From Mahatma Gandhi and Winston Churchill to Martin Luther King and Steve Jobs, there can seem to be as many ways to lead people as there are leaders.Fortunately, businesspeople and psychologists have developed useful, simple ways to describe the main styles of leadership.By understanding these styles and their impact, you can develop your own approach to leadership and become a more effective leader.We'll look at common leadership styles in this article, and we'll explore situations where these styles may be effective with your people.

Note:The leadership styles in this article are based on several core leadership frameworks. You can read more about these in our article on Core Leadership Theories.

Adapting Your Approach to LeadershipIn business, a leadership style called "transformational leadership" is often the most effective approach to use. Transformational leaders have integrity, they inspire people with a shared vision of the future, they set clear goals and motivate people towards them, they manage delivery, and they communicate well with their teams. (You can find out more about transformational leadership at the end of this article.)However, leadership is not "one size fits all" thing; often, you must adapt your style to fit a situation or a specific group. This is why it's useful to gain a thorough understanding of other leadership styles; after all, the more approaches you're familiar with, the more tools you'll be able to use to lead effectively.Let's take a deeper look at some of the leadership styles that you can use.1. Transactional LeadershipThis leadership style starts with the idea that team members agree to obey their leader when they accept a job. The "transaction" usually involves the organization paying team members in return for their effort and compliance. The leader has a right to "punish" team members if their work doesn't meet an appropriate standard.Although this might sound controlling and paternalistic, transactional leadership offers some benefits. For one, this leadership style clarifies everyone's roles and responsibilities. Another benefit is that, because transactional leadership judges team members on performance, people who are ambitious or who are motivated by external rewards – including compensation – often thrive.The downside of this leadership style is that team members can do little to improve their job satisfaction. It can feel stifling, and it can lead to high staff turnover.Transactional leadership is really a type of management, not a true leadership style, because the focus is on short-term tasks. It has serious limitations for knowledge-based or creative work. However, it can be effective in other situations.2. Autocratic LeadershipAutocratic leadership is an extreme form of transactional leadership, where leaders have complete power over their people. Staff and team members have little opportunity to make suggestions, even if these would be in the team's or the organization's best interest.The benefit of autocratic leadership is that it's incredibly efficient. Decisions are made quickly, and work gets done.The downside is that most people resent being treated this way. Therefore, autocratic leadership often leads to high levels of absenteeism and high staff turnover. However, the style can be

effective for some routine and unskilled jobs: in these situations, the advantages of control may outweigh the disadvantages.Autocratic leadership is often best used in crises, when decisions must be made quickly and without dissent. For instance, the military often uses an autocratic leadership style; top commanders are responsible for quickly making complex decisions, which allows troops to focus their attention and energy on performing their allotted tasks and missions.3. Bureaucratic LeadershipBureaucratic leaders work "by the book." They follow rules rigorously, and ensure that their people follow procedures precisely.This is an appropriate leadership style for work involving serious safety risks (such as working with machinery, with toxic substances, or at dangerous heights) or where large sums of money are involved. Bureaucratic leadership is also useful in organizations where employees do routine tasks (as in manufacturing).The downside of this leadership style is that it's ineffective in teams and organizations that rely on flexibility, creativity, or innovation.Much of the time, bureaucratic leaders achieve their position because of their ability to conform to and uphold rules, not because of their qualifications or expertise. This can cause resentment when team members don't value their expertise or advice.4. Charismatic LeadershipA charismatic leadership style can resemble transformational leadership because these leaders inspire enthusiasm in their teams and are energetic in motivating others to move forward. This excitement and commitment from teams is an enormous benefit.The difference between charismatic leaders and transformational leaders lies in their intention. Transformational leaders want to transform their teams and organizations. Charismatic leaders are often focused on themselves, and may not want to change anything.The downside to charismatic leaders is that they can believe more in themselves than in their teams. This can create the risk that a project or even an entire organization might collapse if the leader leaves. A charismatic leader might believe that she can do no wrong, even when others are warning her about the path she's on; this feeling of invincibility can ruin a team or an organization.Also, in the followers' eyes, success is directly connected to the presence of the charismatic leader. As such, charismatic leadership carries great responsibility, and it needs a long-term commitment from the leader.5. Democratic/Participative LeadershipDemocratic leaders make the final decisions, but they include team members in the decision-making process. They encourage creativity, and team members are often highly engaged in projects and decisions.There are many benefits of democratic leadership. Team members tend to have high job satisfaction and are productive because they're more involved in decisions. This style also helps develop people's skills. Team members feel in control of their destiny, so they're motivated to work hard by more than just a financial reward.Because participation takes time, this approach can slow decision-making, but the result is often good. The approach can be most suitable when working as a team is essential, and when quality is more important than efficiency or productivity.The downside of democratic leadership is that it can often hinder situations where speed or efficiency is essential. For instance, during a crisis, a team can waste valuable time gathering

people's input. Another downside is that some team members might not have the knowledge or expertise to provide high quality input.6. Laissez-Faire LeadershipThis French phrase means "leave it be," and it describes leaders who allow their people to work on their own. This type of leadership can also occur naturally, when managers don't have sufficient control over their work and their people.Laissez-faire leaders may give their teams complete freedom to do their work and set their own deadlines. They provide team support with resources and advice, if needed, but otherwise don't get involved.This leadership style can be effective if the leader monitors performance and gives feedback to team members regularly. It is most likely to be effective when individual team members are experienced, skilled, self-starters.The main benefit of laissez-faire leadership is that giving team members so much autonomy can lead to high job satisfaction and increased productivity.The downside is that it can be damaging if team members don't manage their time well or if they don't have the knowledge, skills, or motivation to do their work effectively.7. Task-Oriented LeadershipTask-oriented leaders focus only on getting the job done and can be autocratic. They actively define the work and the roles required, put structures in place, and plan, organize, and monitor work. These leaders also perform other key tasks, such as creating and maintaining standards for performance.The benefit of task-oriented leadership is that it ensures that deadlines are met, and it's especially useful for team members who don't manage their time well.However, because task-oriented leaders don't tend to think much about their team's well-being, this approach can suffer many of the flaws of autocratic leadership, including causing motivation and retention problems.8. People-Oriented/Relations-Oriented LeadershipWith people-oriented leadership, leaders are totally focused on organizing, supporting, and developing the people on their teams. This is a participatory style and tends to encourage good teamwork and creative collaboration. This is the opposite of task-oriented leadership.People-oriented leaders treat everyone on the team equally. They're friendly and approachable, they pay attention to the welfare of everyone in the group, and they make themselves available whenever team members need help or advice.The benefit of this leadership style is that people-oriented leaders create teams that everyone wants to be part of. Team members are often more productive and willing to take risks, because they know that the leader will provide support if they need it.The downside is that some leaders can take this approach too far; they may put the development of their team above tasks or project directives.

Tip:In practice, most leaders use both task-oriented and people-oriented styles of leadership together. Our article on the Blake Mouton Managerial Grid explains how you can do this.

9. Servant LeadershipThis term, created by Robert Greenleaf in the 1970s, describes a leader often not formally recognized as such. When someone at any level within an organization leads simply by meeting the needs of the team, he or she can be described as a "servant leader."

Servant leaders often lead by example. They have high integrity and lead with generosity.In many ways, servant leadership is a form of democratic leadership because the whole team tends to be involved in decision making. However, servant leaders often "lead from behind," preferring to stay out of the limelight and letting their team accept recognition for their hard work.Supporters of the servant leadership model suggest that it's a good way to move ahead in a world where values are increasingly important, and where servant leaders can achieve power because of their values, ideals, and ethics. This is an approach that can help to create a positive corporate culture and can lead to high morale among team members.However, other people believe that in competitive leadership situations, people who practice servant leadership can find themselves left behind by leaders using other leadership styles. This leadership style also takes time to apply correctly: it's ill-suited in situations where you have to make quick decisions or meet tight deadlines.Although you can use servant leadership in many situations, it's often most practical in politics, or in positions where leaders are elected to serve a team, committee, organization, or community.10. Transformational LeadershipAs we discussed earlier in this article, transformation leadership is often the best leadership style to use in business situations.Transformational leaders are inspiring because they expect the best from everyone on their team as well as themselves. This leads to high productivity and engagement from everyone in their team.The downside of transformational leadership is that while the leader's enthusiasm is passed onto the team, he or she can need to be supported by "detail people."That's why, in many organizations, both transactional and transformational leadership styles are useful. Transactional leaders (or managers) ensure that routine work is done reliably, while transformational leaders look after initiatives that add new value.It's also important to use other leadership styles when necessary – this will depend on the people you're leading and the situation that you're in.

Tip:The Hersey-Blanchard Situational Leadership Theory, the Six Emotional Leadership Styles, and Fiedler's Contingency Model are all frameworks that help you choose the best leadership style to use in a particular situation. Spend some time exploring these.

Key PointsIn business, transformational leadership is often the best leadership style to use. However, no one style of leadership fits all situations, so it helps to have an understanding of other styles.The main leadership styles include:

1. Transactional leadership.

2. Autocratic leadership.

3. Bureaucratic leadership.

4. Charismatic leadership.

5. Democratic/participative leadership.

6. Laissez-faire leadership.

7. Task-oriented leadership.

8. People/relations-oriented leadership.

9. Servant leadership.

10. Transformational leadership.

By learning about the pros and cons of each style, you can adapt your approach to your situation.

Adapted from “The Wall Street Journal Guide to Management” by Alan Murray, published by

Harper Business.

Leadership is less about your needs, and more about the needs of the people and the

organization you are leading. Leadership styles are not something to be tried on like so many

suits, to see which fits. Rather, they should be adapted to the particular demands of the

situation, the particular requirements of the people involved and the particular challenges

facing the organization.

In the book “Primal Leadership,” Daniel Goleman, who popularized the notion of “Emotional

Intelligence,” describes six different styles of leadership. The most effective leaders can move

among these styles, adopting the one that meets the needs of the moment. They can all

become part of the leader’s repertoire.

Visionary. This style is most appropriate when an organization needs a new direction. Its goal

is to move people towards a new set of shared dreams. “Visionary leaders articulate where a

group is going, but not how it will get there – setting people free to innovate, experiment, take

calculated risks,” write Mr. Goleman and his coauthors.

Coaching. This one-on-one style focuses on developing individuals, showing them how to

improve their performance, and helping to connect their goals to the goals of the organization.

Coaching works best, Mr. Goleman writes, “with employees who show initiative and want

more professional development.” But it can backfire if it’s perceived as “micromanaging” an

employee, and undermines his or her self-confidence.

Affiliative. This style emphasizes the importance of team work, and creates harmony in a

group by connecting people to each other. Mr. Goleman argues this approach is particularly

valuable “when trying to heighten team harmony, increase morale, improve communication or

repair broken trust in an organization.” But he warns against using it alone, since its emphasis

on group praise can allow poor performance to go uncorrected. “Employees may perceive,” he

writes, “that mediocrity is tolerated.”

Democratic. This style draws on people’s knowledge and skills, and creates a group

commitment to the resulting goals. It works best when the direction the organization should

take is unclear, and the leader needs to tap the collective wisdom of the group. Mr. Goleman

warns that this consensus-building approach can be disastrous in times of crisis, when urgent

events demand quick decisions.

Pacesetting. In this style, the leader sets high standards for performance. He or she is

“obsessive about doing things better and faster, and asks the same of everyone.” But Mr.

Goleman warns this style should be used sparingly, because it can undercut morale and make

people feel as if they are failing. “Our data shows that, more often than not, pacesetting

poisons the climate,” he writes.

Commanding. This is classic model of “military” style leadership – probably the most often

used, but the least often effective. Because it rarely involves praise and frequently employs

criticism, it undercuts morale and job satisfaction. Mr. Goleman argues it is only effective in a

crisis, when an urgent turnaround is needed. Even the modern military has come to recognize

its limited usefulness.

Leadership styles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article has no lead section. Please help by adding an introductory section to this article. For more information, see the layout guide, and Wikipedia's lead section guidelines. (March 2012)

This article may need to be wikified to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please help by adding relevant   internal links , or by improving the article's layout. (March 2012)

Click [show] on right for more details.[show]

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (May 2012)

There are many different leadership styles that can be exhibited by leaders in the political,

business or other fields.

Contents

  [hide] 

1   Authoritarian

2   Democratic

3   Laissez-faire

4   Transactional

5   References

6   See also

[edit]Authoritarian

The authoritarian leadership style or autocratic leader keeps strict, close control over

followers by keeping close regulation of policy's and procedures given to followers. To keep

main emphasis on the distinction of the authoritarian leader and their followers, these types of

leaders make sure to only create a distinct professional relationship. Direct supervision is what

they believe to be key in maintaining a successful environment and follower ship. In fear of

followers being unproductive, authoritarian leaders keep close supervision and feel this is

necessary in order for anything to be done.

Examples of authoritarian communicative behavior: a police officer directing traffic, a teacher

ordering a student to do his or her assignment, and a supervisor instructing a subordinate to clean

a workstation. All of these positions require a distinct set of characteristics that give the leader

the position to get things in order or get a point across. Authoritarian Traits: sets goals

individually, engages primarily in one-way, downward communication, controls discussion with

followers, sets goals individually, engages primarily in one-way, downward communication and

donates interaction.[1]

[edit]Democratic

The democratic leadership style consists of the leader sharing the decision-making abilities

with group members by promoting the interests of the group members and by practicing social

equality.[2]

This style of leadership encompasses discussion, debate and sharing of ideas and encouragement

of people to feel good about their involvement. The boundaries of democratic participation tend

to be circumscribed by the organization or the group needs and the instrumental value of people's

attributes (skills, attitudes, etc.). The democratic style encompasses the notion that everyone, by

virtue of their human status, should play a part in the group's decisions. However, the democratic

style of leadership still requires guidance and control by a specific leader. The democratic style

demands the leader to make decisions on who should be called upon within the group and who is

given the right to participate in, make and vote on decisions.[3]

Research has found that this leadership style is one of the most effective and creates higher

productivity, better contributions from group members and increased group morale. Democratic

leadership can lead to better ideas and more creative solutions to problems because group

members are encouraged to share their thoughts and ideas. While democratic leadership is one of

the most effective leadership styles, it does have some potential downsides. In situations where

roles are unclear or time is of the essence, democratic leadership can lead to communication

failures and uncompleted projects. Democratic leadership works best in situations where group

members are skilled and eager to share their knowledge. It is also important to have plenty of

time to allow people to contribute, develop a plan and then vote on the best course of action.[1]

[edit]Laissez-faire

The laissez-faire leadership style was first described by Lewin, Lippitt, and White in 1938,

along with the autocratic leadership and the democratic leadership styles. The laissez faire style

is sometimes described as a "hands off" leadership style because the leader delegates the tasks to

their followers while providing little or no direction to the followers.[4][unreliable source?] If the leader

withdraws too much from their followers it can sometimes result in a lack of productivity,

cohesiveness, and satisfaction.[5]

Lassiez-faire leaders allow followers to have complete freedom to make decisions concerning the

completion of their work. It allows followers a high degree of autonomy and self-rule, while at

the same time offering guidance and support when requested. The lassiez faire leader using

guided freedom provides the followers with all materials necessary to accomplish their goals, but

does not directly participate in decision making unless the followers request their assistance.[6]

[unreliable source?]

This is an effective style to use when:

Followers are highly skilled, experienced, and educated.

Followers have pride in their work and the drive to do it successfully on their own.

Outside experts, such as staff specialists or consultants are being used.

Followers are trustworthy and experienced.

This style should NOT be used when:

Followers feel insecure at the unavailability of a leader.

The leader cannot or will not provide regular feedback to their followers.[6]

[edit]Transactional

The transactional style of leadership was first described by Max Weber in 1947 and then later

described by Bernard Bass in 1981. Mainly used by management, transactional leaders focus

their leadership on motivating followers through a system of rewards and punishments. There are

two factors which form the basis for this system, Contingent Reward and management-by-

exception.[7][unreliable source?]

Contingent Reward Provides rewards, materialistic or psychological, for effort and

recognizes good performance.

Management-by-Exception allows the leader to maintain the status quo. The leader

intervenes when subordinates do not meet acceptable performance levels and initiates

corrective action to improve performance.[8]

Leadership styles

 Disciplines   > Leadership > Styles

 

There are a number of different approaches, or 'styles' to leadership and management that are based on different assumptions and theories. The style that individuals use will be based on a combination of their beliefs, values and preferences, as well as the organizational culture and norms which will encourage some styles and discourage others.

Charismatic Leadership Participative Leadership Situational Leadership Transactional Leadership Transformational Leadership The Quiet Leader Servant Leadership

Charismatic Leadership

 Disciplines   > Leadership > Leadership styles > Charismatic LeadershipAssumptions | Style | Discussion | See also 

Assumptions

Charm and grace are all that is needed to create followers.

Self-belief is a fundamental need of leaders.

People follow others that they personally admire.

Style

The Charismatic Leader gathers followers through dint of personality and charm, rather than any form of external power or authority.The searchlight of attention

It is interesting to watch a Charismatic Leader 'working the room' as they move from person to person. They pay much attention to the person they are talking to at any one moment, making that person feel like they are, for that time, the most important person in the world.

Charismatic Leaders pay a great deal of attention in scanning and reading their environment, and are good at picking up the moods and concerns of both individuals and larger audiences. They then will hone their actions and words to suit the situation.Pulling all of the strings

Charismatic Leaders use a wide range of methods to manage their image and, if they are not naturally charismatic, may practice assiduously at developing their skills. They may engender trust through visible self-sacrifice and taking personal risks in the name of their beliefs. They

will show great confidence in their followers. They are very persuasive and make very effective use of body language as well as verbal language.

Deliberate charisma is played out in a theatrical sense, where the leader is 'playing to the house' to create a desired effect. They also make effective use of storytelling, including the use of symbolism and metaphor.

Many politicians use a charismatic style, as they need to gather a large number of followers. If you want to increase your charisma, studying videos of their speeches and the way they interact with others is a great source of learning. Religious leaders, too, may well use charisma, as do cult leaders. Leading the team

Charismatic Leaders who are building a group, whether it is a political party, a cult or a business team, will often focus strongly on making the group very clear and distinct, separating it from other groups. They will then build the image of the group, in particular in the minds of their followers, as being far superior to all others.

The Charismatic Leader will typically attach themselves firmly to the identify of the group, such that to join the group is to become one with the leader. In doing so, they create an unchallengeable position for themselves.Alternative views

The description above is purely based on charisma and takes into account varying moral positions. Other descriptions tend to assume a more benevolent approach.

Conger & Kanungo (1998) describe five behavioral attributes of Charismatic Leaders that indicate a more transformational viewpoint:

Vision and articulation; Sensitivity to the environment; Sensitivity to member needs; Personal risk taking; Performing unconventional behaviour.

Musser (1987) notes that charismatic leaders seek to instil both commitment to ideological goals and also devotion to themselves. The extent to which either of these two goals is dominant depends on the underlying motivations and needs of the leader.

Discussion

The Charismatic Leader and the Transformational Leader can have many similarities, in that the Transformational Leader may well be charismatic. Their main difference is in their basic focus. Whereas the Transformational Leader has a basic focus of transforming the organization and, quite possibly, their followers, the Charismatic Leader may not want to change anything.

Despite their charm and apparent concern, the Charismatic Leader may well be somewhat more concerned with themselves than anyone else. A typical experience with them is that whilst you are talking with them, it is like being bathed in a warm and pleasant glow, in which they are very convincing. Yet afterwards, ask the sunbeam of their attention is moved elsewhere, you may begin to question what they said (or even whether they said anything of significance at all).

The values of the Charismatic Leader are highly significant. If they are well-intentioned towards others, they can elevate and transform an entire company. If they are selfish and Machiavellian, they can create cults and effectively rape the minds (and potentially the bodies) of the followers.

Their self-belief is so high, they can easily believe that they are infallible, and hence lead their followers into an abyss, even when they have received adequate warning from others. The self-belief can also lead them into psychotic narcissism, where their self-absorption or need for admiration and worship can lead to their followers questioning their leadership.They may also be intolerant of challengers and their irreplaceability (intentional or otherwise) can mean that there are no successors when they leave.

Participative Leadership

 Disciplines   > Leadership > Leadership styles > Participative Leadership

Assumptions | Style | Discussion | See also 

Assumptions

Involvement in decision-making improves the understanding of the issues involved by those who must carry out the decisions.

People are more committed to actions where they have involved in the relevant decision-making.

People are less competitive and more collaborative when they are working on joint goals.

When people make decisions together, the social commitment to one another is greater and thus increases their commitment to the decision.

Several people deciding together make better decisions than one person alone.

Style

A Participative Leader, rather than taking autocratic decisions, seeks to involve other people in the process, possibly including subordinates, peers, superiors and other stakeholders. Often, however, as it is within the managers' whim to give or deny control to his or her subordinates, most participative activity is within the immediate team. The question of how much influence others are given thus may vary on the manager's preferences and beliefs, and a whole spectrum of participation is possible, as in the table below.

 < Not participative Highly participative >

Autocratic decision by

leader

Leader proposes decision, listens to feedback,

then decides

Team proposes decision, leader has

final decision

Joint decision with team as

equals

Full delegation of decision to

team

 

There are many varieties on this spectrum, including stages where the leader sells the idea to the team. Another variant is for the leader to describe the 'what' of objectives or goals and let the team or individuals decide the 'how' of the process by which the 'how' will be achieved (this is often called 'Management by Objectives').

The level of participation may also depend on the type of decision being made. Decisions on how to implement goals may be highly participative, whilst decisions during subordinate performance evaluations are more likely to be taken by the manager.

Discussion

There are many potential benefits of participative leadership, as indicated in the assumptions, above.

This approach is also known as consultation, empowerment, joint decision-making, democratic leadership, Management By Objective (MBO) and power-sharing.

Participative Leadership can be a sham when managers ask for opinions and then ignore them. This is likely to lead to cynicism and feelings of betrayal.

See also

Michigan Leadership Studies, Theories about decision-making, Lewin's leadership styles, Vroom and Yetton's Normative Model

Coch, L. and French, J.R.P. (1948). Overcoming resistance to change, Human relations, 1, 512-532

Tannenbaum, A.S. and Alport, F.H. (1956). Personality structure adn group structure: An interpretive structure of their relationship through an event structure hypothesis. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 53, 272-280

Tannenbaum, A.S. and Schmitt, W.H. (1958). How to choose a leadership pattern. Harvard Business Review, 36, March-April, 95-101

French, J.R.P. Israel, J. and As, D. (1960). An experiment on participation in a Norwegian factory. Human Relations, 13, 3-19

Situational Leadership

 Disciplines   > Leadership > Leadership styles > Situational LeadershipAssumptions | Style | Discussion | See also 

Assumptions

The best action of the leader depends on a range of situational factors.

Style

When a decision is needed, an effective leader does not just fall into a single preferred style, such as using transactional or transformational methods. In practice, as they say, things are not that simple.

Factors that affect situational decisions include motivation and capability of followers. This, in turn, is affected by factors within the particular situation. The relationship between followers and the leader may be another factor that affects leader behavior as much as it does follower behavior.

The leaders' perception of the follower and the situation will affect what they do rather than the truth of the situation. The leader's perception of themselves and other factors such as stress and mood will also modify the leaders' behavior.

Yukl (1989) seeks to combine other approaches and identifies six variables:

Subordinate effort: the motivation and actual effort expended. Subordinate ability and role clarity: followers knowing what to do and how to do it. Organization of the work: the structure of the work and utilization of resources. Cooperation and cohesiveness: of the group in working together. Resources and support: the availability of tools, materials, people, etc. External coordination: the need to collaborate with other groups.

Leaders here work on such factors as external relationships, acquisition of resources, managing demands on the group and managing the structures and culture of the group.

Discussion

Tannenbaum and Schmidt (1958) identified three forces that led to the leader's action: the forces in the situation, the forces in then follower and also forces in the leader. This recognizes that the leader's style is highly variable, and even such distant events as a family argument can lead to the displacement activity of a more aggressive stance in an argument than usual.

Maier (1963) noted that leaders not only consider the likelihood of a follower accepting a suggestion, but also the overall importance of getting things done. Thus in critical situations, a leader is more likely to be directive in style simply because of the implications of failure.

See also

Hersey and Blanchard's Situational Leadership, Vroom and Yetton's Normative Model

Tannenbaum, A.S. and Schmitt, W.H. (1958) How to choose a leadership pattern. Harvard Business Review, 36, March-April, 95-101

Maier, N.R.F. (1963). Problem-solving discussions and conferences: Leadership methods and skills. New York: McGraw-HillYukl, G. A. (1989). Leadership in Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Transactional Leadership

 Disciplines   > Leadership > Leadership styles > Transactional Leadership

Assumptions | Style | Discussion | See also 

Assumptions

People are motivated by reward and punishment.

Social systems work best with a clear chain of command.

When people have agreed to do a job, a part of the deal is that they cede all authority to their manager.

The prime purpose of a subordinate is to do what their manager tells them to do.

Style

The transactional leader works through creating clear structures whereby it is clear what is required of their subordinates, and the rewards that they get for following orders. Punishments are not always mentioned, but they are also well-understood and formal systems of discipline are usually in place.

The early stage of Transactional Leadership is in negotiating the contract whereby the subordinate is given a salary and other benefits, and the company (and by implication the subordinate's manager) gets authority over the subordinate.

When the Transactional Leader allocates work to a subordinate, they are considered to be fully responsible for it, whether or not they have the resources or capability to carry it out. When things go wrong, then the subordinate is considered to be personally at fault, and is punished for their failure (just as they are rewarded for succeeding).

The transactional leader often uses management by exception, working on the principle that if something is operating to defined (and hence expected) performance then it does not need attention. Exceptions to expectation require praise and reward for exceeding expectation, whilst some kind of corrective action is applied for performance below expectation.

Whereas Transformational Leadership has more of a 'selling' style, Transactional Leadership, once the contract is in place, takes a 'telling' style.

Discussion

Transactional leadership is based in contingency, in that reward or punishment is contingent upon performance.

Despite much research that highlights its limitations, Transactional Leadership is still a popular approach with many managers. Indeed, in the Leadership vs. Management spectrum, it is very much towards the management end of the scale.

The main limitation is the assumption of 'rational man', a person who is largely motivated by money and simple reward, and hence whose behavior is predictable. The underlying psychology is Behaviorism, including the Classical Conditioning   of Pavlov and Skinner's Operant Conditioning. These theories are largely based on controlled laboratory experiments (often with animals) and ignore complex emotional factors and social values.In practice, there is sufficient truth in Behaviorism to sustain Transactional approaches. This is reinforced by the supply-and-demand situation of much employment, coupled with the effects of deeper needs, as in  Maslow's Hierarchy . When the demand for a skill outstrips the supply, then Transactional Leadership often is insufficient, and other approaches are more effective.

Transactional Leadership

 Disciplines   > Leadership > Leadership styles > Transactional LeadershipAssumptions | Style | Discussion | See also 

Assumptions

People are motivated by reward and punishment.

Social systems work best with a clear chain of command.

When people have agreed to do a job, a part of the deal is that they cede all authority to their manager.

The prime purpose of a subordinate is to do what their manager tells them to do.

Style

The transactional leader works through creating clear structures whereby it is clear what is required of their subordinates, and the rewards that they get for following orders. Punishments are not always mentioned, but they are also well-understood and formal systems of discipline are usually in place.

The early stage of Transactional Leadership is in negotiating the contract whereby the subordinate is given a salary and other benefits, and the company (and by implication the subordinate's manager) gets authority over the subordinate.

When the Transactional Leader allocates work to a subordinate, they are considered to be fully responsible for it, whether or not they have the resources or capability to carry it out. When things go wrong, then the subordinate is considered to be personally at fault, and is punished for their failure (just as they are rewarded for succeeding).

The transactional leader often uses management by exception, working on the principle that if something is operating to defined (and hence expected) performance then it does not need attention. Exceptions to expectation require praise and reward for exceeding expectation, whilst some kind of corrective action is applied for performance below expectation.

Whereas Transformational Leadership has more of a 'selling' style, Transactional Leadership, once the contract is in place, takes a 'telling' style.

Discussion

Transactional leadership is based in contingency, in that reward or punishment is contingent upon performance.

Despite much research that highlights its limitations, Transactional Leadership is still a popular approach with many managers. Indeed, in the Leadership vs. Management spectrum, it is very much towards the management end of the scale.

The main limitation is the assumption of 'rational man', a person who is largely motivated by money and simple reward, and hence whose behavior is predictable. The underlying psychology is Behaviorism, including the Classical Conditioning   of Pavlov and Skinner's Operant

Conditioning. These theories are largely based on controlled laboratory experiments (often with animals) and ignore complex emotional factors and social values.In practice, there is sufficient truth in Behaviorism to sustain Transactional approaches. This is reinforced by the supply-and-demand situation of much employment, coupled with the effects of deeper needs, as in  Maslow's Hierarchy . When the demand for a skill outstrips the supply, then Transactional Leadership often is insufficient, and other approaches are more effective.

Transformational Leadership

 Disciplines   > Leadership > Leadership styles > Transformational Leadership

Assumptions | Style | Discussion | See also 

Assumptions

People will follow a person who inspires them.

A person with vision and passion can achieve great things.

The way to get things done is by injecting enthusiasm and energy.

Style

Working for a Transformational Leader can be a wonderful and uplifting experience. They put passion and energy into everything. They care about you and want you to succeed.Developing the vision

Transformational Leadership starts with the development of a vision, a view of the future that will excite and convert potential followers. This vision may be developed by the leader, by the senior team or may emerge from a broad series of discussions. The important factor is the leader buys into it, hook, line and sinker.Selling the vision

The next step, which in fact never stops, is to constantly sell the vision. This takes energy and commitment, as few people will immediately buy into a radical vision, and some will join the show much more slowly than others. The Transformational Leader thus takes every opportunity and will use whatever works to convince others to climb on board the bandwagon.

In order to create followers, the Transformational Leader has to be very careful in creating trust, and their personal integrity is a critical part of the package that they are selling. In effect, they are selling themselves as well as the vision.Finding the way forwards

In parallel with the selling activity is seeking the way forward. Some Transformational Leaders know the way, and simply want others to follow them. Others do not have a ready strategy, but will happily lead the exploration of possible routes to the promised land.

The route forwards may not be obvious and may not be plotted in details, but with a clear vision, the direction will always be known. Thus finding the way forward can be an ongoing process of course correction, and the Transformational Leader will accept that there will be failures and blind canyons along the way. As long as they feel progress is being made, they will be happy.

Leading the charge

The final stage is to remain up-front and central during the action. Transformational Leaders are always visible and will stand up to be counted rather than hide behind their troops. They show by their attitudes and actions how everyone else should behave. They also make continued efforts to motivate and rally their followers, constantly doing the rounds, listening, soothing and enthusing.

It is their unswerving commitment as much as anything else that keeps people going, particularly through the darker times when some may question whether the vision can ever be achieved. If the people do not believe that they can succeed, then their efforts will flag. The Transformational Leader seeks to infect and reinfect their followers with a high level of commitment to the vision.

One of the methods the Transformational Leader uses to sustain motivation is in the use of ceremonies, rituals and other cultural symbolism. Small changes get big hurrahs, pumping up their significance as indicators of real progress.

Overall, they balance their attention between action that creates progress and the mental state of their followers. Perhaps more than other approaches, they are people-oriented and believe that success comes first and last through deep and sustained commitment.

Discussion

Whilst the Transformational Leader seeks overtly to transform the organization, there is also a tacit promise to followers that they also will be transformed in some way, perhaps to be more like this amazing leader. In some respects, then, the followers are the product of the transformation.

Transformational Leaders are often charismatic, but are not as narcissistic as pure Charismatic Leaders, who succeed through a belief in themselves rather than a belief in others.

One of the traps of Transformational Leadership is that passion and confidence can easily be mistaken for truth and reality. Whilst it is true that great things have been achieved through enthusiastic leadership, it is also true that many passionate people have led the charge right over the cliff and into a bottomless chasm. Just because someone believes they are right, it does not mean they are right.

Paradoxically, the energy that gets people going can also cause them to give up. Transformational Leaders often have large amounts of enthusiasm which, if relentlessly applied, can wear out their followers.

Transformational Leaders also tend to see the big picture, but not the details, where the devil often lurks. If they do not have people to take care of this level of information, then they are usually doomed to fail.

Finally, Transformational Leaders, by definition, seek to transform. When the organization does not need transforming and people are happy as they are, then such a leader will be frustrated. Like wartime leaders, however, given the right situation they come into their own and can be personally responsible for saving entire companies.

The Quiet Leader

 Disciplines   > Leadership > Leadership styles > The Quiet LeaderAssumptions | Style | Discussion | See also 

Assumptions

The actions of a leader speak louder than his or her words.

People are motivated when you give them credit rather than take it yourself.

Ego and aggression are neither necessary nor constructive.

Style

The approach of quiet leaders is the antithesis of the classic charismatic (and often transformational) leaders in that they base their success not on ego and force of character but on their thoughts and actions. Although they are strongly task-focused, they are neither bullies nor unnecessarily unkind and may persuade people through rational argument and a form of benevolent Transactional Leadership.The 'Level 5' leader

In his book Good To Great, Jim Collins, identified five levels of effectiveness people can take in organizations. At level four is the merely effective leader, whilst at level five the leader who combines professional will with personal humility. The 'professional will' indicates how they are far from being timid wilting flowers and will march against any advice if they believe it is the right thing to do. In 'personal humility' they put the well-being of others before their own personal needs, for example giving others credit after successes but taking personal responsibility for failures.Taoist writings

The quiet leader is not a modern invention and Lao Tzu, who, in the classic Taoist text Tao Te Ching, was discussing the same characteristic around 500 BC:

The very highest is barely known by men,

Then comes that which they know and love,

Then that which is feared,

Then that which is despised.

He who does not trust enough will not be trusted.

When actions are performed

Without unnecessary speech,

People say “We did it!”

Here again, the highest level of leadership is virtually invisible.

Discussion

To some extent, the emphasis on the quiet leader is a reaction against the lauding of charismatic leaders in the press. In particular during the heady days of the dot-com boom of the 1990s, some

very verbal leaders got much coverage. Meanwhile, the quiet leaders were getting on with the job.

Being quiet, of course, is not the secret of the universe, and leaders still need to see the way forwards. Their job can be harder when they are faced with people of a more external character.

For people accustomed to an extraverted charismatic style, a quiet style can be very confusing and they may downplay the person, which is usually a mistake. Successful quiet leaders often play the values card to persuade others, showing selfishness and lack of emotional control as being unworthy characteristics. Again there is a trap in this and leadership teams can fall into patterns of behavior where peace and harmony are prized over any form of challenge and conflict.

See also

Six Emotional Leadership Styles

Collins, J. (2001). Good to Great, London: Random House

Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching, (Translated by Gia-Fu Feng and Jane English) Aldershot UK: Wildwood House 

 Servant leadership

 Disciplines   > Leadership > Leadership styles > Servant leadership

Assumptions | Style | Discussion | See also 

Assumptions

The leader has responsibility for the followers.

Leaders have a responsibility towards society and those who are disadvantaged.

People who want to help others best do this by leading them.

Style

The servant leader serves others, rather than others serving the leader. Serving others thus comes by helping them to achieve and improve.

There are two criteria of servant leadership:

The people served grow as individuals, becoming 'healthier, wiser, more autonomous and more likely themselves to become servants' (Greenleaf, 1977).

The extent to which the leadership benefits those who are least advantaged in society (or at least does not disadvantage them).

Principles of servant leadership defined by the Alliance for Servant Leadership are:

Transformation as a vehicle for personal and institutional growth. Personal growth as a route to better serve others.

Enabling environments that empower and encourage service. Service as a fundamental goals. Trusting relationships as a basic platform for collaboration and service. Creating commitment as a way to collaborative activity. Community building as a way to create environments in which people can trust each

other and work together. Nurturing the spirit as a way to provide joy and fulfilment in meaningful work.

Spears (2002) lists: listening, empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship, commitment to growth of people, and building community.

An excellent example of a servant leader is Ernest Shackleton, the early 20th century explorer who, after his ship became frozen in the Antarctic life, brought every one of his 27 crew home alive, including an 800 mile journey in open boats across the winter Antarctic seas. It took two years, but Shackleton's sense of responsibility towards his men never wavered.

Discussion

Greenleaf says that true leadership "emerges from those whose primary motivation is a deep desire to help others." Servant leadership is a very moral position, putting the well-being of the followers before other goals.

It is easy to dismiss servant leadership as soft and easy, though this is not necessarily so, as individual followers may be expected to make sacrifices for the good of the whole, in the way of the servant leader.

The focus on the less privileged in society shows the servant leader as serving not just their followers but also the whole of society.

Servant leadership is a natural model for working in the public sector. It requires more careful interpretation in the private sector lest the needs of the shareholders and customers and the rigors of market competition are lost.

A challenge to servant leadership is in the assumption of the leader that the followers want to change. There is also the question of what 'better' is and who decides this.

Servant leadership aligns closely with religious morals and has been adopted by several Christian organizations.

See also

Greenleaf, R. (1977). Servant leadership, Paulist Press

Spears, L. C. (2002). Tracing the Past, Present, and Future of Servant-Leadership. In Focus On Leadership: Servant-leadership for the Twenty-first Century (pp. 1-10). New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, Inc

http://library.indstate.edu/servlead/