Leadership Style And Its Affect On Teams

The theory of leaders can be autocratic, a person who doesn’t consider the person undertaking the task only getting the results. A democratic leader takes opinions of the staff and understands how they believe the best results can be achieved, whereas Laissez-faire style leaves the experienced staff to implement the work processes.

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.

the one that provides no guidance to the members of the team and fully let them make their own decisions. The fact that the author turned out a democratic leader was not surprising because the author believes this approach to be the most effective and focused on the members of the team rather on the leader.

Leadership styles have significant effects on organizations. For instance, it influences organizational culture and determines how leaders address conflict. Ultimately, it impacts organizational performance. Consequently, leaders must adapt their approach to achieve the desired outcome. Therefore, it is imperative leaders understand and can implement a variety of leadership styles. This essay will describe how an autocratic and participative leader’s style impacts organizational culture, summarize the strengths and weaknesses of each style, and explain how each leader would successfully resolve conflict.

Kurt Lewin, and a team of researchers, studied youth leaders. They studied youth leaders in activity groups. Based on those studies, it was concluded that there were three obvious and leading leadership styles. Kurt Lewin used the terms democratic, laissez-faire, and autocratic to describe the leadership styles. He also chose one that he thought was superior compared to the other two. The autocratic style is when a single person

Urban Meyer is the head coach for The Ohio State Buckeyes football team. He is 49 years old and was born in Toledo Ohio. He attended University of Cincinnati where he played football. Coach Meyer is married and has three children. Prior to coaching Ohio State he retired from coaching was working as a sports analyst for ESPN. Before retiring and working for ESPN, Coach Meyer was the head coach for the University of Florida. He led the Gators to two BCS championship wins and he held the highest percentages of wins for any active college football coach. (www.ohiostatebuckeyes.com).

In participative leadership, the leader of a group usually makes the final decisions, but only after consulting other team members for their input. Team members are inspired and motivated by this type of leadership which helps the leader’s decisions to be more widely accepted and adopted by the members (Reilly, 2011). In 1978, James Burns wrote a book about leadership styles in which he described the participative leader style as a type of

Out of these three Lewin found that the best style of leadership is Democratic, Autocratic leads to an upheaval where the Liaises-Faire approach creates unmotivated individuals who lack effort. (Lewin, LIippit and White, 1939).

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

Oftentimes in sports, coach’s contributions get overlooked while players garner most of the attention. When teams find success, it’s the players who receive the majority of the credit, while the coaches are often left in the background. Oppositely, when teams experience failure it’s the coaches who receive most of the criticism, not the players. In reality, organizations and teams are made up of multiple components, each having an effect on one another. Depending on the level of the sport, player to coach relationships can have an insurmountable effect on a team’s performance, culture, and cohesion. In building these relationships, coaches bring their own unique set of leadership skills and styles, and hope to have a positive influence

An effective leader has many factors that enable them to be successful. Some of the key characteristics of an effective leader are passion, charisma, dependability, problem solver, communication skills, and multi-tasking abilities. Marquis and Huston (2015) describe four types of leadership styles; autocratic, democratic, laissez-faire, and bureaucratic. The autocratic leadership style deals more with acquiring control and accomplishing tasks rather than relationships (Marquis & Huston, 2015). This type of leader generally makes independent decisions and uses force to implement power. Democratic leadership differs by having human relations and teamwork as the main focus (Marquis & Huston (2015). This leadership welcomes open and two-way communication. Laissez-faire leadership has minimal established policies abstains leading (Marquis & Huston, 2015). The bureaucratic style leans on established rules and policies and lacks security (Marquis & Huston, 2015). Most of the time, the rules are inflexible and the relationship with staff is impersonal. An effective leader can recognize the needs of the organization and foster that leadership style. W.C. recognizes fairness, consistent decisions, listening ability, and knowledge of the field as key qualities in a leader. She believes she has a combination of democratic and bureaucratic leadership styles. Her bureaucratic style promotes corporate policies and mandated regulatory compliance. Part of the qualities of a

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

Leadership can be defined in various ways. Walter F Ulmer, Jr a retired Lieutenant General in the United States Army (Dyer, 2015), defines leadership as an influencing factor where a leader gains the trust and commitment of its followers without the use of an authority position to achieve set goals (Sadler, 2003, P.5). Autocratic and democratic styles of leadership are based on two early studies on behaviour done by two American researchers, White and Lippitt carried out in 1939 and 1940 (Sadler, 2003, P.63). Autocratic leader delegates instructions expecting team members to follow through without asking for any explanation. This type of leadership style leads to unskilled followers as they are continuously doing what they are told, without

The key strengths of participative leadership style are increased productivity and job satisfaction. When employees are afforded an opportunity to be involved in the organization’s decision making process, they are likely to develop a strong sense of commitment to the organization as well as increase their performance. Job satisfaction is another key strength of this leadership style. Most employees display high levels of job satisfaction when they notice their suggestions and/or recommendations are taken seriously and in some instances implemented within the organization. Additionally, this

Leadership is a concept most people feel informed enough to discuss, but that few are truly educated sufficiently to comment on. Therefore, it is instructive to consider the leadership styles of people with very different approaches both to better understand the diversity underlying leadership, as well as to appreciate the effective and less effective strategies that underlie different leadership outcomes. For that reason, this essay will consider the styles of two leaders who are less visible in this highly contentious presidential election season: Jill Stein (the Green Party nominee) and Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate. The leadership styles of both are very different, yet they are aligned in the sense that both are outsider candidates struggling to gain momentum from a disaffected electorate. This essay begins with a theoretical discussion of leadership more generally and then turns to the two leaders as case studies, comparing and contrasting them and drawing conclusions about how they both work within the same public sphere and for putatively similar ends (i.e., gaining votes).