Busn 5100 #7A Final

Leadership Styles
Lisa Rosato-Crayton
Keystone College
A leader inspires while a manager directs. In some organizations the manager is the
leader. When the manager and leader are one in the same, a wide range of leadership styles may
need to be used. Deciding on which leadership style to use and when to use it has been a topic of
several studies for numerous years. There are several different types of leadership styles, each
have their own advantages and disadvantages, some styles work best with different group sizes
or degree of knowledge.
Leadership Styles
Leadership Styles
A leader inspires while a manager directs. This may be true but in some organizations the
manager is the leader. When the manager and leader are one in the same, a wide range of
leadership styles may need to be used. Deciding on which leadership style to use and when to use
it has been a topic of several studies for numerous years. There are several different types of
leadership styles, each have their own advantages and disadvantages, some styles work best with
different group sizes or degree of knowledge.
The most notably leadership styles are autocratic, democratic and laissez-faire. Autocratic
style of leadership, can also be associated with micromanagers, is characterized by
uncompromising managers. The manager rules with an iron fist, they set the tasks and
procedures and allow no employee input. Employees do not participate in the decision making
and managers do not explain their decisions. On the other hand democratic or participative style
of leadership is characterized by employee participation not only in the decision making process
but in all aspects of the job. Suggestions from employees are welcomed and even encouraged.
Managers inform and explain to the group issues, progress and decisions. Laissez-faire style or
hand off leadership is simply no leadership at all. In this case the leaders are hands off and
followers take control of task completion and decision making (Gonos & Gallo, 2013).
Lewin and Lippitt (1938), studied both autocratic and democratic style of leadership and
its effect in a group atmosphere and how the individuals affect the group. Two groups were
composed of five children selected from 5th and 6th graders. These two groups had the same
leader and meet twice a week for a half hour for six weeks. The groups were instructed to
complete theatrical masks, completing one at a time, which would belong to the group as a
whole. An observation approach to research was employed. Measurements were made of
interactions. Interactions within the group referred to members of the same group working
together, out of the group referred to a member of the group working alone (Lewin &
Lippitt,1938). A formula was used to measure in group, out of group and total social interactions
in both the autocratic and democratic atmospheres. “The formula for computing in-group
interactions possibilities (ip) and out-group interaction possibilities (op) for any given structure
maybe stated simply:
ip =a(a-1) + b(b-1) + … r (r-1)
op= m(m-1) – ip
where a, b, … r are the number of members in the various subgroups coexisting in a particular
group structure and where m is the total number of members in the group” (Lewin & Lippitt,
1938, p.297).
The findings of the autocratic group showed more tension and hostility with a less stable
group structure but with a high volume of social interaction which reflected “more ascendance
and less submissiveness and objectivity of members toward each other” (Lewin, Lippitt, 1938,
p.298). The masks produced were below standards and unfinished. The attitude of I’ness was
great. When the leader was removed the result was disorganization and combined aggression.
The tension and hostility created two scapegoats, resulting in them quitting. When the members
were switched to the other group their attitudes and interactions changed to fit the group
dynamics (Lewin & Lippitt, 1938).
The findings of the democratic group showed more cooperation, praise and expressions
of friendliness. There was more constructive suggestions and objective criticisms offered. The
resulting masks were superior compared to the autocratic group. The attitude of We’ness was
great. The group structure was stable with a higher degree of unity. The group goals and group
property (masks) were better developed (Lewin & Lippitt, 1938). The results of this experiment
may have been influenced by the democratic and autocratic atmosphere that was created in these
groups. In most cases of autocratic leadership hostility would not be expressed but suppressed.
This free expression was left as a measuring tool of the hostility among the group (Lewin &
Lippitt, 1938).
Another study conducted in England, of 90 foremen in 8 British factories that
manufactured electric motors and switch gears, was to determine what effect the size of the
group, training of the foreman and the 5 human relations had on output, absenteeism and
turnover (Argyle, Gardner & Cioffi, 1958). This study was performed to try and replicate an
American study to see if the same results would be obtained. Also this was attempted to improve
upon previous studies on supervisor behavior. Lastly on the place of trying to measure job
satisfaction, absenteeism and turnover was measured.
In previous US studies conducted, it was concluded that general supervision which was
preferred by workers resulted in increased job satisfaction. High pressure supervision (autocratic)
was related to low job satisfaction as well as low productivity (Argyle, Gardner & Cioffi, 1958).
Also depending on how much authority the foreman had, effected productivity and satisfaction.
The less power of the democratic leader resulted in unsatisfied employees. Higher output and job
satisfaction was associated with an employee-centered foreman instead of a production-centered
In comparing democratic and autocratic supervision, job satisfaction is higher for
democratic yet autocratic is tolerated with a larger group of employees (Argyle, Gardner &
Cioffi, 1958). Productivity was ascertained by a time study. Voluntary absenteeism was
calculated based on the number of absentees daily for 6 months to a year and then averaged out
based on number of employees. Labor turnover was obtained directly from company records.
The results showed that the high producing sections had fewer turnovers and had general
supervision, compared to close supervision, were democratic and less punitive (Argyle, Gardner
& Cioffi, 1958)..
A modern example of autocratic leadership was Sony’s legendary leader, Akio Morito.
He demonstrated an unyielding and unilateral approach to decision making. Morito was
impulsive and relied on his gut feeling which sometimes had dire consequences for Sony.
Sony’s current leader is working hard to increase accountability and move away from the
leadership style of Morito (Nathan, 1999).
Douglass McGregor developed two leadership styles known as Theory X and Theory Y
which was based on how the leader perceived the followers (Gandolfi & Stone, 2017). Theory X
can be associated with the autocratic style of leadership, in which the followers need to be
directed, controlled, coerced or threatened to get put forth their best effort. Followers are
considered lazy, unmotivated and uninspiring and respond to orders based on rewards and
punishment. Theory X style of leadership has no concern for the follower needs. Theory Y
leadership follows a democratic style of leadership where they see followers as motivated and
passionate as well as capable of decision making and independent thinking. Theory Y believes
followers like work and will willingly commit to work they care about. Theory Y leaders also
believe that their followers will see out responsibility and be creativity in solving any
organizational problem that they are faced with. However in some instances Theory Y could fall
under the laissez-faire style of leadership (Gandolfi & Stone, 2017).
A transformational leader is charismatic, inspirational in both motivation and intellect
and is also concerned about followers. This type of leadership is associated with follower job
satisfaction, performance, effectiveness and commitment. As charismatic leadership has 2 types
so does transformational leadership, pseudo transformational leadership and authentic
transformational leadership. Authentic transformational leadership mirrors socialized charismatic
leadership and Pseudo transformational leadership mirrors personalized charismatic leadership
(Anderson & Sun, 2017).
Transactional leadership is based on output and productions and rewards and punishment.
This type of leadership is broken down into an active and a passive transactional leader. An
active leader monitors a follower’s behavior, anticipates problems, takes corrective action or
gives feedback immediately. A passive transactional leader pays no attention until a problem
results. Transactional leadership was further broken down by results that were based on whether
rewards and punishment were contingent or non-contingent (Anderson & Sun, 2017).
Newer leadership studies have been developed, most notably ideological, pragmatic,
servant, authentic, ethical, spiritual and integrative public leadership (Anderson & Sun, 2017). A
lot of these leadership styles overlap and some are characteristic of transformational and
transactional leadership.
The charismatic leadership style embodies the leader as the inspirer of the organization
encouraging employees to give 110 %. These leaders are confident and passionate about their
vision. There are two types of charismatic leaders, socialized and personalized. Socialized
charismatic leaders are focused on their vision and followers success. This type of leader results
in follower satisfaction and increased group performance. Personalized charismatic leaders are
focused on their own success. Followers are used to achieve this success. Charismatic leaders
resolve crisis by focusing on the future and being a role model for followers.
Ideological leadership is an alternative to charismatic leadership. Ideological leadership
focuses on the here and now by stressing current values and standards and what it means to
uphold these standards. Ideological leaders resolve crisis by an inspirational vision, anchored in
strong values and the desire to return to the good old days.
Pragmatic leadership is focused on function and problem solving. This type of leadership
requires more knowledge of the parties involved and the technical and economic issues
associated with the problem. Pragmatic leaders handle crisis by thoroughly examining the
issues, causes, threats and solutions available.
Servant leadership is focused primarily on the followers and their growth. The leader is
there to serve the follower. This type of leadership has positive effect on a team and its ability, it
strengthens their goals, increases job satisfaction and decreases follower turnover.
Authentic leadership is a leader that promotes a “positive ethical climate” (Anderson &
Sun, 2017, p. 82) and behavior and transparency. This type of leadership is truthful. There is no
misrepresentation of the leaders’ abilities or the organizations vision. This type of leadership
promotes self-awareness and moral perspective (Anderson & Sun, 2017).
Ethical leadership draws on social learning. An ethical leader is a moral person, role
model and manager. An ethical leader makes morals part of their leadership style. Rewards or
punishment of followers are based on their ethical behavior. Ethical leadership treats people with
dignity and respect, makes decisions that are fair, shows concern for society and exercises
moderation (Anderson & Sun, 2017).
Spiritual leadership focuses on creating a spiritual environment. The leaders values,
attitude and behavior, creates a warm, caring and spiritual environment that helps followers
thrive. This type of leadership gives intrinsic meaning, purpose and motivation to followers
(Anderson & Sun, 2017).
Integrative public leadership is used when it is necessary to bring diverse groups together
across sector boundaries to remedy public problems for the common good. Integrative public
leadership is similar transformational leadership in that influence, motivation, stimulation and
consideration are necessary. However with integrative public leadership there is an addition of
civic capacity, which “is essentially the social orientation of transformational leaders and their
ability to be transactional in their approach in leveraging collaborative systems, structures and
processes” (Anderson & Sun, 2017, p.85).
Although there is debate about the overlapping of leadership styles, we do know that they
are influenced or generated by physical, constitutional, psychological, psychosocial and
sociological factors (Bucata & Rizescu, 2016).
Anderson, M. & Sun, P. (2017). Reviewing Leadership Styles: Overlaps and the Need for a New
“Full Range” Theory, International Journal of Management Reviews, 19, 76-96.
Argyle, M., & Gardner, G., & Cioffi, F. (1958). Supervisory Methods Related to Productivity,
Absenteeism, and Labour Turnover. Human Relations, 11(1), 23-40. doi:
Daft, R.L. (2018). The Leadership Experience, (7th ed.). Australia: CENGAGE Learning.
Gandolfi, F. & Stone, S. (2017). The Emergence of Leadership Styles: A Clarified
Categorization, Revista de Management Comparat International; Bucharest, 18 (1), 1830.
Gonos, J. & Gallo, P. (2013). Model for Leadership Style Evaluation. Management: Journal of
Contemporary Management Issues, 18 (2), 157-168
Lewin, K., & Lippitt, R. (1938). An Experimental Approach to the Study of Autocracy and
Democracy: A Preliminary Note. Sociometry, 1(3/4), 292-300. doi:10.2307/2785585
Nathan, J. (1999, October 07). Sony CEO's Management Style Wasn't `Made in Japan'. Wall
Street Journal. Retrieved from
Bucata, G. & Rizescu, A.M. (2016), Management Styles as a Triggering Factor for Organization
Effectiveness and Efficiency, Journal of Defense Resources Management, 7(2), 159-164.
Retrieved from http://ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/login?url=https:search-proquestcom.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/docview/1851702796?accountid=13158.
Carter, S.M. & Greer, C.R. (2013), Strategic Leadership: Values, Styles, and Organizational
Performance, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 20(4), 375-393
Kocher, M.G., Pogrebna, G., Sutter, M. (2013), Other-regarding Preferences and Management
Styles, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 88, 109-132.
Related flashcards
Create Flashcards