A Critical Analysis Of Democratic Leadership Style

A democratic leadership style is more likely to be successful over the long term because they share decision- making power with subordinates, participate in group activities, allowed the group to make decisions about an assignment, and try not to monopolize. This type of leadership brings about satisfying and productive employees (Shafritz/Russell/Borick, 2013).Democratic leaders seek peaceful changes and allow the foreseeable mistakes to be corrected.

According to the leadership theory by Kurt Lewin (1939), there are different leadership styles that affect group dynamics such as decision-making, effectiveness of group work, communication, collaboration, and etc. The two of leadership styles, authoritarian and participative, are highly related to the concept of groupthink. Groups with autocratic leaders who promote their preferred solutions are more likely to fall into groupthink than groups with non-promotional leaders (i.e. democratic and impartial) (Ahlfinger & Esser, 2001). In other words, groups led by controlling leaders who fail to encourage participation of group members in decision-making process would produce symptoms of groupthink and poor quality of decisions. On the other hand, groups with democratic leaders who make decisions by consulting with the group members while still maintaining control of the group are guarded against groupthink (Kearney & Gebert, 2009). So allowing greater input from group members protects groups from making faulty irrational decisions and encourages open discussion and critical appraisal.

An advantage of the democratic style involves a considerable job satisfaction of subordinates, through augmenting their responsibilities which results in more interesting and diverse work (Ribbins, 1997). Bush (2008) agrees; when responsibility is shared the self-confidence of group members is enhanced, as they have a key role in planning and decision-making. The democratic leadership style provides high quality expert knowledge and skills are identified and implemented towards achieving targets (Dimmock and Walker, 2005). Grace (1995) supports this, and claims that goals are more likely to be reached since; they have been established by group consensus.

Leadership is, and always has been, a vital aspect of social and economic constructs. It is essential to the survival of societies, industries, organizations, and virtually any group of individuals that come together for a common purpose. However, leadership is difficult to define in a single, definitive sense. As such, theories of leadership, what constitutes a great leader, and how leaders are made have evolved constantly throughout history, and still continue to change today in hopes of improving upon our understanding of leadership, its importance, and how it can be most effective in modern organizational cultures.

A1. Leadership Style Upon conducting research, it is clear that the definition of “leadership” is not agreed upon. It is fluid, based upon many perceptions, situations, and surroundings. According to Robinson (2010), adopting a specific style of leadership is rather futile as it is, “contingent on the personal traits of the leader, the people being led, and the nature of the activity.” Tools are available to help guide potential leaders in determining a preferred style of leadership. For example, utilizing the “Leadership Self-Assessment

Leaders are some of the most influential individuals in any society. They have the ability to influence those around them with various leadership styles including coercive, authoritative, affiliative, democratic, pacesetting, and coaching. Effective leaders consistently adapt to the environment around them to either enhance or correct any situation facing them. Within these leadership styles the most effective style has been considered that of the authoritative style. This style brings individuals together, builds self-confidence, and easily adapts to the environment around it.

Since the beginning of recorded history, leadership has been one of, if not the most important elements in the success or failure of an endeavor. This is whether it involved a prehistoric hunting party or ruling the Roman Empire. Today, leadership is recognized as a vital factor in an organization’s quest to be productive and profitable. For an organization to be competitive and achieve optimum success in the 21st century, it is vital that they employ effective leaders that will be able to communicate their vision and goals, motivate their employees and develop trusting and loyal relationships with its stakeholders. There is no one or best way to accomplish this mission. There have been numerous leadership theories and styles which have been developed over time which can enable leaders to choose which method would be most effective for them in establishing collaborative working relationships and a respectful team environment in a group setting (Landis, Eric A; Hill, Deborah; Harvey, Maurice R, 2014).

In Kouzers and Posner’s view, leadership is to mobilize others to get extraordinary things done; and it is not about personality but it’s about behavior.

Every person has a different definition of what makes a leader. Some feel a leader is inspirational, while others regard leadership as someone who can give criticism and make the tough decisions. Each definition is unique, and each is vague. This is why the definitions of leadership people use aren’t always accurate. Bolman and Deal, however, do an excellent job of presenting four frames of leadership people use to successfully—or unsuccessfully—support and lead a group of people. The four frames presented by the authors are: human resource, symbolic, structural, and political. The human resource frame is used by leaders to empathize with their followers, the symbolic frame is used to inspire and unite followers around a vision, the structural frame is used to emphasize the importance of a process, and the political frame establishes competition and focuses on creating allies.

After completing a quick management style inventory to discover my leadership style, my results came in and I am a democratic leader. According to Marquis, B., & Huston, C. (2014). “ Democratic leaders exhibit the following behaviors: Less control is maintained.

A psychologist, Kurt Lewin completed a research study in 1939 on the different types of leadership styles. He considered there to be three types of leaders, democratic, autocratic, and laissez-faire. In this particular study, children were placed in each individual group and viewed on the distinctive styles as they completed arts and crafts. A democratic leader is one that views participation from the group as the main attribute to making decisions. This leadership is viewed as being the most effective way to be a leader and just so happened to be my results from the short quiz that was taken. “Participative leaders encourage group members to participate but retain the final say in the decision-making process” (Cherry, 2016, Participative Leadership (Democratic)). Allowing the group members to feel included initiates room for creativity and motivation from not only the leader but also the group as

Leadership has many definitions, is multifaceted, and involves numerous aspects, such as identifying goals, providing support, inspiring and motivating people to act, and promoting the values of a group or organization (Giltinane, 2013). Some of the characteristics an effective leader possesses are honesty, creativity, emotional stability, energy, flexibility, conceptual skills, perseverance, and knowledge (Huber, 2014). Based on the Leadership Style Survey, my leadership style is determined to be participative, also referred to as democratic. This approach places emphasis on people, relationships, and teamwork. The leader shares responsibility by involving workers in group discussions and decision making, is able to recognize strengths and encourage workers

In the 1930’s Kurt Lewin argued three major styles of leadership Autocratic, Democratic and Laissez-fair (Manktelow, n.d.). Kurt’s simple but effective categorized leadership models provided a foundation to many different leadership theories. An Autocratic leader is one who makes decisions without the help or input of others. Because this leader doesn’t consult with the team, team members may feel as though their opinion doesn’t matter thus losing a team oriented atmosphere. This type of leadership may be seem as demoralizing and lead to high turn over rates and absenteeism (Manktelow, n.d.). Team members may feel unimportant and therefore take less ownership of team outcomes. A Democratic leadership style however is the almost the exact opposite of

Leadership scholars have presented many theories in understanding leadership. However, making sense of hundreds of books and thousands of studies is a complicated task, which is why many mistakenly think that leadership is an indefinable phenomenon. Some of us presume complete authority in our own favored ways. Novel leaders often discard the entire system used by the exiting leaders. In a catastrophic situation, persistence on individual style can be helpful; yet in a democratic culture, leaders don’t own the organization and must consider the right of the followers. Personal style and preference must be avoided in

Leadership can be defined as the ability to lead a group of people successfully in an organization. Hall, et al (2008) have mentioned that an effective leader has to be visionary, motivating and responsible in order to successfully run a business organization. In business the two key leadership styles, which are widely used in today’s corporate world are autocratic leadership and democratic leadership (Johnson, n.d.). Autocratic leadership may be explained as “a leadership style where the manager sets objectives, allocates tasks and insists on obedience” (Hall, et al 2008 p.g 401). Conversely, democratic leadership encourages “participation in decision making” (Hall, et al 2008 p.g 402). Whilst many people would consider autocratic