Even though this style of leadership may be considered archaic, it still offers many benefits to current teams and their goal-achieving processes. The major pros of the autocratic leadership style, as stated by Joseph (n.d.) are: - Quick decision-making processes. Since the leader is the only one who makes decisions through this style of leadership, there is no waste of time. The leader is the sole responsible for the decision made and therefore it can be made quickly in order to keep up with the competition or prevent problems. - There is close oversight of subordinates.
Autocratic style of leadership which is also known to many as authoritarian leadership places focus on one individual in charge of a group is run, this individual makes all the necessary decision with little or no input from the other member of the group. An authoritarian leader is very useful especially if this individual in charge of a group that is not enthusiastic or interested in getting the work done, this allows this leader to take control of this group and make the appropriate decisions in getting the work done, this leader work based on his or her judgement and do not give what he or she considers to be important duties to the other member of the group. There are a lot of downsides to an autocratic leadership style due to the fact the autocratic leaders makes al the decisions in the group it can cause the other group members to resent them or to feel inferior to them.
My personal leadership style is that of a democratic style. Personal Leadership Style My personal leadership style is democratic. I scored a 40 in that category, while I scored a 30 in authoritarian, and a 35 in delegative. According to Haber (2014), this leadership style is made up of group decision making and the leader shares responsibilities with that of the
Autocratic leaders make decisions for the whole group. Laissez-faire leaders allow members of the group to make all the decisions while democratic leaders guide and encourage the group to make decisions. Which leaders are we? Telling people what they want to hear or taking people where they need to be? Under the Follower-centred approach, self-leadership is a paradigm for creating leaders who are ready to lead themselves.
In contrast,the poor ones tend to stick with only one unique style and that is often Autocratic. Authoritarian or Autocratic Leadership I want both of you to. . . This style is used when leaders tell their employees what they want and how they want it to be done, without getting the opinions of their employees.
The heavily centralized command of autocratic leadership style ensures that the system depends 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. 3. All power vested with the leader leads to risk of leaders with low moral fiber exploiting employees, indulging in favoritism and discrimination, and the
The following is a summary of the 6 styles: Style Characteristics / Aims Coercive / Directive The coercive style of leadership is no-nonsense and gets right to the basics, demanding compliance from employees, or else. Authoritative / Visionary An authoritative leader is committed to creating a clear vision – and encouraging everyone in the organisation to buy into and follow it. The leader uses vision to set out to employees where
The leadership styles possess a high standard of values, displays compassion and passion for integrity to their followers. These leadership styles will not comprise on their character. Both leadership displays relationship with people or followers. They rely on their personal charisma to get things done. Authentic leaders are positive, they are transparent with their followers and have a sense of themselves (Yaacoub, 2018).
This non-traditional leadership style is characterised by completeness and interactiveness. Subordinates are encouraged to participate and have a say in every aspect of their work. This inclusive leadership style has its disadvantages, which is not only viewed as symbolic of women leaders, but the leaders have to act on the input they receive which takes up a lot of time, therefore opening one up to criticism which can be interpreted as the leader not having answers (Rosener, 1990). In addition Rosener (1990) indicated that women prefer the participation leadership style but when there are time constraints, women tend to act unilaterally. Rosener (1990) indicated that this nontraditional leadership style can be effective in organisations that accept it, where the organisation is not always about the survival of the fittest.
These types of leaders are sure to create a distinct professional relationship only. Direct supervision is what they believe is the key to maintaining a successful ship tuned environment. Often follow the authoritarian leadership styles see those dominants, and may not necessarily be compatible with those led. Authoritarian’s leaders focus on efficiency, where you can look to other methods, such as democratic style, as an obstacle to progress. Examples of authoritarian leadership: A police officer directs traffic, and a teacher ordered students to perform his mission, and a supervisor to instruct subordinates to clean up the workstation.