The definition of the term leadership is the action of leading a group of people or an organisation, or the ability to do this and It is also the state or position of being a leader.
What hat your company is wearing
There are 12 different types of leadership styles that an individual in a leadership role can demonstrate to a team. An individual can be a combination of one or more styles and have a high or low preferences, trait or tendencies for this types of leadership. However there is three main leaderships styles mostly used throughout the world and they are of leadership decision-making which are the autocratic, democratic, and laissez-faire.
Lewin argues in his framework that they are many approaches of leadership style and that they are as many approaches as there are leaders. Looking at Lewin framework of the 1930s to the more recent ideas about transformational leadership, there are also many general styles notwithstanding but including strategic, team, cross-cultural, facilitative, transitional, coaching, charismatic and visionary leadership style.
I think that an individual should be aware of Lewin framework depicted below and the more recent ideas transformational leadership and learning about the different styles can helps developed an approach to be a more effective leader within your company or organisation.
Autocratic leaders make decisions without consulting their team members, even if their input would be useful. This can be appropriate when you need to make decisions quickly, when there's no need for team input, and when team agreement isn't necessary for a successful outcome. However, this style can be demoralising, and it can lead to high levels of absenteeism and staff turnover.
Democratic leaders make the final decisions, but they include team members in the decision-making process. They encourage creativity, and people are often highly engaged in projects and decisions. As a result, team members tend to have high job satisfaction and high productivity. This is not always an effective style to use, though, when you need to make a quick decision.
Laissez-faire leaders give their team members a lot of freedom in how they do their work, and how they set their deadlines. They provide support with resources and advice if needed, but otherwise they don't get involved. This autonomy can lead to high job satisfaction, but it can be damaging if team members don't manage their time well, or if they don't have the knowledge, skills, or self motivation to do their work effectively or if they prefer autocracy and democratic leadership. (Laissez-faire leadership can also occur when managers don't have control over their work and their people.)
Lewin's framework is proving to be a popular and useful framework, because it encourages leaders to be less autocratic than they might instinctively be and have a blend of the three or more styles.
"What makes a leader is not the ability to lead but having the courage to lead your team in trouble time and in time of greatness." - T. Amable - girlfridayz
Why we say this at Girlfridayz our quote stand true to us recently the people of England decided to leave the EU (Brexit) and David Cameron Prime Minister at the time of the decision (23/06/2016) famously said when resigning I can no longer lead that ship as he was not sure what the future hold for England and it people so he preferred to abandon the ship.
The Blake-Mouton Managerial Grid
The Blake-Mouton Managerial Grid was published in 1964, and it highlights the most appropriate style to use, based on your concern for your people and your concern for production/tasks.
With a people-oriented style, you focus on organising, supporting, and developing your team members. This participatory style encourages good teamwork and creative collaboration.
With task-oriented leadership, you focus on getting the job done. You define the work and the roles required, put structures in place, and plan, organise, and monitor work.
According to this model, the best style to use is one that has both a high concern for people and a high concern for the task – it argues that you should aim for both, rather than trying to offset one against the other. Clearly, this is an important idea and very good idea.
You may also have to think about what your team members want and need. This is where Path-Goal Theory – published in 1971 – is useful. For example, highly-capable people, who are assigned to a complex task, will need a different leadership approach from people with low ability, who are assigned to an ambiguous task. (The former will want a participative approach, while the latter need to be told what to do.)
With Path-Goal Theory, you can identify the best leadership approach to use, based on your people's needs, the task that they're doing, and the environment that they're working in.
Six Emotional Leadership Styles
Daniel Goleman, Richard Boyatzis, and Annie McKee detailed their Six Emotional Leadership Styles theory in their 2002 book, "Primal Leadership." The theory highlights the strengths and weaknesses of six common styles – Visionary, Coaching, Affiliative, Democratic, Pacesetting, and Commanding. It also shows how each style can affect the emotions of your team members.
Flamholtz and Randle's Leadership Style Matrix
First published in 2007, Flamholtz and Randle's Leadership Style Matrix shows you the best style to use, based on how capable people are of working autonomously, and how creative or "programmable" the task is.
The matrix is divided into four quadrants – each quadrant identifies two possible styles that will be effective for a given situation, ranging from "autocratic/benevolent autocratic" to "consensus/laissez-faire."
The leadership frameworks discussed so far are all useful in different situations, however, in business, "transformational leadership" is often the most effective style to use. (This was first published in 1978, and was then further developed in 1985.)
Transformational leaders have integrity and high emotional intelligence. They motivate people with a shared vision of the future, and they communicate well. They're also typically self-aware, authentic, empathetic, and humble.
Transformational leaders inspire their team members because they expect the best from everyone, and they hold themselves accountable for their actions. They set clear goals, and they have good conflict-resolution skills. This leads to high productivity and engagement.
However, leadership is not a given; often, you must adapt your approach to fit the situation. This is why it's useful to develop a thorough understanding of other leadership frameworks and styles; after all, the more approaches you're familiar with, the more flexible you can be and develop your own style. This style is an excellent idea as you empower people to be the best that they can be
Specific Leadership Styles
As well as understanding the frameworks that you can use to be a more effective leader, and knowing what it takes to be a transformational leader, it's also useful to learn about more general styles, and the advantages and disadvantages of each one.
Let's take a look at some other styles of leadership that are interesting, but don't fit with any of the frameworks above.
If you interesting in more style of leadership
It is good to bear in mind that, not all of these styles of leadership will have a positive effect on your team members, either in the short or long term. (See Dunham and Pierce's Leadership Model website for more on how your actions as a leader will affect your team.)
Bureaucratic leaders follow rules rigorously, and ensure that their people follow procedures precisely. This is appropriate for work involving serious safety risks (such as working with machinery, with toxic substances, or at dangerous heights), or with large sums of money or in government type of setting. Bureaucratic leadership is also useful for managing employees who perform routine tasks. This style is much less effective in teams and organisations that rely on flexibility, creativity, or innovation.
Finding This Article Useful? Please comment and share