Leadership Styles: There Are Several Types Of Leadership

Leadership Styles There Are Several Styles Of Leadership Autocratic Le

There Are Several Styles Of Leadership Autocratic Le leadership styles There are several styles of leadership. Autocratic leaders control subordinates, emphasizing that the leaders are in control. Democratic leaders work with subordinates rather than controlling them. Laissez-faire leaders might be considered nonleaders. Such leaders engage in minimal influence with subordinates.

From the various leaders you have had in the past ten years (e.g., supervisors, managers, coaches, teachers, music directors, etc.), select one who was authoritarian, one who was democratic, and one who was laissez-faire. Begin your post by describing your three leaders in three or four sentences each. Then, addressing all items in the bullet point below. What did the leaders (i.e., autocratic, democratic, and laissez-faire) do differently to influence you? How did they use rewards and punishment differently? How did they exercise their power differently? How did others respond to the leaders’ contrasting use of power? Which exercise of power and influence seemed to be most productive? Based on what evidence? Finally, complete your post with a brief evaluation of your personal leadership style. Which style of leadership do you use? How do you know that your style is effective? What are two specific activities you could use to improve your leadership effectiveness? (Northouse, 2009, pp. 50–51).

Paper For Above instruction

Throughout my personal experiences over the past decade, I have encountered leaders with varying leadership styles, namely authoritarian, democratic, and laissez-faire. Each style has profoundly influenced my perceptions of effective leadership, shaping my understanding of authority, collaboration, and independence within a leadership context.

The authoritarian leader I experienced was my high school coach who maintained strict control over training routines and team discipline. This leader exercised a top-down approach, making decisions unilaterally and expecting unquestioning compliance. Rewards were predominantly material, such as privileges or preferential treatment, and punishments involved public criticism or sanctions for perceived misbehavior. He exercised power primarily through coercive influence, asserting authority to ensure compliance. Team members responded with obedience but also experienced stress and resentment, which at times hindered intrinsic motivation. While this approach yielded short-term discipline, it lacked fostering genuine engagement or creativity.

The democratic leader was my university professor who encouraged active participation, open discussions, and shared decision-making. This leader valued input from students, supporting collaborative problem-solving. Rewards included recognition and positive feedback, fostering intrinsic motivation, whereas punishments were minimal, reserved for addressing misconduct. Power was exercised through referent and expert influence—building relationships and demonstrating competence. Responses from students were generally enthusiastic, taking ownership of their learning and engaging deeply. This style promoted higher-quality outcomes and motivation, as students felt valued and respected.

The laissez-faire leader I encountered was a project supervisor in a corporate setting who provided minimal oversight and allowed team members considerable autonomy. This leader’s influence was limited, and authority was largely delegated. Rewards were informal, such as peer recognition, while punishments were rare, relying on self-regulation within the team. Power was exercised through delegated authority, trusting team members to self-manage. Responses varied; some team members thrived on independence, demonstrating innovation, whereas others struggled with direction. The lack of structure sometimes led to inefficiencies, but in highly motivated teams, this style encouraged creativity and ownership.

Analyzing these contrasting leadership approaches reveals notable differences in influence tactics. The autocratic leader relied on coercive power and control, which was effective for immediate compliance but detrimental to morale and intrinsic motivation. The democratic leader used referent and expert power, fostering engagement, innovation, and shared responsibility. The laissez-faire leader depended on delegated authority, which worked well with self-motivated individuals but was ineffective in less committed teams.

In terms of effectiveness, the democratic leadership style appeared most productive based on my observations. It encouraged participation and fostered a positive environment conducive to growth and learning, leading to better overall outcomes as evidenced in my academic and professional experiences. The inclusive approach promoted motivation and commitment, which are vital for sustained performance.

Reflecting on my personal leadership style, I tend to exhibit a democratic approach, emphasizing collaboration, empowerment, and shared decision-making. I believe this style is effective because it promotes trust and engagement among team members, leading to higher morale and productivity. Evidence of this effectiveness includes positive feedback from colleagues and consistent achievement of team goals where input was valued.

To further enhance my leadership effectiveness, I could implement two specific activities. First, engaging in active listening exercises would deepen my understanding of team members’ needs and perspectives, fostering even greater trust. Second, I could seek 360-degree feedback regularly to gain comprehensive insights into my leadership strengths and areas for improvement. These targeted activities would strengthen my ability to adapt and lead more effectively, ensuring sustained growth and positive team dynamics.

References

• Northouse, P. G. (2009). Introduction to leadership. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
• Bass, B. M. (2008). The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications. Free Press.
• Goleman, D. (2000). Leadership that gets results. Harvard Business Review, 78(2), 78-90.
• Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., & White, R. K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in children. Journal of social psychology, 10(2), 271-299.
• Yukl, G. (2010). Leadership in organizations. Pearson Education.
• Vroom, V. H., & Yetton, P. W. (1973). Leadership and decision-making. University of Pittsburgh Pre.
• Herzberg, F. (1966). Work and the nature of man. Cleveland: World Publishing Company.
• James, C. (2017). Transformational leadership and team performance. Leadership Quarterly, 28(2), 123-132.
• Schriesheim, C. A., & Kerr, S. (1974). Leader reward behavior: Extending Blake and Mouton's Managerial Grid. Academy of Management Journal, 17(2), 316-330.
• Northouse, P. G. (2018). Leadership: Theory and practice. Sage publications.