Which Leader Style Is More Effective-Democratic Or Authoritarian?

Leaders are the ones we turn to when life gets to be too much. Good leaders set examples and provide guidance through education (Huber, 2014). As a new nurse I can understand how important it is to have a leader you turn to when you are unsure. Furthermore, in the business of health care we are managing people 's lives and one wrong move can be deadly. Therefore, it is important to collaborate with other health care professionals to ensure a safe competent method of delivery. Ideally, the role of a leader in health care is one that is knowledgable, firm, and confident, with the ability to deviate from the plan to assist with an emergency. Consequently, the purpose of this paper is to reveal three key behaviors successful leaders exhibit, assess my personal leadership style, referencing theories, while determining an optimal work environment based upon the aforementioned.

The major differences between democratic, authoritarian, and anarchic political systems are who holds the power, who has freedom/how much, and how much involvement the government has in the workings of its country. For authoritarian states, the power is held mainly by a single person or an elite group of people, few people have freedom, with what freedom they have being limited, and the government, or rather the leader/leaders, is involved in almost every aspect of the country from controlling the economy to making decisions for the lifestyles of its citizens like deciding how many kids they may have or what hair styles are approved. Everything is at the whim of those in charge and can change at any second. Anarchic is the exact opposite of this. In an anarchic government, everyone has power all the power they can take for themselves, nothing is unpermitted as there are no laws and since a government doesn’t exist, it can’t have any involvement in anything. Finally there is the democratic system which is a happy medium between these two extremes. In a democracy, everyone has some power through the right to vote directly or for elected officials who will run the country (who are limited by a constitution of some kind), everyone has freedom within the country’s generally reasonable laws, and government involvement is limited to making laws and regulations within reason to protect its citizens, economy, etc. For example, you would not see a democratic nation forbidding speaking

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.

Democratic Approach: This kind of approach is more positive in outlook as it is more productive and relates to people. Democratic leaders and managers should exert their controlling authority and provides stakeholders with the understanding that is needed and value their opinion by listening to any queries or issues they may have. According to ELEYS Study (2006) as referred from Smith, Maureen (2012). CACHE Level 3 Extended Diploma in Children and Young People's Workforce. Abingdon: Hodder Education. Page 79. “In particular, planned and managed

Different situations call for different sorts of leadership styles. A democratic leadership is better where many people's lives are in balance. However, there are exceptions to the rules (Nursing Leadership: Management & Leadership Styles, 2014). Leadership styles like democracy have advantages and disadvantages.

In order to determine the cause and effect that democratic deficit has on our governmental system, we must first define the terminology and where it exists in Canada’s political structure. The definition suggests that it is a deficiency in the way politics work in practice as to how it ought to work in theory (Democratic deficit - Oxford Reference 2014). It demonstrates that decisions are made through a procedurally sound process in which parliamentary representation has been voted for by the public, thus providing for legitimacy to the people being represented by government, this is not exactly the case. Moreover it is due to the way in which Canada’s representatives are elected. The use of “the first past the post” system of elections which was adopted from the United Kingdom has become an ever increasing factor to the democratic deficit.

Although there are many countries that consider themselves democratic but Canada is one of the countries that promotes democracy in reality too. Democracy is Greek word coined from “dems” means ‘the people’ and “kratos” means ‘authority’. Democracy is the “Political system based on the principle that governance requires the assent of all citizens through participation in the electoral process, articulation of views, and direct or indirect representation in governing institutions” (MacLean and Wood 30). Democracy is important for ensuring checks and balances in the society. In democracy, political leaders are elected by people through elections.

With the rise of democratic power in the world’s societies, comes also many problems that plague the citizens in those societies with regards of how the government uses and applies that democratic power. The structure of the Canadian government is an example, as are many other democratic organizations, of how despite the fact that the power is elected by the people of Canada, it also has created an unbalanced entity that creates somewhat of a disadvantage to the citizens. Within the fundamental documents that grant the people of Canada the rights and freedoms they are entitled to as well as outline the extent of the government’s power, also provide the government the ability to veto bills that were voted in by the population. In addition, the

In the contemporary world, democracy is one of the most progressive system of government that states freedom as a core value. Democracy is based on the free expression of people’s opinions, points of view as well as their opposition to the government actions. Citizens have a great control over the political events taking place in their country because through the elections they can select the right candidate who will be able to represent their interests. Core values of the democracy such as freedom, equality, pursuit of happiness are similar in different countries. However, the implementation of democracies may vary. USA and Canada are two big and prosperous countries that can be a prime example of how democracies may vary despite all the similarities. There are three major differences between US democracy and Canadian democracy such as consensus or in other words substantive goals of political actions, checks and balances or how do different branches of government work, and the last but not least federalism in regards to the division of power between federal government and territorial entities.

However, Canada can advance its current democratic liberalism by implanting the Nordic system and bringing in electoral reform through the proportional representation electoral system. Despite this, the current liberal democratic state of Canada is not completely flawed; for instance, Canadian citizens are granted many overlooked rights such as the right to compel the government into changing their decision. Thus, Canada’s governing system, although not completely faulty, will take a step in a positive direction by establishing the Nordic System, introducing proportional representation, and continuing to protect the right to the defiance of

Democracy will give way for this careful and time consuming analyzation so the best decision can be made, which is critical in managing Canada’s important goods. Lastly, the minds behind these decisions will be made better over time as the they develop experience. As with all things, everything is learnt and made better from doing so, and as democracy is based on creative thinking and analyzing, it will work the brains of those involved in it so that decisions will be made of a higher quality and at a faster pace as time goes on. Canada’s current government is an example, as motions put into act at the beginning of Trudeau’s reign took a lot longer to pass the ones currently going through. Meaning that Canada will be able to make better, faster decisions over time. In conclusion, Canada is in need of a leadership style that involves a myriad of varying voices that can make the best decisions for Canada and improve over time. A leadership style of which democracy can effectively provide, all paving way for

Democracy is an important fundamental aspect of changing the electoral system. In Ontario, the provincial governments called a referendum after poorly educating the masses on electoral reform. Many electoral systems were mentioned but the majority believed that MMP (mixed-member) could be easily implemented. The author suggests that electoral reform often fails in Canada because of the many problems that arise: negative media portrayal of electoral reform, an uneducated mass (on the topic of electoral systems), and diminishing government enthusiasm. The article states why electoral reform in Canada fails and why democracy needs to play an important role in the development of an electoral system that represents every Canadian citizens viewpoint.

Autocratic leadership is a classical leadership style with the following characteristics: manager seeks to make as many decisions as possible, manager seeks to have the most authority and control in decision making, manager seeks to retain responsibility rather than utilise complete delegation , consultation with other colleagues in minimal and decision making becomes a solitary process managers are less concerned with investing their own leadership development, and prefer to simply work on the task at hand. Whereas Democratic Leadership is the leadership style that promotes the sharing of responsibility, the exercise of delegation and continual consultation. The style has the following characteristics: manager seeks consultation on all

Finding a leadership style is like finding the dress or suit that fits just right. It may take several attempts, but once you find the one that fits, it is usually the one you will keep. For this class, we were asked to take a 50 question survey from Kent University to help us figure out what type of leadership style fits us best. From the results provided from the test, my leadership style was typed as participative. When reading more about participative leadership, I saw a quote I was able to resonate with completely, “The leader makes the final decision, but the team to contribute to the decision-making process” (How to find, n.d.). This quote made me realized that this type of leadership fit me down to the T. In terms of effective communication, I always make an effort to make sure the listener absolutely understands what I am conveying. By asking questions or bringing up any concerns they might have, I am able to make sure that everyone is on the same page. My job presents several opportunities to help teach and train new operators. By having a participant leadership style, I must ensure new operators know how to work within their position proficiently. As a trainer, I deal with trainees who at times feel overwhelmed with the plethora of information given to them. I find it important to give encouragement and facilitate training when need be. Being a participant leader requires a great of humility: “The leader can 't know everything”

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.