Difference Between Autocratic and Participative Leadership
Introduction
This report aims to describe a leadership style that enables and helps contain employee work activity. Boundaries set by leaders help them provide guidance and direction, motivate action and creativity, stimulate individuality and ideas, and protect and nurture a space for employees to perform in. Leadership prescriptions have gone through many phases. While the consultative leadership was considerate, it was soft, and too idealistic. Authoritarian and directive leadership on the other hand were strict, and not very humanitarian, but got the work done. Though previous models have their value, a reality check is needed now. Leaders need to be flexible and should demonstrate a balanced behavior to be practical. They should be able to understand when to get involved and when to let go. This can be done by setting a boundary, ensuring the leader is involved and allowing space for the employees.
Leadership
“More change always demands more leadership”(Ansari 1990).
The most important function of leadership is to produce adaptive or useful change which involves aspects like direction setting and alignment. Direction setting is a process that produces vision and strategies and is completely different from planning which is a managerial function. On the other hand alignment is the process of getting people to understand, accept and line up in the chosen direction.
In efforts to produce change in complex organizations, sizeable barriers of some sort are always encountered. Overcoming these barriers often takes a big effort, which only comes from energized people. This is why motivation and inspiration are central aspects of leadership.(Kotter 1990)
The basic difference between a successful and unsuccessful organization is its leadership. As cited by Ansari “the successful organization consistently differs from ineffective organizations in one respect- the former are characterized by dynamic and effective leadership”(Ansari 1990).
The term leadership has no
This report aims to describe a leadership style that enables and helps contain employee work activity. Boundaries set by leaders help them provide guidance and direction, motivate action and creativity, stimulate individuality and ideas, and protect and nurture a space for employees to perform in. Leadership prescriptions have gone through many phases. While the consultative leadership was considerate, it was soft, and too idealistic. Authoritarian and directive leadership on the other hand were strict, and not very humanitarian, but got the work done. Though previous models have their value, a reality check is needed now. Leaders need to be flexible and should demonstrate a balanced behavior to be practical. They should be able to understand when to get involved and when to let go. This can be done by setting a boundary, ensuring the leader is involved and allowing space for the employees.
Leadership
“More change always demands more leadership”(Ansari 1990).
The most important function of leadership is to produce adaptive or useful change which involves aspects like direction setting and alignment. Direction setting is a process that produces vision and strategies and is completely different from planning which is a managerial function. On the other hand alignment is the process of getting people to understand, accept and line up in the chosen direction.
In efforts to produce change in complex organizations, sizeable barriers of some sort are always encountered. Overcoming these barriers often takes a big effort, which only comes from energized people. This is why motivation and inspiration are central aspects of leadership.(Kotter 1990)
The basic difference between a successful and unsuccessful organization is its leadership. As cited by Ansari “the successful organization consistently differs from ineffective organizations in one respect- the former are characterized by dynamic and effective leadership”(Ansari 1990).
The term leadership has no
References: 1. Ansari, M.A. 1990, Managing people at work : leadership styles and influence strategies, Sage, New Delhi. 2. Aronson, E. 2001, 'Integrating leadership styles and ethical perspectives ', Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences. 3. Bass, M.B., Avolio, B.J. & Atwater, L. 1996, 'The transformational and transactional leadership of men and women ', Applied Psychology: An International Review, vol. 45. 4. Chen, Y. & Tjosvold, D. 2006, 'Participative Leadership by American and Chinese Managers in China: The Role of Relationships ', Journal of Management Studies, vol. 43, no. 8. 5. Ciulla, J.B., Susan, E. & Price, T.L. 2005, The quest for moral leaders : essays on leadership ethics, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, U.K. 7. Greiner, L. 1973, 'What managers think of participative leadership ', Harvard Business Review, vol. 51, no. 2. 8. Haccoun, D.M., Haccoun, R.R. & Sallay, G. 1978, 'Sex differences in the appropriateness of supervisory styles: A nonmanagement view ', Journal of Applied Pshycology, vol. 63. 9. Halal, W. & Brown, B. 1981, 'Participative Management: Myth and Reality ', California Management Review, vol. 23, no. 4. 10. Johnson, N.J. & Thomas, K. 2007, 'Passive-aggressive behavior and leadership styles in organizations ', Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, vol. 14.2. 11. Kanji, G. 2008, 'Leadership is prime: How do you measure Leadership Excellence? ', Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, vol. 19, no. 4. 12. Kotter, J.P. 1990, A force for change : how leadership differs from management, New York. 13. Larsson, J. & Vinberg, S. 2010, 'Leadership behaviour in successful organisations: Universal or situation-dependent? ', Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, vol. 21, no. 3. 14. Luthar, H.K. 1996, 'Gender differences in evaluation of performance and leadership ability: autocratic vs. democratic managers ', Sex Roles, vol. 35, no. 5. 15. Murphy, L. 2005, 'Transformational leadership: a cascading chain reaction ', Journal of Nursing Management, vol. 13, no. 2. 16. Oshagbemi, T. 2008, 'The impact of personal and organisational variables on the leadership styles of managers ', International Journal of Human Resource Management, vol. 19, no. 10. 17. Rabindra, N.K. 2001, 'Ethical values of transactional and transformational leaders ', Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, vol. 18, no. 4. 18. Rohmann, A. & Rowold, J. 2009, 'Gender and leadership style :A field study in different organizational contexts in Germany ', Equal Opportunities International, vol. 28, no. 7. 19. Rubin, R., Dierdorff, E. & Brown, M. 2010, 'Do Ethical Leaders Get Ahead? Exploring Ethical Leadership and Promotability ', Business Ethics Quarterly, vol. 20, no. 2. 20. Somech, A. 2005, 'Directive Versus Participative Leadership: Two Complementary Approaches to Managing School Effectiveness ', Educational Administration Quarterly, vol. 41, no. 5. 21. Soonhee, K. 2002, 'Participative Management and Job Satisfaction: Lessons for Management Leadership ', Public Administration Review, vol. 62, no. 2. 22. Trevelyan, R. 1998, 'The boundary of leadership: getting it right and having it all ', Business Strategy Review, vol. 9.1. 23. Walumbwa, F.O., Lawler, J.J. & J., A.B. 2007, 'Leadership, individual differences, and work-related attitudes: A cross cultural investigation ', Applied Psychology: An International Review, vol. 56, no. 2. 24. Western, S. 2008, Leadership : a critical text, Sage, London. 25. WU, J., TSUI, A. & KINICKI, A. 2010, 'Consequences of Differentiated Leadership in Groups ', Academy of Management Journal, vol. 53, no. 1. 26. Yunxia, Z. 2007, 'Do Cultural Values Shape Employee Receptivity to Leadership Styles? ', Academy of Management Perspectives, vol. 21, no. 3.