Positive leadership and followers should have continuous authentic interactions. Leaders are picked or arise to codify their follower’s goals and objectives. Followers concerns are for the wellbeing of all members. There should be continuous adjustments and feedback. Descent or strong feedback needs to be welcomed and encouraged.
Continuous attacks quash constructive feedback.
Here are some common leadership styles and a brief summary of their advantages and disadvantages: FLAT interactions of equals verses hierarchical interactions of it’ll get done the way the boss wants it done. Factors such as worker seniority, the business process being performed and the complexity of relevant tasks all play an important role in what leadership style to adopt for any given situation.
For example, situational leaders may adopt a democratic leadership style when discussing commercial direction with senior executives, but switch to a bureaucratic strategy when relaying new factory protocols to workers. However, many people have a natural leadership style, which can make switching between roles challenging.
Transformational leadership, typically inspire staff through effective communication, creating an environment of intellectual stimulation. “However, these individuals are often “blue-sky thinkers” and may require more detail-oriented managers to successfully implement their strategic visions.”
Charismatic leadership has a certain amount of overlap with transformational leadership. Both styles rely heavily on the positive charm and personality of the leader in question. However, charismatic leadership is usually considered less favorable, largely because the success of projects and initiatives is closely linked to the presence of the leader. While transformational leaders build confidence in a team that remains when they move on, the removal of a charismatic leader typically leaves a power vacuum.
Transactional leadership depends on group organization, with a clear chain of command and implementing a carrot-and-stick approach to management activities. It is considered transactional because leaders offer an exchange; they reward good performances, while punishing what they do not want. This can be an effective way to complete short-term tasks, employees or students in a school setting, are unlikely to reach their full creative potential or learn to think for the self in such conditions.
Autocratic leadership is a more extreme version of transactional leadership; autocratic leaders have significant control over staff or students and rarely consider their suggestions or share power. Ruling with an iron fist is rarely appreciated or enjoyed, which can lead to high turnover and absenteeism or mutiny. Autocrats quash certainty and thinking of group members. This leadership style is best suited to environments where jobs are fairly routine or require LIMITED SKILLS. It is also common in military organizations.
Laissez-faire leadership is commonly used to describe economic environments, laissez-faire literally means, “let them do” in French, let things take their own course, without interfering. This can be effective in creative jobs, tasks or workplaces where employees or students are very experienced. However, it is important that leaders monitor performance and effectively communicate expectations to prevent work standards from slipping.
Democratic leadership means leaders often ask for input from team members before making a final decision. Workers and students usually report higher levels of job satisfaction in these environments and the company can benefit from increased creativity. On the downside, the democratic process is normally slower, which becomes an issue when quick decision-making is crucial.
Bureaucratic leadership models are most often implemented in highly regulated or administrative environments, where adherence to the rules and a defined hierarchy are important. “These leaders ensure people follow the rules and carry out tasks by the book.” Naturally, this works well in certain roles – such as health and safety – but can stifle innovation and creativity in more agile, fast-paced companies.