The Leadership Style Of The 21st Century

The advantage of "Laissez-faire" leadership is that it allows subordinates to work freely from any restrictions or interference from the leaders or managements. The disadvantage of "Laissez-faire" is that subordinates may drop in their productivity if the leaders do not have full and firm grasp on the whole process.

There are four main leadership styles, the first being Autocratic style which the manager retains as much control and decision making authority as possible, the manager does not give employees any input or consultation. The next is Bureaucratic which is where the manager manages ‘by the book’ which is where everything must be completed according to procedure and protocol. Mangers using this style will only consult with those above them in the chain of command. They simple enforce the rules of the workplace. The next style of leadership is Laissez-Faire which is also known as the ‘hands off’ approach to management. The manager usually provides little or no direction and give employees as much freedom as possible. All power is given to employees and they are to dictate their own work ethics. The last leadership style is the Democratic style which is also known as the participative style and this is where employees are encouraged to be a part of the decision making process. The democratic manager keeps their employees informed about everything that affects

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).

With that in mind, leadership theory has identified four management styles--authoritarian, democratic, participatory, and laissez-faire. There is inherently nothing wrong with any of them; all have their place at any given time. But it's the communication aspect that is important when implementing any given method of leadership that makes an organization rise or fall, and determines if respect is retained or lost within the group. Stated another way, the problem does not lie in the styles themselves, but rather in the presentation.

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

We would enforce these policies through our handbook which will be given to each employee. To effectively lead, I will heavily rely on William Ouchi’s Theory Z management style, which is a combination of Douglas McGregor’s Theory X (“emphasized such tactics as control, threat, and coercion to motivate employees”) and Theory Y (“managers did not rely on control and fear but integrated the needs of the workers instead and those of the organization”) (Albarran 84). Theory Z cites employee participation and individual development as important components of organizational growth. Also, management makes the keys decisions in an organization, and a strong sense of authority must be maintained (Albarran

Laissez-Faire Leadership - Effective leaders analyse each situation to determine an appropriate course of action. When team members have more experience that the leader do, adopting a laissez-faire approach enables the team to achieve its strategic objective without unnecessary interference. I used this method at the very beginning when I started to work for my company, as I do have some very experienced staff who works for the company for 12, 15 years.

Shortcomings of Laizze-Faire style are more likely seen that the benefits. This style is not ideal for many organizations. Groups that lack self-motivation and require the direct interaction of the leaders of the organization, will not benefit from this leadership style. Utilizing this style of leadership with teams that need direct supervision, leaves the members with having a poor understanding of their roles and responsibilities. Without these defined roles or schedules, the group members do not know what to do with their time. Projects and deadlines will suffer with this style if there is no self-motivation. Followers that are not good at setting their own deadlines may go off track and deadlines will be missed. (Cherry, 2016) They also lack the feedback and guidance that is needed to make their projects successful. Furthermore, these leaders can be

Laissez faire is the absence of effective leadership (Yukl G, 2010). Laissez faire leaders ignore problems and follower (Yukl G, 2010) and they do not contribute to the growth of the follower ( (Northouse, 2007). Feedback, rewards and leader involvement are totally absent in this type of leadership hence reduced organisational commitment.

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).

When we analyze the success of large corporations like Ford, General Electric and International Business Machines, it is evident that they had series of leaders who were visionary and believed in empowerment of people. When we analyze tough phases of a company or companies that had a fall and ultimate demise, we clearly see a linkage between failure of company and absence of effective leadership (Canwell, Dongrie, Neveras, & Stockton, 2014). The successful organization had leaders who made right decisions at right time and implemented them strategically. The implementation part needs excellent human resources and the ability to lead to them to get the task done. While different situations may need different style of leadership, the sophisticated manpower fueled by technological advancements and globalization have made some leadership styles less effective and some leadership styles to be highly effective (Feser, Mayol, & Srinivasan, 2014). This paper will discuss a tough situation faced in one of my former organization. The organization needed a different leadership style to tide over the falling sales and attrition. Three different leadership styles, their pros and cons, and the likely success in solving the problem will be discussed in this paper.

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.

My parents divorced when I was 11 and my mother left for Europe to be with her family. She definitely moved to USA when I was 16. I was really close to her while growing up so after she left I did not really have a female figure to look up too or to share my worries with. I grew up in the city and I was going to a private school; being the kid without a mother at home made me feel different but that was not something you could talk about in my dad’s house. He is a proud man and he put that pride in us so we had to keep our heads up all the time. Still, I had people talking on my back. I started keeping to myself from there and doing everything on my own without asking anyone help because that is how my dad wanted us to be: educated, successful, proud and independent so we wouldn’t have to deal with failure or rejection. I realize today that as people, we will always need someone’s help at some point in our life, and pride is not everything. It is hard letting go of old habits, but I am trying to be more of a people person because we can also learn from failure and rejection. They are all part of life.

The last style is called laissez-faire leadership. Here leader usually participates minimally and let team members find their own way out by allowing complete freedom in decision making (Simmons and Striley, 2014).

Developing a leadership style to fit twenty-first century challenges involve a great deal of knowledge, and patience. There are different leadership styles among managers, and cultures. Two leadership styles are transformational, and transactional. There are many ways leadership has developed, and evolved over time. Leaders in the twenty-first century have faced many challenges such as technological changes, multiple generations in the workforce, and more cultural differences. Fortunately there are solutions for these challenges for twenty-first leadership styles such as offering training to employees, informing employees about the different generations they are working with, and the different cultures in the company.