1

The search for the characteristics or traits of leaders has been ongoing for centuries.

Philosophical writings from Plato's Republic to Plutarch's Lives have explored the question

"What qualities distinguish an individual as a leader?" Underlying this search was the early

recognition of the importance of leadership and the assumption that leadership is rooted in the

characteristics that certain individuals possess. In prehistoric times, humanity was preoccupied

with personal security, maintenance, protection and survival. Now humanity spends a major

portion of waking hours working for organizations. The need to identify with a community that

provides security, protection, maintenance, and a feeling of belonging has continued unchanged

from prehistoric times. Humans have gone beyond seeking personal and parochial interests and

are now concerned with working with a group to achieve a common goal, a goal which can only

be achieved through effective leadership.

Who then is a leader? The Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (1995) defines

a leader as the person who directs or controls a team, organization, country, etc. Whereas one

school of thought simply assume that a leader is somebody whom people follow or one who

guides or directs others, another also holds the view that a leader is one who organizes a group of

people to achieve a common goal. According to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, leadership is

"a process of social influence in which one person can enlist the aid and support of others in the

accomplishment of a common task". From the foregoing definition, it can be stated that

leadership entails the use of influence by one (a leader) to cause other(s) (a follower or

followers) to achieve a common goal. At this juncture, it would do this this discussion good if

the meaning of ‘leadership style’ is brought to the limelight. In his attempt to define leadership

style, Fahim (2010) posits that the term leadership style refers to the pattern of behaviour, which

a leader adopts in directing behaviour of the followers towards the attainment of organizational

2

goals. He argues further that leadership style is the position that a leader usually takes with

regard to how much decision making freedom he allows his followers to have. Similarly, Fahim

expatiates that the behaviour exhibited by a leader during supervision of his followers is known

as leadership style and that the nature and form of leadership style is affected by factors such as

existing circumstances, time period, personality of the leader, experience, attitude and

orientation, nature of followers and external environment. Quoting Wikipedia, the free

encyclopedia, “a leadership style is a leader's style of providing direction, implementing plans,

and motivating people. It is the result of the philosophy, personality, and experience of the

leader”.

This discussion seeks to examine the merits and demerits of three (3) well-known

leadership styles, namely, autocratic, democratic and laissez faire leadership styles. It is

worthwhile to note that several studies have been undertaken on the different leadership styles.

One of the foremost studies took place in 1939 when a group of researchers led by psychologist

Kurt Lewin set out to identify different styles of leadership. While further research has identified

more specific types of leadership, this early study was very influential and established the three

major leadership styles. In the study, schoolchildren were assigned to one of three groups with an

autocratic, democratic or laissez-faire leader. The children were then led in an arts and crafts

project while researchers observed the behavior of children in response to the different styles of

leadership.

The autocratic leadership style is to be considered first. The word ‘autocracy’ comes

from the Greek roots “auto” meaning “self”, and “kratos” which also connotes “power”.

Drawing from the Greek roots, autocracy can therefore be simply explained as “self-imposed

power governance”. Autocratic leadership, also known as authoritarian leadership, is a leadership

3

style characterized by individual control over all decisions and little input from group members.

Such 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. This leadership style bases itself on Douglas McGregor’s Theory X that considers

employees as inherently lazy and disliking work, and assumes they seek to avoid work as much

as possible. Theory X advocates close supervision and comprehensive control systems,

reinforced by a hierarchical structure and a narrow span of control. Leaders who belong to this

category provide clear expectations for what needs to be done, when it should be done, and how

it should be done. There is also a clear division between the leader and the followers.

Authoritarian leaders make decisions independently with little or no input from the rest of the

group. An autocracy is a system of government in which a supreme power is concentrated in the

hands of one person, whose decisions are subject to neither external legal restraints nor

regularized mechanisms of popular control (except perhaps for the implicit threat of coup d'état

or mass insurrection).

Some of the primary characteristics of autocratic leadership include: the autocratic leader

retains all power, authority, and control, and reserves the right to make all decisions. They

distrust their subordinate’s ability, and closely supervise and control people under them. Such

leaders involve themselves in detailed day-to-day activities, and rarely delegate or empower

subordinates. They also adopt one-way communication. Authoritarians do not consult with

subordinates or give them a chance to provide their opinions, no matter the potential benefit of

such inputs. Autocratic leadership assumes that employee motivation comes not through

empowerment, but by creating a structured set of rewards and punishments. These leaders get

work done by issuing threats and punishments and evoking fear. The primary concern of

4

autocratic leaders remains dealing with the work at hand and not on developmental activities.

Autocratic leaders assume full responsibility and take full credit for the work.

Autocratic leadership can be beneficial in some instances, such as when decisions need

to be made quickly without consulting with a large group of people. Some projects require strong

leadership in order to get things accomplished quickly and efficiently. For instance, a group of

students working on a project that got derailed by poor organization, a lack of leadership, and an

inability to set deadlines may need a strong leader who utilizes an autocratic style, can take

charge of the group, assign tasks to different members, and establish solid deadlines for projects

to be finished. In situations that are particularly stressful, such as during military conflicts, group

members may actually prefer an autocratic style. It allows members of the group to focus on

performing specific tasks without worrying about making complex decisions. This also allows

group members to become highly skilled at performing certain duties, which can be beneficial to

the group. Authoritarian leadership is best applied to situations where there is little time for

group decision-making or where the leader is the most knowledgeable member of the group.

Lewin, Lippitt and White (1939) assert that the autocratic management has been successful as it

provides strong motivation to the manager. It permits quick decision-making, as only one person

decides for the whole group and keeps each decision to him/herself until he/she feels it needs to

be shared with the rest of the group. Autocratic leadership creates a centralized chain of

command with heavy involvement of the leader in a whole gamut of operations. Proponents of

the autocratic leadership style advocate it as an ideal method to extract high performance from

employees without putting them under stress. They insist the close supervision and monitoring

leads to a faster pace of work with less slack, where the leader assumes full responsibility for the

decisions and actions, ultimately creating reduced stress for subordinates.

5

It is important to note that of all the three leadership styles being discussed here, the

autocratic leadership style is the one that has suffered a lot of criticisms and is in fact labelled by

many as disadvantageous. The advantages of autocratic leadership notwithstanding, this

leadership style has borne the brunt of heavy criticism in the last three decades, where the move

toward systems thinking and empowering people have led to the perception of “autocratic” and

“centralized command” as negative and undesirable traits. Theory Y, the antithesis of Theory X

(as put forward by initially mentioned Douglas McGregor) assumes that ambitious and self-

motivated employees enjoy their mental and physical work duties. Such employees possess the

ability for creative problem solving, but most organizations under-utilize their talents. Theory Y

holds that employees seek and accept responsibility and exercise self-control and self-direction

in accomplishing objectives, provided the conditions remain congenial for such an approach. The

autocratic leadership style remains wholly unsuited for such Theory Y oriented workforces and

does not rank among the modern leadership styles in a changing world. In an analysis of

militarized disputes between two states, if one was an autocracy the chance of violence occurring

doubled; if both states were democratic the chance of violence fell by more than half (Pinker,

2011).

Among the host of criticisms levelled against autocratic leadership are the following:

Contrary to claims of close supervision with detailed instructions to reduce stress and improve

productivity, research suggests that such actions actually unmotivate employees, and cause them

to become tense, fearful, or resentful. Lack of involvement from the employee in the decision

making process leads to employees not assuming ownership of their work, contributing to low

morale, lack of commitment, and manifesting in high turnover, absenteeism, and work stoppage.

The heavily centralized command of autocratic leadership style ensures that the system depends

6

entirely on the leader. If the leader is strong, capable, competent, and just, the organization

functions smoothly, and if the leader is weak, incompetent, or has low ethical and moral

standards, the entire organization suffers for the sake of a single leader. All power vested with

the leader leads to risk of leaders with low moral fiber exploiting employees, indulging in

favoritism and discrimination, and the like. Weak autocratic leaders tend to take decisions based

on ego rather than sound management principles, and punish employees who dare to disagree

with such decisions. The leader reserving the right to make all decisions leads to subordinates

becoming heavily dependent on the leader. The team thereby becomes useless in running

operations if they lose contact with their leader, and absence of the leader leads to total collapse

and shutdown of operations. The one sided communication flow in an autocratic leadership style

restricts the creative and leadership skills of the employees and prevents their development. This

harms the organization as well, for the employees remain incapable of assuming greater

responsibilities, or to perform anything outside the routine. The autocratic leader, by taking all

responsibility and involved heavily in day to day operations, remains forced to work at full

capacity, leading to stress and other health problems. Autocratic leaders usually remain

unpopular and damage working relationships with colleagues. This leadership style is unsuited to

build trusting relationships. This leadership style survives by default because it comes naturally

to most leaders, especially in times of low morale or insubordination.

Next in this discussion is the democratic leadership style which is also known as

participative leadership style. The word ‘democracy’ has its origins in the Greek language. It

combines two shorter words: ‘demos’ meaning whole citizen living within a particular city-state

and ‘kratos’ meaning power or rule. Democratic leadership in an organization involves the

redistribution of power and authority between employees and managers to provide employee

7

involvement in decision-making. 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. This has also been called shared leadership

(Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). This leadership style is more apt for theory Y employees (as

explained by Douglas McGregor in his X-Y Theory). It promotes sharing of responsibility,

delegation of authority and continual consultation. Teamwork is the key for democracy to

prevail. For example: In an autocratic leadership, the leader might say, ‘I want both of you to

work on X project’, but, in a democratic leadership, the same leader would say, ‘Let’s work on

the X project together’. Companies of the present generation are moving towards more

participation and less authoritativeness to ensure maximum satisfaction and efficiency of the

employees. Letting the employees be a part of the decision making works wonders and gets

people excited about their work environment and the job at hand. However, the final authority

still rests with the leader. Democratic leadership style is not a sign of weakness rather a process

of strengthening the position of your employees.

The democratic leadership style is characterized by the following: delegation of tasks to

other employees and subordinates along with full responsibility makes them accountable for their

actions and tasks. The manager or leader in-charge is always open to feedback (initiatives and

otherwise) and it forms the basis of future assignments. Encouragement by the leader to inspire

the employees to become leaders and develop in this area. The manager seeks consultation on all

issues and decisions but remains the final authority on which ones to be put into use.

It is an indisputable fact that the democratic leadership style is the most favoured in

modern times. This could be attributed to the numerous benefits that can be derived from it.

Lewin et al in their 1939 study found that participative leadership, also known as democratic

8

leadership, is generally the most effective leadership style. Democratic leaders offer guidance to

group members, but they also participate in the group and allow input from other group

members. They concluded in their study that, children in this group (i.e. the democratic

leadership group) were less productive than the members of the authoritarian group, but their

contributions were of a much higher quality. They further argued that democratic leaders

encourage group members to participate, but retain the final say over the decision-making

process. Group members feel engaged in the process and are more motivated and creative.

Not deviating from the benefits that have already been cited, the democratic leadership

style also has the following advantages: Office politics that can threaten the growth and

development of a working environment can be reduced with the help of a democratic style of

leadership. All the people involved use their skills together for the completion of a certain task

and hence, almost all ideas are taken into consideration and carefully debated. Communication

gap is reduced. Tension between the leader and team members is decreased as a result of which

fear of rejection and denial also reduces – this makes all sorts of issues addressable. An

autocratic leader, on the other hand, would have certain demands and expectations from his

subordinates which make the employees fear the leader. A positive work environment is created.

This means that a culture of junior workers getting a fair amount of responsibility and challenges

is encouraged. When there are the right vibes among employees, work becomes more

pleasurable. They say two minds are better than one! Same applies here. When creative ideas are

all put into the same box, great benefits are reaped. Companies run with this motive in mind that

every single individual has some characteristics that fulfill the objectives of the organization.

Employee turnover reduction is also ensured. A democratic leadership makes people feel

empowered at work as it is essentially performance based. A majority of the workers appreciate

9

this style of leadership as it secures them a safe future with the company. Democratic leadership

techniques generally will do a better job creating job satisfaction because it fosters a sense of

participation, control and autonomy. Greater employee participation in decision-making may

also lead to greater innovation and creative solutions to problems that will better serve an

organization.

Democratic leadership does present some disadvantages. A democratic approach to

management may not be as efficient as a more traditional centralized and authoritarian form of

direction. Consequently, it may be more costly to the organization in time and resources.

Accountability may sometimes present a problem. When responsibility is diffused among several

different individuals or groups, accountability for mistakes or failures may be harder to

determine. Some organizations or tasks may simply not be compatible with the type of employee

participation required for democratic leadership. The democratic leadership requires some

favoruable conditions in that the labour must be literate, informed and organized but this is not

always possible. Some managers adopt democratic leadership to please their subordinates but fail

to follow the technique in its entirety. They might simply take in all the ideas and end up never

implementing them. The decision making process might be a long drawn one since every team

member needs to be consulted. Some group members may feel alienated, if their ideas are not

accepted for action. This may create a feeling of frustration and ill-will. No one has a scarcity of

ideas but to put them all in place requires a great deal of patience and understanding. Missing

opportunities and being stuck in the middle of a hazard can be some of the drawbacks of this

style. Some managers may be uncomfortable with this approach because they may fear erosion

of their power base and their control over labour. This approach relies heavily on incentives and

10

motivation of recognition, appreciation, status and prestige. The labour may be more interested

in financial incentives instead of prestige.

Democratic style is more appropriate where subordinates are educated, skilled, wise,

creative and enthusiastic, where the company endorses self-direction and self-control and

rewards and involvement as prime means of motivation and control and where leader desires to

hear subordinates before making decisions and to develop a strong and capable force of

followers. "The democratic or egalitarian leadership cluster reflects concern about the followers

in many different ways. Leadership is considerate, democratic, consultative and participative,

employee-centered, concerned with people, concerned with maintenance of good working

relations, supportive and oriented toward facilitating interaction, relationship oriented, and

oriented toward group decision making" (Bass & Bass, 2008). A democratic leadership style has

its advantages and drawbacks. It is quite effective for manufacturing industries, professional

organizations, non-profit companies and creative fields such as advertising where everyone’s

opinion can make a difference while in organizations like the armed forces, where decisions

must be made at the nick of the moment, democracy can do more harm than help.

Attention is now going to be given to the laissez faire leadership style. It is also known as

delegative leadership or free rein leadership. The term “laissez faire” is a French phrase meaning

“leave it to be.” This leadership style is also described as Individual- centered style. A person

may be in a leadership position without providing leadership, leaving the group to fend for itself.

Subordinates are given a free hand in deciding their own policies and methods. The subordinates

are motivated to be creative and innovative. In this style, leader takes little interest in managerial

functions and the subordinates are left on their own. It refers to that leadership style in which the

leader gives his subordinates complete freedom to make decisions. Overall objectives help the

11

subordinates in determining their own objectives. Apart from this, they provide resources for

work performance and, if need be, they also advise the employees. This style is absolutely

different from the autocratic leadership style.

The laissez faire leadership style has a number of characteristics. A prominent

characteristic of this style is that the managers consider their subordinates capable, active and

responsible individuals and have full faith in them. In this style, the management-related

decisions are taken by the subordinates instead of the managers. They can, however, consult the

managers. It is based on the principle of decentralization. It means that the leaders widely

distribute their authority to enable every individual to determine his objective and make his plans

accordingly. The managers only perform the function of coordination, direction and general

control. After having once explained the objectives, the only job of the leader is to interfere only

in adverse situations. The supervision and control is done by the employees themselves.

The laissez faire leadership style also has a number of advantages. When all the authority

in their work performance is given to the employees, they become habituated in taking decisions

which creates self-confidence in them. They start doing better work in future. Also, when the

leader gives the subordinates all the authority by showing full confidence in them they start

considering themselves an important part of the concern. In this way they start feeling that they

are not a part of the enterprise but are the enterprise itself. With the onset of this feeling there is

nothing left in their motivation. Fahim argues that the major advantages of this style are: It

increases subordinates, freedom, develops their expression, compels them to work as group

members, increases job satisfaction and moral, utilities subordinates’ potential to the maximum

possible extent and promotes creativity or innovation.

12

Like the other leadership styles, the laissez faire leadership style comes with some

demerits. Lewin et al after their study argued that children under delegative leadership were the

least productive of all three groups. The children in this group also made more demands on the

leader, showed little cooperation and were unable to work independently. Delegative leaders

offer little or no guidance to group members and leave decision-making up to group members.

While this style can be effective in situations where group members are highly qualified in an

area of expertise, it often leads to poorly defined roles and a lack of motivation.

To conclude the discussion, it is not an understatement, with regards to the issues raised

above, to state that different situations call for different leadership styles. In an emergency when

there is little time to converge on an agreement and where a designated authority has

significantly more experience or expertise than the rest of the team, an autocratic leadership style

may be most effective; however, in a highly motivated and aligned team with a homogeneous

level of expertise, a more democratic or laissez-faire style may be more effective. The style

adopted should be the one that most effectively achieves the objectives of the group while

balancing the interests of its individual members. The laissez faire leadership style gives rise to

the feelings of cooperation and self-respect among the employees on the one hand, while on the

other hand, it cannot be adopted in all the situations because this style will be successful where

only the educated people are to be provided leadership. As already indicated above, the

democratic style is more appropriate where subordinates are educated, skilled, wise, creative and

enthusiastic, where the company endorses self-direction and self-control and rewards and

involvement as prime means of motivation and control and where leader desires to hear

subordinates before making decisions and to develop a strong and capable force of followers. On

the contrary, the autocratic leadership style may be appropriately used where subordinates are

13

uneducated, unskilled, unwise, inexperienced, where the company endorses fear and punishment

as accepted disciplinary techniques and where the leader prefers to be active and dominate to

decision making. Finally, this discussion cannot go without stating that there is no single

leadership style that is single-handedly helpful and that leaders would have to blend the three

proportionately if organizational goals are to be achieved.

14

REFERENCES

Bass, B. M., & Bass, R. (2008). The Bass Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and

Managerial Applications. New York: Free Press.

BN 978-0-141-03464-5.

Fahim, P. (2010). Different styles of leadership. Retrieved March 7, 2014, from

http://www.guesspapers.net/2651/different-styles- of - leadership/

Lewin, K.; Lippitt, R.; White, R.K. (1939). "Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally

created social climates". Journal of Social Psychology 10: 271–301.

Pinker, S. (2011). The Better Angels Of Our Nature. Pg.341: Penguin. IS

The Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (1995). England: Longman Group Limited

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia