Leadership Style Does Not Automatically Suit All Leadership Situations

When using an authoritarian leadership style, close adherence to regulations and policies are the fundamentals of this leadership style. Workers are held to a specific standard, and the relationship is purely professional. In a democratic leadership style, the decision-making ability is shared. The superintendent relies on feedback from the foremen when making decisions.

Our societies, countries and the world at large are not enjoying the best of leaders and leadership today because bad leadership style such as authoritarian leadership style. In this type of leadership styles, citizen especially in the under developed and developing countries such as in leader and a where the leader believes that all power resides in him, an donly him has the power to make decision and exercise control, reward and publish instead of a democratic management style. Such organisations or countries is always a failure.

Authoritarian leadership style is where a leader has complete control and power over their team. They demonstrate their 'power' and 'control' by dictating policies and procedures, deciding what goals need to be achieved, and directs all activities to be done by the team. An authoritarian is usually most successful when things are going well or when in a crisis and decisions need to be made quickly.

In working with leadership that has an authoritarian style I have learned not to take it personally and to be open and adaptable to every possibility, these two traits can be vital in this type of atmosphere. When I worked in an environment where the authoritarian leader style was just that and the group would have preferred the democratic style. We learn ways that assisted us on how to deal with this type of situation. We understood that we could not change the circumstances, but we could change our attitude so we could get

Autocratic leadership, also known as authoritarian leadership is a leadership style characterized by individual control over all decisions and little input from group members. Autocratic leaders typically make choices based on their own ideas and judgments and rarely accept advice from followers. Autocratic leadership involves absolute, authoritarian control over a group. It can also be derived

Often times an authoritarian leader has full control of those around them, and believes to have complete authority to treat them as they want. An authoritarian leader would provide instructions without looking for inputs and superintend his or her nurses in a close manner. However, problems may arise if a nurse must wait for the manager's decision or direction before taking action regarding a patient. Although the authoritarian leadership style can be viewed as undesirable, it has proved to be very efficient in emergent and stressful situations. One of the key benefits of authoritarian leadership is the fact that decision making becomes much more simple and fast, as the leader doesn't have to consult or convince anybody. Basically authoritarian leadership can work wonders for the organization when decision making has to be quick and during some crisis.

Authoritarian leadership is a leadership style in which the leader dictates and controls all decisions in the group and task. Often referred to as Autocratic leadership, authoritarian leadership is about control, organization and discipline. Coach Haskins Leadership Style on the Court is authoritarian with his quota “You’re here to learn fundamental, disciplined defensive basketball. Now that means discipline both on and off the court. No girls. No booze. No late nights. Nothing besides fundamental basketball. I speak, you listen. I don’t wanna hear ‘can’t’ or ‘won’t’ or Coach, I’m bleeding. I don’t wanna hear anything except the basketball bounce. You play basketball my way. My way’s hard.” Bobby Joe This authoritarian style of leadership is often encountered in the world of athletics. During the beginning of their season Coach Haskins demands the respect of his players. His values included listening and obeying your coach, or repercussions will take place. If a player dared to disrespect the rules in place, either that person and/or the team would be put through punishment. There was no room for compromise, for whatever coach said was to be done. For example, when coach had said there was no partying some of the team members snuck out the first night. The next day at practice, coach had been informed of their disobedience and had the team running sprints for punishment until they physically could not do anymore. It happened again when coach caught Booby Joe Hill with a

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.

There are two definite strengths of authoritarian leadership: efficiency and productiveness. These both impact the team positively, as team members will feel satisfied - having completed a task/accomplished a goal successfully. Generally, the more efficient and productive a team, the more likely they are to be successful. Authoritarian leaders are proficient at motivating others. This leadership style allows for fast decisions which can be a lengthy process in other leadership styles such as bureaucratic. This essentially allows the team to begin a project and complete it promptly. An example of where this leadership is most effective is in the Armed forces. There is a clear defined structure of ranks and roles within the regiment. There is one leader in charge (the general) who instructs lower ranks and gives orders. The sergeant does this without any input from lower ranks. Northouse (2012) states some “would argue that authoritarian leadership is a much-needed form of leadership– it serves a positive purpose, particularly for people who seek security above responsibility.” This supports the strengths of the authoritarian leadership

Authoritarian leadership is appropriate for specific settings. This style is better if used in a high employee turnover setting where the resources are limited, or if there are major time

An effective leader influences their employees in a desired manner to achieve goals and objectives. Different leadership styles can affect an organization’s effectiveness and performance. The objective of this paper is to analyze the review of literature on various leadership styles over the past years and how effective and ineffective different leadership styles are in the workplace.

This paper is a critique of preceptor leadership methods. I will describe my current preceptor’s leadership style, giving an example of an observed valuable leadership strategy and why I found it to be successful. Shadowed by an example of an observed unsuccessful leadership strategy, how I responded, and a recommended strategy for the situation described. Ending with the type of leader I aspire to be in the future and my final thought regarding leadership.

People have always asked if there is any style of leadership that is most effective. Nevertheless, numerous theories and models have been created to show that there is no style of leadership that is the best. Rather, styles of leadership need to adjust depending on the variables such as the leader, the situation, the subordinate, the task, the environment and other factors. Paul Hersey, Kenneth H. Blanchard, and Dewey E. Johnson noted that if the leader’s style of behavior is appropriate or matches the situation it is considered effective. If it is not appropriate to a given situation, it is deemed ineffective. The difference between the effective and ineffective styles is often not the actual behavior of the leader, but the appropriateness of that behavior to the environment in which it is used. In reality, the third dimension is the environment.

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).

Authoritarian leadership is most suitable in situations in which employees are brand new and inexperienced in their jobs. Furthermore, this type of leadership can be appropriate in situations where time is constrained. In some other circumstances, employees challenge the leader’s authority, or a business or department has been mismanaged by a prior