-in. By letting his employees themselves have a say in decisions, that affect their goals and how they do their work, this leader drive up flexibility and responsibility. He also by listening to employees learns to what to do, to keep morale high. In this democratic set-up, his followers are realistic what can and cannot be accomplished. This approach is ideal when a leader is himself uncertain about the best direction to take and needs ideas and guidance.The drawback of this system is, it can lead to endless meetings where ideas are mulled over, consensus remains elusive, and the only visible result is more meetings, particularly when crucial decision have to be taken. In times such as this people end up confused and leaderless. This style also makes much less sense when employees are not competent or informed enough to offer sound advice.
The Pacesetting Style
leader sets extremely high performance standards and exemplifies them himself. He is obsessive about doing things better and faster. He pinpoints poor performers and demands more from them. If they don't raise to the occasion, they will be replaced who can. This destroys the organization climate, as employees feel overwhelmed by pacesetter's demand for excellence and their morale drops. Guidelines for working may be clear in the leader's head, but he/she does not state them clearly; he/she expects employees to know what to do. The pacesetter either gives no feedback on how people are doing or jumps in to take over when he/she thinks they're lagging. And if the pacesetter leaves, his flock suddenly becomes directionless. This style should be sparingly used, and works best when all the employees are self-motivated professionals, highly competent and need little direction and coordination, like in R&D and legal firms.
The Coaching Style
leaders help employees identify their unique strengths and weaknesses and tie them to their personal and career aspirations, encouraging them to establish long-term development goals and help them to conceptualize a plan for attaining them. They give plenty of feedback and instruction. Coaching leaders excel at delegating, even if it meant the tasks would not be accomplished. Their prime motive is long-term learning of their followers. Although this style works best, it is seldom used, because many leaders don't have time in this high-pressure economy for the slow and tedious work of teaching employees to grow. This style works well in many business situations and works particularly well when employees are already aware of their weaknesses and would like to improve their performance. In contrast, the coaching style makes little sense when employees, for whatever reason, are resistant to learning or changing their ways. The other danger of this style, is when the leader lacks the expertise to help the employees to grow.
Cheers,
Sudha
From India, Hyderabad
5I got an article on the styles of leadership. I thought it would be good to share with all of you here.
The Coercive Style
leader is one who demands immediate compliance to his dictates. His style is 'Do What I Tell You'. He creates a reign of terror, bullying and demeaning his executives, roaring his displeasure at the slightest missteps in achieving the business goals. This style is the least effective, because of top-down decision making; it snuffs the ideas and the creativity from the bottom rung of employees. And, high-performing employees who are motivated by more than money, this style erodes their performance. But it has its use. It can break failed business habits, shock people into new ways of working. And in turning around a company or when a hostile takeover is looming.
The Authoritative Style
leader is a visionary; he motivates people by making clear to them how their work fits into a larger vision of the organization. This style maximizes commitment to the organization's goals and strategy. By framing the individual tasks within a grand vision, this leader defines standards - giving performance feedback positive and negative - which revolves around that vision. This style works well in almost any business situation, particularly, when a business is adrift. But while working with a team of experts or peers, who are more, experienced than the authoritative leader, it gives an impression that the leader is being pompous and out-of-touch. If this leader becomes overbearing, he also undermines the egalitarian spirit of an effective team.
The Affiliative Style
revolves around its people - its proponents value individuals and their emotions more than tasks and goals. The leader keeps his employees happy and creates harmony among them, which has positive effect on communication leading to sharing ideas, inspiration and building trust. Because of this style, flexibility also rises among employees giving employees freedom to do their job in the way they think is most effective. This leader gives ample positive feedback on their day-to-day efforts, which is all the more motivating. These leaders are natural relationship builders. This style should not be used alone. Its exclusive focus on praise can allow poor performance to go uncorrected, employees may perceive that mediocrity is tolerated. If one uses this style in close conjunction with the authoritative style, he would have a potent combination.
The Democratic Style
leader builds trust, respect and commitment by spending time, getting his people's ideas and buy-in. By letting his employees themselves have a say in decisions, that affect their goals and how they do their work, this leader drive up flexibility and responsibility. He also by listening to employees learns to what to do, to keep morale high. In this democratic set-up, his followers are realistic what can and cannot be accomplished. This approach is ideal when a leader is himself uncertain about the best direction to take and needs ideas and guidance.The drawback of this system is, it can lead to endless meetings where ideas are mulled over, consensus remains elusive, and the only visible result is more meetings, particularly when crucial decision have to be taken. In times such as this people end up confused and leaderless. This style also makes much less sense when employees are not competent or informed enough to offer sound advice.
The Pacesetting Style
leader sets extremely high performance standards and exemplifies them himself. He is obsessive about doing things better and faster. He pinpoints poor performers and demands more from them. If they don't raise to the occasion, they will be replaced who can. This destroys the organization climate, as employees feel overwhelmed by pacesetter's demand for excellence and their morale drops. Guidelines for working may be clear in the leader's head, but he/she does not state them clearly; he/she expects employees to know what to do. The pacesetter either gives no feedback on how people are doing or jumps in to take over when he/she thinks they're lagging. And if the pacesetter leaves, his flock suddenly becomes directionless. This style should be sparingly used, and works best when all the employees are self-motivated professionals, highly competent and need little direction and coordination, like in R&D and legal firms.
The Coaching Style
leaders help employees identify their unique strengths and weaknesses and tie them to their personal and career aspirations, encouraging them to establish long-term development goals and help them to conceptualize a plan for attaining them. They give plenty of feedback and instruction. Coaching leaders excel at delegating, even if it meant the tasks would not be accomplished. Their prime motive is long-term learning of their followers. Although this style works best, it is seldom used, because many leaders don't have time in this high-pressure economy for the slow and tedious work of teaching employees to grow. This style works well in many business situations and works particularly well when employees are already aware of their weaknesses and would like to improve their performance. In contrast, the coaching style makes little sense when employees, for whatever reason, are resistant to learning or changing their ways. The other danger of this style, is when the leader lacks the expertise to help the employees to grow.
Cheers,
Sudha
From India, Hyderabad
Hi Sudha,
The different styles of leadership was very informative.
How about distinguishing leaders and managers and how can a Manager be groomed to become a Leader. Can you throw some more light on this?
Best Regards,
PRADEEP :)
From India, Hyderabad
The different styles of leadership was very informative.
How about distinguishing leaders and managers and how can a Manager be groomed to become a Leader. Can you throw some more light on this?
Best Regards,
PRADEEP :)
From India, Hyderabad
Dear Pradeep,
Thanks for your response.
According to my knowledge, leadership and management are two notions that are often used interchangeably. Leadership is one of the assets a successful manager should possess. A leader is a person who people follow whereas a manager is a person who must be obeyed. According to a general observation and a survey, people generally tend to be more comfortable with their leader rather than their manager. Leadership is a quality which is actually proactive....whereas management is reactive...that is managers react after the problem is developed and then try to solve that.
As I said, generally people tend to be more attached to a leader rather than the manager. It may be because when we have a manager...we tend
to get a feeling that he is our boss...But in case of a leader...we try to be more friendly with him and share our feelings with him. This might be because the leadership quality is such that it makes people follow and get close to the leader.
Definitely.. it is not true in every manager's case. Always there are exceptions. Some managers tend to be very good leaders.
Guys...this was just my opinion and the little knowledge. I would like to request all of you to please correct me if i am wrong anywhere and give your valuable suggestions on this.
Cheers,
Sudha
From India, Hyderabad
Thanks for your response.
According to my knowledge, leadership and management are two notions that are often used interchangeably. Leadership is one of the assets a successful manager should possess. A leader is a person who people follow whereas a manager is a person who must be obeyed. According to a general observation and a survey, people generally tend to be more comfortable with their leader rather than their manager. Leadership is a quality which is actually proactive....whereas management is reactive...that is managers react after the problem is developed and then try to solve that.
As I said, generally people tend to be more attached to a leader rather than the manager. It may be because when we have a manager...we tend
to get a feeling that he is our boss...But in case of a leader...we try to be more friendly with him and share our feelings with him. This might be because the leadership quality is such that it makes people follow and get close to the leader.
Definitely.. it is not true in every manager's case. Always there are exceptions. Some managers tend to be very good leaders.
Guys...this was just my opinion and the little knowledge. I would like to request all of you to please correct me if i am wrong anywhere and give your valuable suggestions on this.
Cheers,
Sudha
From India, Hyderabad
Hello. Sudha, I accept with whatever you said, but dont you also think a leader has better social skills and emotional skills than a manager, and conversly, a manager is so, because he has better business intelligence.
And what I feel is anybody with social skills and business intelligence at a reasonable level can be a good manager-leader.
Just give me a reply as to what proportion of these skills that a leader must have and a manager must have.
VINAY.
From India
And what I feel is anybody with social skills and business intelligence at a reasonable level can be a good manager-leader.
Just give me a reply as to what proportion of these skills that a leader must have and a manager must have.
VINAY.
From India
Community Support and Knowledge-base on business, career and organisational prospects and issues - Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query, download formats and be part of a fostered community of professionals.
Leadership Styles.pdf
Leadership Styles.ppt