THE UNIVERSITY OF ZAMBIA
SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT OF ADULT EDUCATION AND EXTENSION
STUDIES
NAME: SERAH CHELO
COURSE: DIPLOMA IN SOCIAL WORK
SUBJECT:
ORGANISATION BEHAVIOUR
STUDENT NO: 20081000266
LECTURE:
ASSIGNMENT:
1. What is Leadership
2. Discuss the Following Leadership styles:a. Authoritarian
b. Democratic
c. Laizefaire
3. Is there a difference/Relationship between a Leader and a Manager?
DUE DATE: 12th May 2011
There are many diverse definitions of leadership. This paper outlines a few common approaches,
and outlines the definition of leadership, styles of leadership underpinning the 21st Century
today. For this paper, our leadership definition is defined as "enabling a group to engage together
in the process of developing, sharing and moving into vision, and then living it out. This paper
also discusses the importance of a leader's character and integrity in building up the trust
necessary for the leadership to be exercised over a period of time. The third part of this paper
shows the difference between leadership and management.
According to Bass (2008:98) Leadership has been described as the “process of social influence in
which one person can enlist the aid and support of others in the accomplishment of a common
task”. Definitions inclusive of nature of leadership have also emerged. Alan Keith of Genentech
states that, "Leadership is ultimately about creating a way for people to contribute to making
something extraordinary happen." According to Mann (1998:76) "effective leadership is the
ability to successfully integrate and maximize available resources within the internal and external
environment for the attainment of organizational or societal goals."
Leadership is "organizing a group of people to achieve a common goal." The leader may or may
not have any formal authority. Students of leadership have produced theories involve in traits
situational interaction, function, behavior, power, vision and values, charisma, and intelligence
among others.
John C Maxwell (2000:76) in the 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership, John Maxwell sums up his
definition of leadership as "leadership is influence - nothing more, nothing less." This moves
beyond the position defining the leader, to looking at the ability of the leader to influence others both those who would consider themselves followers, and those outside that circle. Indirectly, it
also builds in leadership character, since without maintaining integrity and trustworthiness, the
capability to influence will disappear.
Leadership style is the manner and approach of providing direction, implementing plans, and
motivating people. Kurt Lewin (1939) led a group of researchers to identify different styles of
1
leadership. This early study has been very influential and established three major leadership
styles. The three major styles of leadership are (U.S. Army Handbook, 1973):
Authoritarian or autocratic
This style is used when leaders tell their employees what they want done and how they want it
accomplished, without getting the advice of their followers. Some of the appropriate conditions
to use it is when you have all the information to solve the problem, you are short on time, and
your employees are well motivated.
Some people tend to think of this style as a vehicle for yelling, using demeaning language, and
leading by threats and abusing their power. This is not the authoritarian style, rather it is an
abusive, unprofessional style called “bossing people around.” It has no place in a leader's
repertoire.
The authoritarian style should normally only be used on rare occasions. If you have the time and
want to gain more commitment and motivation from your employees, then you should use the
participative style.
Participative or democratic
Democratic leadership says “..Let's work together to solve this. . .” Stogdill, (1998).This style
involves the leader including one or more employees in the decision making process
(determining what to do and how to do it). However, the leader maintains the final decision
making authority. Using this style is not a sign of weakness; rather it is a sign of strength that
your employees will respect.
This is normally used when you have part of the information, and your employees have other
parts. Note that a leader is not expected to know everything — this is why you employ
knowledgeable and skillful employees. Using this style is of mutual benefit — it allows them to
become part of the team and allows you to make better decisions.
2
Laisser-faire
Although good leaders use all three styles, with one of them normally dominant, bad leaders tend
to stick with one style. The Laissez Faire Leadership Style was first described 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
provides little or no direction to the followers.
According to Zaccarro (2007:23) “Laissez-faire leadership, also known as delegative leadership,
is a type of leadership style in which leaders are hands-off and allow group members to make the
decisions”. Researchers have found that this is generally the leadership style that leads to the
lowest productivity among group members.
The characteristics of the laissez faire style include:
o Allows followers to have complete freedom to make decisions concerning the completion
of their work or ask questions of the leader.
o The leader provides the followers with the materials they need to accomplish their goals
and answers questions to the follower's questions.
Lewin, Lippitt and White were one of the first to categorize leadership styles in terms of
behavioral characteristics. Prior to their work, leadership traits were the focus of leadership
studies (Stogdill: 1998).
Laissez-faire leadership can be effective in situations where group members are highly skilled,
motivated and capable of working on their own. While the conventional term for this style is
'laissez-faire' and implies a completely hands-off approach, many leaders still remain open and
available to group members for consultation and feedback.
Laissez-faire leadership is not ideal in situations where group members lack the knowledge or
experience they need to complete tasks and make decisions. Some people are not good at setting
their own deadlines, managing their own projects and solving problems on their own. In such
3
situations, projects can go off-track and deadlines can be missed when team members do not get
enough guidance or feedback from leaders.
Difference/Relationship between Leadership and Management?
What is the difference between management and leadership? It is a question that has been asked
more than once and also answered in different ways. The biggest difference between managers
and leaders is the way they motivate the people who work or follow them, and this sets the tone
for most other aspects of what they do. Stogdill, R.M. (1998).
Many people, by the way, are both. They have management jobs, but they realize that you cannot
buy hearts, especially to follow them down a difficult path, and so act as leaders too.
Managers have subordinates
By definition, managers have subordinates - unless their title is honorary and given as a mark of
seniority, in which case the title is a misnomer and their power over others is other than formal
authority.
Authoritarian, transactional style
Managers have a position of authority vested in them by the company, and their subordinates
work for them and largely do as they are told. Management style is transactional, in that the
manager tells the subordinate what to do, and the subordinate does this not because they are a
blind robot, but because they have been promised a reward (at minimum their salary) for doing
so.
Work focus
Managers are paid to get things done (they are subordinates too), often within tight constraints of
time and money. They thus naturally pass on this work focus to their subordinates.
4
Seek comfort
An interesting research finding about managers is that they tend to come from stable home
backgrounds and led relatively normal and comfortable lives. This leads them to be relatively
risk-averse and they will seek to avoid conflict where possible. In terms of people, they generally
like to run a 'happy ship'.
Leaders have followers
Leaders do not have subordinates - at least not when they are leading. Many organizational
leaders do have subordinates, but only because they are also managers. But when they want to
lead, they have to give up formal authoritarian control, because to lead is to have followers, and
following is always a voluntary activity.
Charismatic, transformational style
Telling people what to do does not inspire them to follow you. You have to appeal to them,
showing how following them will lead to their hearts' desire. They must want to follow you
enough to stop what they are doing and perhaps walk into danger and situations that they would
not normally consider risking.
Leaders with a stronger charisma find it easier to attract people to their cause. As a part of their
persuasion they typically promise transformational benefits, such that their followers will not just
receive extrinsic rewards but will somehow become better people.
People focus
Although many leaders have a charismatic style to some extent, this does not require a loud
personality. They are always good with people, and a quiet style that give credit to others (and
takes blame on themselves) are very effective at creating the loyalty that great leaders engender.
Although leaders are good with people, this does not mean they are friendly with them. In order
to keep the mystique of leadership, they often retain a degree of separation and aloofness.
5
This does not mean that leaders do not pay attention to tasks - in fact they are often very
achievement-focused. What they do realize, however, is the importance of enthusing others to
work towards their vision.
Seek risk
In the same study that showed managers as risk-averse, leaders appeared as risk-seeking,
although they are not blind thrill-seekers. When pursuing their vision, they consider it natural to
encounter problems and hurdles that must be overcome along the way. They are thus
comfortable with risk and will see routes that others avoid as potential opportunities for
advantage and will happily break rules in order to get things done.
A surprising number of these leaders had some form of handicap in their lives which they had to
overcome. Some had traumatic childhoods, some had problems such as dyslexia, others were
shorter than average. This perhaps taught them the independence of mind that is needed to go out
on a limb and not worry about what others are thinking about you.
In summary, Leadership is setting a new direction or vision for a group that they follow, i.e.: a
leader is the spearhead for that new direction and Management controls or directs
people/resources in a group according to principles or values that have already been established.
The difference between leadership and management can be illustrated by considering what
happens when you have one without the other.
6
References
1. Bass, B.M. & Bass, R. (2008). The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research,
and managerial applications (4th ed.). New York: Free Press. United States of America.
2. Bird, C. (2000). Social Psychology. New York: Appleton-Century.USA.
3. Locke et al. (1991) Leadership in the 21st Century, New York, Appleton Inc, United
States of America.
4. Mann, R.D. (1999). A review of the relationship between personality and
performance in small groups. Psychological Bulletin
5. Stogdill, R.M. (1998). Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of the
literature. Journal of Psychology, 25, 35-71.
6. Zaccaro, S. J. (2007). Trait-based perspectives of leadership. Prentice Hall, American
Psychologists Foundation, United States of America.
7