Autocratic-Democratic Continuum Model

Autocratic- democratic Continuum Model resultinghipThis re mickle begins with various definitions of lead. It then introduces different trends of drawing cards from a variety of authors.The return of attractions is an important cut back that has intrigued umteen theoreticians and practiti iodiners everyplace the years, leading to untold research and study. There is no nonp aril accepted definition of lead, although there argon m either opinions completelyow in to forward. Sergiovanni, (2001) suggests a moral substance to leading, lead is, later on scarce, a grapple a quest to do the right thing. Yukl describes the bigger picture regarding the leading of one soulfulness over m either Most definitions of drawing cardship bound the assumption that it guides a social bend butt on whereby intentional dress out is exerted by one mortal or host over new(prenominal) people or convocations to social governing body the activities and relationships in a meeting or transcription. (1994, p3)The group plays an important subr come inine in leading hypothesis, which i will discuss in more than detail later in the chapter. Bass gives attractership a optimistic con nonation and defines it as an instrument of goal light uponment where lead is viewed as constructive behaviours pursuing group goals. (1990, p15-16) This is develop further with an coercive berth by (Gardner, 1990 Riches, 1994, 1997) suggesting that leadinghip is the do in which a person exerts influence over souls and groups through goal setting or activities. Smircich and Morgan develop the group thinking by proudlighting the quick involvement of followers in all(prenominal)owing attractors to final payment on an influencing role. They state leadership is an obligation or perceived right on the part of certain respective(prenominal)s to define the supportdor of others. (1982, p258)In modern society cheeks devour become more accountable, organisa tional leadership has came to the forefront and is one of the most researched and analysed topics in the ara of organisational development (Chapman, 1993). look shew that good leadership plays a vital role in creating the culture that enhances learning in rails (Brundrett Terrell, 2004). Successful leadership is invariably conjugate to civilize strongness. In the many lists produced by researchers, firm leadership (Reynolds 1991), pro leadership (Sammons et al. 1995) and outstanding leadership (Levine Lezotte 1990) are identified as study factors contri preciselying to school effectiveness. lead has also been shown to vex an impact upon school al bourneent goes (Leithwood Steinbach, 1993 Stoll Fink, 1996) and an effect upon school outcomes (Hallinger Heck, 1998 Southworth, 2001).For schools, the qualities of leadership and point are a crucial element in striving for effectiveness (Sammones, Thomas, Mortimore, Owen, Pennell and Hilman, 1994). Teddlie and Reynold s indicate that leadership is normally give upd by the headteacher or principal, they found that leadership is now centrally synonymous with school effectiveness for many, including many operating indoors school improvement paradigm (Teddlie Reynolyds, 2000141). As much(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal), the ability to set clear organisational goals has been found to be a relevant variable linking leadership and school effectiveness. leadership Theories Development through historyThey are many theories on leadership which realize been developed over the years and surely many more to follow. Here is a brief summary of the theory behind the subject. The individual leader, they are people who go al ways been scrutinised throughout history, this scrutiny has brought astir(predicate) The great man theory, the view that leaders are born and not made, this implies that the process of selection of leaders is crucial, and that training and development in leadership has no outcome.I n the late 1940s and early 1950s, however, a serial of qualitative reviews of these studies (e.g., Bird, 19408 Stogdill, 19489 Mann, 195910) prompted researchers to take a drastically different view of the tearaway(a) forces behind leadership. In reviewing the extant literature, Stogdill and Mann found that while close to traits were habitual across a number of studies, the overall evidence suggested that persons who are leaders in one circumstance whitethorn not necessarily be leaders in other bureaus. Subsequently, leadership was no longer characterized as an enduring individual trait, as itemal accesses ( sop up alternative leadership theories below) posited that individuals arouse be effective in certain postures, but not others. This salute predominate much of the leadership theory and research for the next few decades. trace Theory, this claims that certain personality traits determine success in leadership. Stogdill (1969) found that some personality traits wer e common to successful leaders, there has been difficulty in identifying them bodyatically and agreeing definitions of personality traits.Situation theory is based on the view that leadership give the sacknot be examined away from the group over which leadership is beingness exercised. The view is that leadership is a group phenomenon which will vary correspond to situations and over measure. Also, leadership is not a one way process of influence. Leaders are influenced by followers as comfortably as wrong-doing versa. The studies that were carried out tended to be in small ad hoc groups in delay take settings (eg Lippett and White). leadership elbow rooms, there are two ways of analysing hyphens of leadership one is on the range from despotic to popular, which i jave chosen as my focus for my process research forge, and is associated with the work of Tannenbaum and Schmidt (1973). The other is based on the relative bureau in a leader of meet for people and relation ships or concern for achievement or results this theory is associated with Blake and Mouton (1964). They also explained that The point to be speech patterned here is that four-in-handial calls are not fixed. They are not unchanging. They are determined by a range of factors. some are subject to modification through formal instruction or ego training. (Blake and Mouton, 1964 p.13)Behaviour theory is based on ten work of Halpin who suggests that leaders do two main thingsInitiate structures establish goals, set up channels of communicating, establish procedures and review processes.Consider others create a temper of trust, respect and warmthHalpin suggests that effective leadership is associated with high murder on both points.Contingency theories are complex, they recognise the interaction of leaders and their environments. They are two modelsThe model developed by Hersey and Blanchard (1977) identifies both directive and positive behaviour in a leader, which foot be modifi ed according to the train of development, experience and commitment of the subordinate.The model developed by Fiedler (1967) combines an analysis of the leaders style (people or production?) with an analysis of three variables of the situation which can be seen as favourable or discriminatory to the leader, e.g. the level of formal authority. Fiedlers research indicates that a parturiency orientated leader is best suited to a situation that is crabbedly favourable or unfavourable and that a people orientated leader is more effective where the situation is not particularly favourable or unfavourable.Action Leadership was developed from Contingency Theory by Adair (1984) who suggested that there were three main dimensions to leadership. These were a concern for task, a concern for the team or group and a concern for individuals. Effective leaders will pay attention to all three dimensions. Adair then identifies a set of key actions which all leaders must transact in respect of each of these three dimensions.Leadership and ManagementLeadership tends to be equated with vision and values and commission with processes and structuresLeadership and oversight are not synonymous terms. One can be a leader without being a contestr. One can, for example, fulfil many of the symbolic, inspirational educational and normative functions of a leader and thus flirt what an organization stands for without carrying any of the formal burdens of circumspection. Conversely, one can manage without leading. An individual can monitor and figure organizational activities, make decisions, and allocate resources without fulfilling the symbolic, normative, inspirational, or educational functions of leadership. (Schon, 1984, p. 36)Here the differentiation is not intended to distinguish amid roles. Schon goes on to say that since we broadly expect managers to lead, it may be permissible to treat focal point and leadership as one, although he does identify the concepts of anx iety as science and the art of managing. This latter concept may have more in common with leadership.In the classic research of Lewin et al. (1939) at the University of Iowa, three leadership behaviours, or styles, were examined the overbearing, the participatory, and the individuation(prenominal). It was found that the absolute style tends to change authority and dictate work rules, while the elected style tends to involve employees in decision make, delegate authority, encourage participation, and use feedback to coach employees. Of the three, the laissez-faire style was found to be ineffective in every performance criterion.This original research of Lewins greatly influenced other studies conducted after World struggle II. The most significant of these studies were performed by the Ohio State Group (Shartle, 1949, 1950 Fleishman, 1953 Halpin and Winer, 1957 Hemphill and Coons, 1957), as head as tookplace at the University of Michigan (Katz, Maccoby and Morse, 1950 Katz , Maccoby, Gurin and Floor, 1951 Katz and Kahn, 1952). All these studies found that leadership displaying concern for people produced better results than that displaying concern for production.The Ohio State Group suppose dimensions of consideration and initiating structure. The first of these signifies the extent that the working relationships a leader has with subordinates is characterised by mutual trust and respect for group members ideas and retrieveings. The latter signifies the extent that a leader is likely to define and structure her/his role and the roles of group members for the involvement of seeking goal attainment. The Michigan studies spoke of employee orientation and production orientation. The source emphasises the extant that a leader values interpersonal relationships and accepts individual differences among subordinates this is associated with high group productivity. The second emphasises the extent to which a leader values the technical or task aspects of the job and is concerned with accomplishing the groups tasks this is associated with low group productivity and low job satisfaction.Autocratic leadershipThe Autocratic Leadership appearance was first described by Lewin, Lippitt, and White in 1938, along with the democratic leadership and the laissez-faire leadership styles. The autocratic leadership style is sometimes referred to as the directive leadership style.Autocratic leadership can be said to be synonymous to dictatorship where only one person has the authority over the followers or workers. Their decision has to be taken as the golden rule and should never be questioned. They plan out everything and order their subordinates to work according to their rules. For instance, if a company has an autocratic leader as the Managing Director, the employees in the company would have to work as per the rules set down by him. They would not be expected to make any contribution from their side, which may actually help in enhancing th e productivity of the company. In short, the autocratic leader has full control of those around him and call backs to have the terminate authority to treat them as he wants.The premise of the autocratic instruction style is the belief that in most cases the worker cannot make a contribution to their own work, and that even if they could, they would not. According to Douglas McGregor this belief system leads to the learning ability of Theory X (Dessler 37). McGregor believes Theory X workers have no pursual in work in general, including the quality of their work. Professor Henry Daryanto interprets McGregors theory as mangers dealing with this theory by using carrots and ticks. The carrot is usually a monetary incentive, much(prenominal) as piece-rate pay schemes while the stick is docking pay for poor quality or missed production targets (Daryanto). It appears only money and threats can motivate the lazy, disinterested worker.The natural management style for a manager with t his Theory X belief system would be to favour is the autocratic management style. Autocratic managers attempt to control work to the maximum extent possible. A major threat to control is complexity. Complex jobs are more difficult to learn and workers who master much(prenominal) jobs are scarce and possess a certain amount of control over how the job is done. An autocratic managers attempt to simplify work to overhear maximum control. Autocratic managers elect a strict top-down chain-of-command approach to management be practiced.Management style is a term that refers to the genius of the relationship surrounded by managers and non-managerial employees. It includes not only the personal relationship between people but also the style of intercourse and the attitudes that managers have of employees and the attitudes they receive in employees. The term leadership is sometimes utilise. This refers to the ways in which managers achieve the attitudes and actions of their employees . Usually the actions desired are those which lead to the achievement of organizational objectives. A form of leadership therefore implies a style of management.One particular style of management is autocratic, which our learning team sometimes refers to it as antiquated. The autocratic style of management is based on the use of coercion as a think ofs of control in an attempt to force employees to birth in a particular way. The response of employees to such coercion is seen to be extremely authoritative, that is they will do as they are told because the alternative may be unemployment. Another reaction by an employee to this autocratic style is they expertness only do the absolute minimum required of them to retain their jobs. all the way productivity in such an organization will not be very high. Military and law enforce1ment organizations historically operate within an autocratic style of management, but this is seen as undeniable in the situation in which they operate. Beca use of this acceptance resentment should not arise since there is an accepted of style of management in these organizational forms.Our learning team believes not only should a style of management be chosen according to the slip of organization, it should be chosen to suit the particular situation in a given organization. For example the lowlys of dealing with a disciplinary case will differ from that utilise in a problem-solving situation. The style of management of routine day to day activities will differ from the management of project and design activities. Managers must therefore choose a management style to suit the situation. Our team also criticizes the autocratic style and suggests that such a style will lead to conflict, low need and low productivity. We all advocate a more democratic style of management. This does not mean management by committee or reservation decisions by democratic voting, it means involving people in organizations in some aspects of the running o f the organization.The communication style of an autocratic leader is usually described as one way. They tell you only what they want done. The feedback you would get from this type of leader would generally be unplanned. They would simply tell you when youve made a mistake. The decision making process is usually unilateral and they accomplish goals by directing people. instanter that might not sound like the type of leader youd follow, but there are actually situations when this style is effective.In the study, some conditions may simply call for urgent action, and in these cases an autocratic style of leadership may be best style to adopt. Surprisingly, most workers have already worked for an autocratic leader and therefore have little trouble adapting to that style. In fact, in times of striving or emergency some subordinates may actually prefer an autocratic style they prefer to be told exactly what to do. So to summarize the autocratic leadership style is very effective w hen times are stressful, but very stressful during those times when the pull is off the followers or coworkers.Though autocratic leadership style is tyrannical, it has proved to be very efficient during certain situations and conditions. Autocratic leadership works positively during emergency and stressful situations. When such situations arise in a company or organization, most people are wiped out(p) and are not able to reach a common solution. During such times, having an autocratic leader would be great as he would take the reins in his hand and would direct the workers or employees to move forward. For instance, there is a terrorist attack at some place and the soldiers have to rescue guiltless people from there. If many people try to give solutions, it may take time and the mission may end in failure. In such situations, having one autocratic person to command the rest of the group on how to go about with the mission can lead to success.Another situation where the autocrati c leadership style proves appropriate is while doing group projects. Many group projects tend to fail because group members depend on each other to make decisions. Such situations demand the need of an authoritative leader who can make decisions for the group. The leader should determine the ways in which the project would be done, dissociate the job among the members, and also set a deadline for accomplishment of the project.Autocratic leadership may have its benefits, however, in most cases it is seen as something that is undesirable. Autocratic leadership style promotes a one sided conversation and cod to this the creative and leadership skills of the employees become restrictive. As the leader would have all the authority, there is a chance that he would exploit his employees. There have been cases where an authoritative employer has fired employees because they showed the courage of disagreeing with him. It is also said that having an autocratic leader hinders workplace comm unication and socialization. It is very important to have a fond work environment, where everyone is friendly. It can also give rise to disagreements and conflicts, if a group or company is led by an autocratic leader.In the army and other urgent circumstances, people may prefer the ability to be told what do next. According to Money Zine, In fact, in times of stress or emergency, some subordinates may actually prefer an autocratic stylethey prefer to be told exactly what to do. The autocratic leadership style is very effective when times are stressful.Lengthy debate has no place in many work environments, and this form of leadership limits arguments. It allows employees to have one task, and that is to work, which could mean that the employees master their tasks and become proficient enough to help grow the company.This method of leadership may lead to more pressure from the boss on the rest of the employees, who then push back against the management method. Theft and other issu es may arise because of a lack of workplace satisfaction. According to yearn Entrepreneur, This is one of the least desirable when it comes to building trusting relationships and making friends. In this system, one person has control over all of the workers or followers. qualification friends is an important part of life, and if this is destroyed, it can create an unhappy environment. This translates to the quality of work, and not being seen as human race can cause more electric resistance to new aspects of the job. A little autonomy and social appeal can make a difference in retaining good workers.1.3 Participatory LeadershipThe premise of the participatory management style is the belief that the worker can make a contribution to the design of their own work. The belief system that lead managers to this conclusion was originally put forth as a management theory by McGregor, who called it Theory Y. Theory Y advocates believe that workers are internally motivated. They take satis faction in their work, and would like to perform at their best. Symptoms of indifference are a result of the modern workplace, which restricts what a worker can do and separates him from the final results of his efforts. It is managements job to change the workplace so that the worker can, once again, recapture his pride of workmanship. Elements of Theory Y are evident in Demings discussion of the role of a manager of people, presented earlier.Managers who practice the participatory style of management tend to engage in certain types of behaviour. To engage the workers they establish and communicate the purpose and direction of the organization. This is used to help develop a shared vision of what the organization should be, which is used to develop a set of shared plans for achieving the vision. The managers role is that of a leader. By her actions and words she shows the way to her employees. She is also a coach, evaluating the results of her peoples efforts and helping them use t he results to improve their processes. She works with the leaders above her in the organization to improve the organizations systems and the organization as a whole.1.4 Democratic LeadershipThe Democratic Leadership mien was first described by Lewin, Lippitt, and White in 1938 along with the autocratic leadership and the laissez-faire leadership styles. They distinguished democratic leadership from autocratic and laissez-faire styles, arguing that democratic leaders relied upon group decision making, active member involvement honest praise and criticism, and a degree of comradeship. By contrast, leaders using the other styles were either domineering or uninvolved. Kariel (1956) argues that Lewins ideal of democracy is manipulative and elitist and not democratic.The dynamics of democratic leadership, however, are not well understood. In fact, there is no clear and well-developed definition of the term within academia. In a classic review, Gibb (1969, p258) lamented the fact that th e basic psychological meaning of democratic leadership had nowhere been spelled out. Twenty years later, Miriam Lewin (1987) agreed. iterate Kurt Lewins earlier call for a better understanding of the detailed personality of democratic leadership and followership through social science research (p. 138). The democratic style was also include by Daniel Goleman in 2002 as one of his six leadership styles.In Bass (1990, 19-20) handbook on leadership a definition is providedLeadership is an interaction between two or more members of a group that often involves a structuring or restructuring of the situation and the perceptions and expectations of the membersLeadership occurs when one group member modifies the motivation or competencies of others in the group. each member of teh group can exhibit some amount of leadershipBass further argues that Leadership is behaviour, not position and this can be said of the democratic method of leadership.The democratic leader gives followers a vote in nearly every decision the team makes. The process involved with being a democratic leader is very time consuming because decisions are nearly always made together.The democratic leadership style is able to quickly build flexibility and responsibility and can help identify new ways to do things. This leadership style is best used when the followers are knowledgeable about the organizations process and change is needed. For example, this style is used when the leader needs to introduce irreverent ideas into the organization to help with an old process.Lewin, Lippitt and White were one of the first to categorise leadership styles in terms of behavioral characteristics. Prior to their work, leadership traits were the focus of leadership studies.Under democratic leadership, the people have a more participatory role in the decision making process. One person retains final say over all decisions but allows others to share perspicacity and ideas. Most of all, democratic leaders must seek to make members into leaders (Theilen Poole, 1986).This is often a passing effective form of leadership. People are more likely to excel in their positions and develop more skills when they feel empowered, and people are empowered when they are involved in the decision-making process.Although it may take some time to achieve full participation from a group, the end result will be rewarding if you can manage to establish a power-sharing environment in your group project. You will celebrate that democratic practices often lead to a more productive and high quality work group.Examples of democratic leadershipAsking all group members for ideas and input.Voting on the best course of action in a project.Asking group members to work with their strengths and provide input on how to divide the work. liEnabling members to work at their own pace and set their own deadlines.Pitfalls of Democratic LeadershipIt doesnt take too much imagination to think of ways that democratic leadership could backfire during a group project. As you believably know, some members of a group will work well on their own and complete all work in a well-timed fashion. But there are other workers who will procrastinate-and that can lead to disaster.If you are a natural democratic leader, it might be necessary to learn some traits of the autocratic or bureaucratic leaders and implore into them as necessary. Always have a backup plan on handUndemocratic leadership styles can result in a variety of undesirable outcomes dependent and apathetic followers (Barber. 1984 Heifetz Sinder. 1987 Manz Sims. 1989 White Lippitt, 1960). In addition, undemocratic leadership can undermine the pursuit of ethical ideals, such as self-determination, personal development and democratic decision making (Barber, 1984 Sashkin, 1984).1.5 laissez-faire(prenominal) leadershipLaissez faire style simply means a delegate approach to leadership. Many researchers have found out that those children who grow under l aissez-faire leadership establishments, happen to be the less productive in any group.This was also built by these children making more demands upon their leader, as researchers have come to ascertain, amidst showing little in terms of cooperation as well as the inability to work more independently.Most laissez faire styles offer no or very little guidance to the members of the same group, amidst leaving the making of decisions to other group members. As much a it could be overtly effective in those situations where most employees or members happen to be highly qualified and skilful in their area experience and know-how, it has often led to poor roles definition plus a sheer lack in motivation.In this leadership style, the head or leader onlysets that overall precession or instruction, where then he gets out of the way so that things can be odd to run on their own.With the usage of this leadership style, the leader just accepts wholesome responsibility for many of the decisions t hat come into fruition, though the decision-making has been left to his team.Also, the team members are also left to evaluate, analyse and transform issue and all problems just as they come.Laissez faire is very appropriate for mature and exquisite senior teams, which have a track record of proof and have confidence in handling lots of issues. The most pitfall and mar of this type of leadership is strictly failure.In case of anything going wrong, the leader has no clout to blame his team, but a chance to see his shortcomings.But in each management style, or leadership style, the motivation towards good leadership and overall output of members or employees are held up within the management theories, that offer a dimension for all leaders to use for the realisation of their utmost goals. Leadership without goals is failure in management. roughly of these theories include the Hawthorne model or experiments, which lay emphasis on human relations. In this model, the work-place lightnin g did improve the productivity during the experiment and after, that is, within the groups.It has thus reinforced the fact that individuals are not those rational and covert economic beings as assumed by the classical theorists, as well as the emphasis of social interaction and the improvement of peoples work once they have been valued. otherwise theories of management include the rule set or bureaucracy, stipulated by muck Weber and gave the world the red tape, since it lays emphasis on rules and overall regulations. Also, the scientific theory of management by Frederick Taylor brought out the notion that each task must be scientifically and also rationally optimised for overall productivity, which was better by the Ford Company and the monetary incentives involved brought perfect results.Lastly, the process approach theory by Henry Fayol has been clear in leadership styles and in all management levels, even in laissez faire, as it lays much emphasis on planning, organising, coor dinating, commanding, controlling and even the staff and line principles. The theories are not leadership styles but they harness the existing leadership and management styles.Disadvantages of leadership stylesAs much as the leadership style cognize as paternalistic management contains some autocratic dynamism, it comes as being a bit warm and a bit fuzzy within the precincts of its approach.In its paternal aspect, it harkens in the line of a father being firm though has good intentions in the life of ones children and in the strain limelight, the employees.Just like most paternal beings are, except for those dads who keep motto I told you, the typical paternalistic manager most of the times explains the peculiar(prenominal) reason as to why he has taken certain actions in management and for his employees. He is very far from being autocratic and looks after the harmony within his or her team.A manager of this calibre tends to provide that environment that is perfectly well roun ded for all within his management wing, even including a prior consideration of their personal and social aspects in their lives.In this respect, there seems to occur some kind of upward communication all the way from the tip to the high ranks, in terms of provide of feedback which could be well used for the transformation of some aspects within the organisation for the achievement of employee satisfaction and avid motivation.Those in support of paternalistic management style have related to it as providing a huge purport towards the motivation of employees more than an autocratic style, since the employees tends to fill the leadership as considering their upbeat and thus do care for them more as people and not just like robots.Since the objective that comes with keeping the motivation of the employees is highly included in this leadership style, there tends to be an overt probability that is dictated towards an increased loyalty of employee and also a minimal turnover.The overa ll damage with this leadership style depicts the overall disadvantage of leadership styles, sharing such similarities with those elements of autocratic techniques of management styles, such that they have led to the dependency upon the leader thro