Natalie Schneider Leadership

Archive for the ‘leadership style’ Category

The term “leadership style” refers to a leader’s behavior. Behavioral pattern, which the leader reflects in his role as a leader, is often described as the style of leadership. Leadership style is the result of a leader’s philosophy, personality, experience, and value system. It also depends upon the type of followers and the organizational atmosphere prevailing in the enterprise.

There are four types of leadership style. It includes autocratic leadership, participative leadership, free rein leadership and paternalistic leadership. The autocratic leader gives orders that must be obeyed by the subordinates. He determines policies for the group without consulting them, and does not give detailed information about future plans, but simply tells the group what immediate steps they must take. He gives personal praise or criticism to each member on his own initiative and remains aloof from the group for the major part of the time.

A participative leader is one who gives instructions only after consulting the group. He sees to it that policies are worked out in group discussion and with the acceptance of the group. Participative manager decentralizes managerial authority. His decisions are not unilateral like that of the autocrat. Unlike an autocratic leader who controls through the authority he possesses, a participative leader exercises control mostly by using forces within the group.

A free rein leader lets the group lead itself. The free rein leader avoids power. He depends largely upon the group to establish its own goals and work out its own problems. Group members work themselves and provide their own motivation. Under paternalistic leadership, the leader assumes that his function is paternal or fatherly. His attitude is that of treating the relationship between the leader and his group as that of a family with the leader as the head of family. He works to help, guide, protect and keep his followers happily working together as members of a family.

The free rein leadership style is one that favours autonomy and abhors control. This model caters for minimal control by the leader or manager and maximum flexibility for the team members. As such, the team leader often takes a back seat role and functions to coordinate and direct the actions of the team rather than dictate it. It is wise to remember that free rein leadership is at the extreme of freedom, away from the extreme of control, and that most teams operate within the continuum between.

The free rein leadership style may be likened to the role played by a mentor or a coach. Rather than being the one determining the course of action to be taken by a team, the free rein leader or manager offers advice and guides the team through the process, just as how a mentor leads his student in the right direction and how the coach gives his team directions.

The free rein leader is neither actively involved in information gathering and decision making. He acts as a coordinator both in a brainstorming session to gather and consolidate information, and in the final decision making session. This is known as the ‘Gaining Consensus’ method of making decisions, according to Michael Watkins in his book, the First 90 Days. This is unlike the consult-and-decide method in the participative leadership model, nor the dictatorial style in the autocratic leadership model.

Evidently, such a leadership style would be disastrous if administered on a highly inexperienced or immature team. The team may well end up bickering and criticising unconstructively, and no decision would be made eventually. Should individuals in the team be having their individual agenda, they would mount delay tactics, holding back the decision making. Rather, a strong team of professionals who are highly matured should be ideal. This way, each member puts the intent of the team above themselves and their individual agenda, hence contributing to the team’s decision.

Free rein leadership can often be found in teams of professionals, such a team of doctors or engineers, as they form to achieve a goal or solve a problem. It is also often neither transformational nor transactional as the motivation of the team is assumed.

Also known as democratic leadership, participative leadership is the most common form of leadership practiced in the corporate world and political scene. The participative leadership model favours decision making by a group. In this model, the leader consults his team and seeks their opinion, making the decision subsequently. Compared to the autocratic leadership model, this model allows the views of the team members to be heard and encourages team members to participate, hence its name. It is worthy to note that in this style of leadership, the decision is still made by the leader, only that it is based on opinions and perspectives from the team as a whole.

Participative leadership is successful as a leadership style that allows an all rounded decision to be made. It allows a team to make a decision on the matter together. Often, a leader would seek the opinion of the team and possibly encourage discussion and debate to stimulate the thinking process of the team. This way, the every member of the team would feel that his views are being heard, and even if their views are not accepted, they know that it was for a reason and not merely overlooked or brushed away. This, according to Patrick Lecioni in his book, Five Dysfunctions of a Team, is critical in achieving buy-in, failure of which would result in a team to be dysfunctional.

The mode of decision making of a participative leader is known as the consult-and-decide method. In his book, The First 90 Days, Michael Watkins explained that the consult-and-decide method essentially has the brainstorming done by the group, and the decision to be made by the leader. This is as opposed to both the seeking out of ideas and the decision to be done by the leader. The team also has a part in directing the decision by participating in the discussions.

However, participative leadership may fail should the team be relatively inexperienced. For instance, should a team deciding on the appearance of a physical product sold be a company consists mostly of fresh members, the quality of discussions and debate with relation to the final decision would be superficial and possibly even irrelevant, hence making the decision of how the product should be will not be well thought out. Evidently, a precondition for effective participative leadership is to have a team that is sufficiently experienced and competent at their job.

Participative leadership is particularly popular in the corporate world as the decisions made often has consequences in multiple levels and would require the inputs and expertise of various professionals. In addition, the pace of events often does not allow a free rein style of leadership where the leader allows the team to reach a consensus with a luxury of time.