The Autocratic And Participative Leadership Styles Impact Company Culture, And Conflict Resolution

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

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

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.

Autocratic Approach: Autocratic leadership gives a positive belief about the updates about any policies. However this kind of approach is not highly regarded by many of the working environments. This is due to the amendments being brought into use prematurely for the uses to access them. This approach of leadership and management may be viewed as being too authoritative.

The leader who can expect to make all the right decisions and makes all the decisions for a group with little or no input from others. This is the best style for a situation that needs quick and effective decision when you under pressure. Margaret Thatcher is an Autocratic Leader because she can dominate in nature of authority and power and she makes decision with little or no input from others.

← Autocratic leaders are task-oriented and focused. Their style tends to work well where there is a need for a lot of structure, with the non-routine and complex tasks, or where there is a production emphasis.

Management styles are different according to the individual or determined by the company itself. Autocratic style of managing is one of them. In this style a manager does not take into consideration any ideas or suggestions of subordinates. Managers that convey this kind of style rely only on the ideas of his or her own and employees are to carry out tasks dependent upon the exact directions of the manager. Most of the time employees lack motivation to work with these kinds of managers (Management styles-Meaning and different types of styles, n.d.).

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

Autocratic leadership is a leadership style characterized by individual control over all decisions and little input from group members. Autocratic leaders typically make choices and rarely accept advice from followers. Autocratic leadership involves absolute control over a group.

I grew up in a top-down hierarchal family environment. Decisions depending on their affect on the family where either made by my grandfather or mother. We were all involved in the family business and everyone was expected to contribute. Fortunately, most decisions had a long term purpose which helped prioritize desired outcomes and business goals. It also included the direction on how myself and cousins were raised. It was communicated to myself at a very young age (2nd grade) that I would be going to college and business school. Their was little participatory or open dialogue when this autocratic style was applied. This type of leadership style and communication approach resolve conflict with 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

Most of the jobs I’ve worked have had authoritarian managers. Though it is a necessary style to start a worker off with, eventually, that worker becomes more comfortable in the environment and needs less rigid direction, and would benefit more from a democratic style of leadership. “ I have found in the years here that some of the employees need you to stand over them and be the authority figure” Rhonda Scruggs RN

The person with whom I consider a leadership role-model is the former Town Engineer that I worked with for six years before he left to work for another agency to become a director. His leadership style was a combination of all the three primary styles autocratic, democratic, and laissez-faire. However, he knew which style to use and in which situation. Regardless the style, he also knew how to communicate with his employees in that he fostered open and honest communication and genuinely wanted to hear employee ideas and concerns, thereby, building trust amongst one another.

In my opinion leadership styles can make or break a company. For example, if a leader displayed a Laissez-Faire leadership style how would the employees be productive? There would be no incentive or drive exhibited by the leader which would in turn not warrant the employees to have direction or have accountability in their positions. One the other hand an Authoritarian leader would be on the complete other end of the spectrum. These leaders are bossy, condescending and want things done only their way without input from the rest of the team. This would create doubt in their employees as well as possibilities of a hostile work

Many leaders who start pursuing leadership development are often trying to improve upon their organisations autocratic leadership style.