Autocratic leadership style
Autocratic style of leadership is very effective in times of emergency or stress since people will always work from orders or commands of their leaders. Such times require a leader with ability to give instructions or guide and direct to those under his or her authority.
specifically for you
for only $16.05 $11/page
Again, autocratic leadership helps avoid lengthy debates in a workplace (Hariman 23). Thus, it allows employees to focus on their tasks enabling them to become more proficient in their work as they help the company achieve its objectives.
Autocratic leadership style always involves a one-way communication where the boss/manager may in most cases dictate the subordinate. This can demoralize employees and as a result lower their performance.
Again, it can suppress creativity and innovativeness in the workplace since employees are used to being directed on what to do when performing their tasks. As a result, this could make the company less competitive.
In addition, autocratic leadership is likely to create an environment of fear as well as resentment, and this could lead to frequent staff absenteeism and high turnover (Hariman 23).
Democratic leadership style
Democratic leadership makes employees to be more accountable for their actions and in their tasks since managers and supervisors always delegate tasks with full responsibility.
Employees feel valued and become motivated since they are given opportunity to make contributions in decision making and issues concerning their tasks as well as the organization, although the manager remains the final authority (Hogan, Kaiser, & Van Vugt 188).
100% original paper
on any topic
done in as little as
The manager/supervisor is always open to contributions and feedback. This allows employees to be more creative since their ideas are used to form the basis for improvements and future developments. Besides, employees are encouraged to commit themselves and give their all to company. Thus, employee turnover is reduced.
In democratic leadership, decision making process may take long since it involves consultation with and contributions from all those involved (Hariman 23). This could cause the organization to miss opportunities due to delays which occur as those involved try to come to consensus on issues.
Laissez faire leadership style
Laissez faire leadership style promotes trust among employees since most people do not always want to see somebody looking over their shoulders every now and then. As a result, extremely responsible employees may become more effective (Hoyle 42). It may also help boost employee morale and consequently lead to high job satisfaction.
It may give workers leeway to slack off completely or perform substandard job since the manager/supervisor has little concern over how workers conduct themselves and perform their duties. Thus, it may reduce effectiveness of workers and efficiency of the organization since it could take a very high-visibility problem to identify such workers.
Again, it may cause employees to lose their sense of direction as well as focus since the manager/supervisor displays lack of interest in the job (Hoyle 42). This could lead to job dissatisfaction
Bureaucratic leadership style
Bureaucratic leadership ensures that subordinates or employees follow rules as well as procedures of the organization/department accurately and consistently (Hoyle 46). This is very suitable in a workplace which involves serious safety risks and therefore rules and procedures are necessary in ensuring health and safety of all those in the workplace. It is also helpful where the job needs to be done in a specific and detailed way. In addition, it ensures accountability since each person/office has a defined role.
Rule-based practices and procedures hinder creativity since employees/subordinates simply perform their duties or tasks as specified and are not given opportunity to think independently.
The inflexibility as well as high levels of control exercised by managers/supervisors may demoralize workers, and this can limit the organization’s ability to respond to the changing environment or trends (Hoyle 43).
Hariman, Robert. Political Style. Chicago: Unversity of Chicago Press, 1995. Print.
Hogan, Robert, Kaiser, Robert and Van Vugt, Mark. Leadership, followership, and evolution: Some lessons from the past. American Psychologist 63 (2008): 182- 196.
Hoyle, John. Leadership and Futuring: Making Visions Happen. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc., 1995. Print.