Natalie Schneider Leadership

Archive for the ‘leadership style’ Category

A transactional leader is someone who, as the name imply, relates to his team and tasks in terms of “transactions”. His decisions are often based on tangible benefits and losses, rewards and punishments, results and performances. Between a transactional and transformational leader, the transactional leader is a much more common species.

Transactional leadership involves a relationship between the leader or manager and his team that is carrot-and-stick in nature. This means to say that team members are rewarded when they carry out an action that benefits the team’s performance, and they are punished when they take an action which is detrimental to the team’s performance. Rewards and punishment are often used to signal to the team as to the appropriate and desirable action to take. Evidently, the transactional leadership style is very much based on “exchanges” in favours and debts, or “transactions”. As such, it is also worthy to note that a transactional leader is often also an autocratic leader as he enlists the use of punishment and reward to motivate his team.

In terms of operations, a transactional leader may be considered to be task oriented. A transactional leader makes decisions based on what produces best results. That is to say, a transactional leader would allocate resources, manpower, time and money based on what he believes would suit the immediate outcome the most, for instance, putting the best people for the job.

As seen, the transactional leader is very much outcome oriented. This leadership trait renders the transactional leadership model useful to get results. It would be especially effective when short term success in needed while long term performance is secondary.

However, should long term performance be equally important, the transactional leadership style would be less desirable as it has little emphasis on investment of resources, such as people development and asset growth.

A famous transactional leader is none other than the TIMES CEO of 2009, Steve Jobs. At the top of the technology and innovation giant, Apple Computers, Steve Jobs was known for his down to earth and task oriented nature of his leadership. He was also notorious for not hesitating to give employees a dressing down should they fail to meet his expectations.

An autocratic leader is one who makes unilateral decisions, meaning to say, deciding based on his own judgment and does not invite opinions from others. Also known as a dictator, his words are, metaphorically speaking, law to those under his charge, to be obeyed without debate. Though not always so, an autocratic style of leadership is commonly used alongside transactional leadership, with the enlistment of punishment. In many cases, in order to instill unquestioning obedience to the decision of the autocratic leader, harsh punishments may be meted out. This may be to instill fear or merely to signal to the team what action is appropriate and what is not.

The autocratic leadership model is successful in the sense that it allows for snap decision making. Unlike a democratic or free rein style of leadership, the autocratic leader has centralized decision making power, and is able to swiftly set a direction for the team to follow in times of emergency. This is opposed to the endless bureaucracy that may come with a democratic style of leadership, evident in the White House.

In a war, military commanders employing this leadership style may prove to be invaluable, and could make the difference between life and death. In the battlefield, what is often needed is not the most well thought out solution, but the quickest solution, even if it has some loopholes. Commanders in the army will agree that being paralysed in the battlefield is one sure way to see the entire platoon or even company wiped out in minutes. Rather than being embroiled in thorough discussions as to which should be the next course of action, what may well secure the victory is having one leader to stand up and lead the way. In his book Blink, Malcolm Gladwell demonstrates that a battalion fighting based on the snap decision of a commander would win another battalion fighting with the help of elaborate information providing technology.

However, this is not to say that autocratic leadership is always suitable in all situations. Crucially, we must realise that by relying on one to make all the decisions, things could go radically wrong if the decision happens to be the wrong one. It would be putting all the eggs in one basket; if the basket falls, all the eggs will crack. Also, we should understand that in most cases the opinions of more than just one person matter. As part of the team, every member has the responsibility and entitlement to contribute to the decision making process. By leaving the all aspects of the decision to the leader, the rest of the team could be seen as not fulfilling their responsibility or not given their entitlement. From the viewpoint of a transformational leader, the autocratic leader is purely task focused, and does not consider about value adding to the development of his team.

Examples of famous autocratic leadership include the Qin Shi Huang from the monarchy in ancient China, Adolf Hitler of the Nazi era in Germany, Benito Mussolini from fascist France and Jospeh Stalin and Mao Zedong from communist Soviet Union and People’s Republic of China respectively.