Gates gave his people, particularly management, a lot of autonomy and listened to their insights. As a result, Microsoft has continued to operate successfully even though he is no longer involved day-to-day. Democratic leadership incorporates a lot of positive qualities, such as a leader who is actively involved in the business and who empowers employees and encourages team spirit.
Read more articles on leadership. Skip to content. Business Cards. Payment Solutions. If they're generally decent and not abusive, make good decisions for the organization, and fulfill the parent-figure or authority -figure image that most people in the organization are looking for, they can be both effective and well-respected.
The leader who sees herself as a manager is concerned primarily with the running of the organization. Where it's going is not at issue, as long as it gets there in good shape. She may pay attention to relationships with and among staff members, but only in the service of keeping things running smoothly. Depending upon the nature and stability of the organization, her main focus may be on funding, on strengthening the organization's systems and infrastructure policies, positions, equipment, etc.
If she's efficient, a managerial leader will generally be on top of what's happening in the organization. Depending on the size of the organization and her management level, she'll have control of the budget, know the policies and procedures manual inside out, be aware of who's doing his job efficiently and who's not, and deal with issues quickly and firmly as they come up.
What she won't do is steer the organization. Vision isn't her business; maintaining the organization is. In general, a well-managed organization, regardless of its leadership style, is a reasonably pleasant place to work. Staff members don 't have to worry about ambiguity, or about whether they'll get paid. As long as oversight is relatively civil - no screaming at people, no setting staff members against one another - things go along on an even keel.
Good managers even try to foster friendly relationships with and among staff, because they make the organization work better. On the other hand, good management without a clear vision creates an organization with no sense of purpose.
The organization may simply act to support the status quo, doing what it has always done in order to keep things running smoothly. That attitude neither fosters passion in staff members, nor takes account of the changing needs and they do change of the target population or the community. The organization may do what it does efficiently and well Obviously, the leader of any organization - as well as any other administrator - has to be a manager at least some of the time.
Many are in fact excellent managers, and keep the organization running smoothly on a number of levels. The issue here is the style that person adopts as a leader. If she sees management as her primary purpose, she's a managerial leader, and will have a very different slant on leadership than if her style is essentially democratic, for instance. A democratic leader understands that there is no organization without its people. He looks at his and others' positions in terms of responsibilities rather than status, and often consults in decision-making.
While he solicits, values, and takes into account others' opinions, however, he sees the ultimate responsibility for decision-making as his own. He accepts that authority also means the buck stops with him. Although he sees the organization as a cooperative venture, he knows that he ultimately has to face the consequences of his decisions alone.
Democratic leadership invites the participation of staff members and others, not only in decision-making, but in shaping the organization's vision. It allows everyone to express opinions about how things should be done, and where the organization should go. By bringing in everyone's ideas, it enriches the organization's possibilities.
But it still leaves the final decisions about what to do with those ideas in the hands of a single person. Some models of democratic leadership might put the responsibility in the hands of a small group - a management team or executive committee - rather than an individual.
Democratic leadership, with its emphasis on equal status, can encourage friendships and good relationships throughout the organization. In more hierarchical organizations, clerical staff and administrators are unlikely to socialize, for instance; in a democratically-led organization, such socialization often happens. It helps people feel valued when their opinions are solicited, and even more so if those opinions are incorporated into a final decision or policy.
What a democratic leadership doesn't necessarily do - although it can - is establish staff ownership of the organization and its goals. Although everyone may be asked for ideas or opinions, not all of those are used or incorporated in the workings of the organization. If there is no real discussion of ideas, with a resulting general agreement, a sense of ownership is unlikely.
Thus, democratic leadership may have some of the drawbacks of autocratic leadership - a lack of buy-in - without the advantages of quick and clear decision-making that comes with the elimination of consultation. A collaborative leader tries to involve everyone in the organization in leadership. She is truly first among equals, in that she may initiate discussion, pinpoint problems or issues that need to be addressed, and keep track of the organization as a whole, rather than of one particular job.
But decisions are made through a collaborative process of discussion, and some form of either majority or consensus agreement. Toward that end, a collaborative leader tries to foster trust and teamwork among the staff as a whole. A collaborative leader has to let go of the need for control or power or status if she is to be effective.
Her goal is to foster the collaborative process, and to empower the group - whether the staff and others involved in an organization, or the individuals and organizations participating in a community initiative - to control the vision and the workings of the organization. She must trust that, if people have all the relevant information, they'll make good decisions Collaborative leadership comes as close as possible to ensuring that members of the organization buy into its vision and decisions, since they are directly involved in creating them.
It comes closest to the goal of servant leadership explored in the previous section, and it also comes closest to reflecting the concepts of equality and empowerment included in the philosophy and mission of so many grass roots and community-based organizations.
It thus removes much of the distrust that often exists between line staff and administrators. David Chrislip and Carl E. Larson, in Collaborative Leadership - How Citizens and Civic Leaders Can Make a Difference, equate collaborative leadership not only with servant leadership, but with transformational see below and facilitative leadership as well. They identify four characteristics of the collaborative leader:.
Collaborative leaders also generally foster close relationships among staff members, making for more communication and cross-fertilization in their work, and leading to more effective ways to accomplish the organization's goals.
On the down side, management can be neglected in favor of building a collaborative organization. Even more to the point, collaborative decision-making can be excruciating.
Depending upon the group, ideas can be talked to death, and insignificant disagreements about insignificant areas of policy can take hours to resolve. Collaborative decision-making can be democratic - based on a majority vote after discussion - or dependent on arriving at consensus, with a range of possibilities in between. Consensus decision-making is particularly difficult, in that it requires everyone to agree before a decision can be made.
A single determined individual can derail the process indefinitely. Even at its best, a consensus process can take inordinate amounts of time, and try the patience of all involved. It's not impossible to employ, but it takes real commitment to the ideal of consensus, and enormous patience. In practice, true consensus decision-making is most often used in collective organizations, which are significantly different from collaborative ones, and often involve everyone in leadership.
A different view, popularized by James MacGregor Burns, contrasts two styles of leadership: transactional and transformational. Transactional leadership , as its name implies, views leadership as based on transactions between leader and followers.
The leader sees human relations as a series of transactions. Thus rewards, punishments, reciprocity, exchanges economic, emotional, physical and other such "transactions" are the basis of leadership.
In simplest terms, I lead this organization by paying you and telling you what you need to do; you respond by doing what you need to do efficiently and well, and the organization will prosper. Transformational leadership looks at leadership differently. It sees a true leader as one who can distill the values and hopes and needs of followers into a vision, and then encourage and empower followers to pursue that vision.
A transactional leader thinks of improvement or development as doing the same thing better: an organization that reaches more people, a company that makes more money. A transformational leader thinks about changing the world, even if only on a small scale. These two ways of looking at leadership style are not mutually exclusive: in fact, it's easier to look at leadership in the context of both.
Assuming, as almost all leadership theorists do, that transformational is either better than, or a necessary addition to, transactional leadership, what elements go into creating a transformational leader? What styles are transformational leaders likely to employ, and how? The transformational leader conceives of leadership as helping people to create a common vision and then to pursue that vision until it's realized.
She elicits that vision from the needs and aspirations of others, gives it form, and sets it up as a goal to strive for. The vision is not hers: it is a shared vision that each person sees as his own. Martin Luther King's overwhelming "I Have A Dream" speech derived its power not only from the beauty of his oratory, but from the fact that it crystallized the feelings of all those citizens, of all races, who believed that racism was a great wrong. In that speech, King spoke with the voices of the hundreds of thousands who stood before the Lincoln Memorial, and of millions of others who shared in his vision.
That speech remains as the defining moment of the Civil Rights struggle, and defined King - who had already proved his mettle in Birmingham and elsewhere - as a transformational leader.
The conception behind transformational leadership is thus providing and working toward a vision, but also has elements of empowerment, of taking care of people, and even of task orientation. The job of the transformational leader is not simply to provide inspiration and then disappear. It is to be there, day after day, convincing people that the vision is reachable, renewing their commitment, priming their enthusiasm.
Transformational leaders work harder than anyone else, and, in the words of a spiritual, "keep their eyes on the prize". The methods that transformational leaders might use to reach their goals can vary. They'll virtually always include involving followers in the goal, as well as charisma, which comes, if not from personal characteristics, from the ability to put a mutual vision into words, and to move a group toward the realization of that vision.
What style does all that imply? The managerial style is perhaps least appropriate to transformational leadership, since it pays no attention to vision. The autocratic pays little attention to the ideas of others, and is not generally congenial to the transformational leader.
On the other hand, there was Hitler, who tapped into the deepest emotions of those he led, and voiced them in a frightening but highly effective way.
There is no guarantee that a transformational leader will work for the betterment of humanity, although he may couch his vision in those terms. The intersection of the transformational and the autocratic is not impossible, but it usually has, at best, mixed results. Fidel Castro initiated and has maintained desperately-needed land, education, health, and other reforms in Cuba, for which he is still revered by much of the island's population.
He also eliminated any vestige of political freedom, imprisoned and executed dissenters and political opponents, and was at least partially responsible for destroying much of Cuba's economic base in the name of ideological purity. As with the four styles described earlier, there is no guarantee that either a transactional or transformational leader will be an effective one.
Their goal is to achieve the best outcome. To do that, these types of leaders make themselves available to help with issues, work alongside those they manage, and develop those they manage into better employees.
Servant leaders coach. Servant leaders are focused on constantly transforming their teams into stronger, more efficient, more productive and happier entities. Servant leaders are empathetic and use emotional intelligence to guide their leadership decisions. Servant leaders must also be aware that they need to avoid doing all the work. That can create inefficiencies and missed opportunities to lead in other areas. Just like a political democracy, where people with diverse opinions work together to come up with a consensus for decisions, a democratic leader gets everyone involved.
The whole team is a part of creating a vision and the ideal way to get there. Democratic leaders embrace group meetings and surveys. They value transparency in decision-making. They want their team to feel as involved in work processes as they are. They learn the value of collaboration and know they play a role in the evolution of their work environment. Using a democratic style on a constant basis can have drawbacks, though. They must take many steps to complete a task with strict order and rules.
As someone who is interested in the leadership path or looking for more structure in their leadership approach, it can be helpful to choose a leadership style that feels authentic to you. Some questions you may ask yourself when trying to determine which style is right for you include:.
What does a healthy team dynamic look like to me? These are just a few examples of questions to ask yourself while reading through leadership styles to help you decide which style you relate most with. To develop your leadership style consider these strategies:. Try out varied approaches in different circumstances and pay attention to the outcome. Be flexible in changing out your approach. Seek a mentor. Speaking with a leader with more experience than yourself can offer great insight into how they developed their style and what worked for them.
Ask for feedback. Although sometimes hard to hear, constructive feedback helps you grow into a successful leader.
Seek feedback from individuals you trust that will give you an honest answer. Be authentic. If you are trying to perfect a leadership style that is in opposition to your personality or morals, it will come across as inauthentic. While a certain leadership style may be impactful in a specific job—for example, autocratic leaders tend to do well in military settings—the best leadership is using a blend of these styles. Knowing what style to enforce in workplace situations comes with time, practice and emotional intelligence.
Remember, most leaders borrow from a variety of styles to achieve various goals at different times in their careers. While you may have excelled in a role using one type of leadership, another position may require a different set of habits to ensure your team is operating most effectively.
Related: 7 Types of Workplace Management Theories. Find jobs. Company reviews. Find salaries. Upload your resume. Sign in. Career Development. The importance of developing a leadership style. Image description Common leadership styles: 1. Types of leadership styles. Coaching leadership style. Are supportive Offer guidance instead of giving commands Value learning as a way of growing Ask guided questions Balance relaying knowledge and helping others find it themselves Are self-aware.
Visionary leadership style. Servant leadership style. Motivate your team Have excellent communication skills Personally care about your team Encourage collaboration and engagement Commit to growing your team professionally. Autocratic leadership style. Have self-confidence Are self-motivated Communicate clearly and consistently Follow the rules Are dependable Value highly structured environments Believe in supervised work environments.
Laissez-faire or hands-off leadership style. Effectively delegate Believe in freedom of choice Provide sufficient resources and tools Will take control if needed Offer constructive criticism Foster leadership qualities in your team Promote an autonomous work environment.
Democratic or participative leadership style. Value group discussions Provide all information to the team when making decisions Promote a work environment where everyone shares their ideas Are rational Are flexible Are good at mediation. Pacesetter leadership style. Set a high bar Focus on goals Are slow to praise Will jump in to hit goals if needed Are highly competent Value performance over soft skills.
Transformational leadership style. Have mutual respect with your team Provide encouragement Inspires others to achieve their goals Think of the big picture Places value on intellectually challenging your team Are creative Have a good understanding of organizational needs. Transactional leadership style.
0コメント