From Mahatma Gandhi and Winston Churchill to Martin Luther King and Steve Jobs, there can seem

to be as many ways to lead people as there are leaders. Fortunately, businesspeople and psychologists have developed useful, simple ways to describe the main styles of leadership. By understanding these styles and their impact, you can develop your own approach to leadership and become a more effective leader. We'll look at some common, well-known leadership styles in this article, and we'll explore situations where these styles may be effective with your people. - See more at: http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newLDR_84.htm#sthash.jZJcyG2V.dpuf Adapting Your Approach to Leadership In business, a leadership style called "transformational leadership" is often the most effective approach to use. Transformational leaders have integrity, they inspire people with a shared vision of the future, they set clear goals, they motivate people towards these goals, they manage delivery, and they communicate well with their teams. (You can find out more about transformational leadership at the end of this article.) However, leadership is not "one size fits all" thing; often, you must adapt your style to fit a situation or a specific group. This is why it's useful to gain a thorough understanding of other leadership styles; after all, the more approaches you're familiar with, the more you can shape your approach to the situation. Let's take a look at some of the leadership styles that you can use. (For ease of reference, these are shown in alphabetical order.) 1. Autocratic Leadership Autocratic leadership is an extreme form of transactional leadership, where leaders have a lot of power over their people. Staff and team members have little opportunity to make suggestions, even if these would be in the team's or the organization's best interest. The benefit of autocratic leadership is that it's incredibly efficient. Decisions are made quickly, and work gets done efficiently. The downside is that most people resent being treated this way. Therefore, autocratic leadership can often lead to high levels of absenteeism and high staff turnover. However, the style can be effective for some routine and unskilled jobs: in these situations, the advantages of control may outweigh the disadvantages. Autocratic leadership is often best used in crises, when decisions must be made quickly and without dissent. For instance, the military often uses an autocratic leadership style; top commanders are responsible for quickly making complex decisions, which allows troops to focus their attention and energy on performing their allotted tasks and missions. 2. Bureaucratic Leadership Bureaucratic leaders work "by the book." They follow rules rigorously, and ensure that their people follow procedures precisely. This is an appropriate leadership style for work involving serious safety risks (such as working with machinery, with toxic substances, or at dangerous heights) or where large sums of money are involved. Bureaucratic leadership is also useful in organizations where employees do routine tasks (as in manufacturing). The downside of this leadership style is that it's ineffective in teams and organizations that rely on flexibility, creativity, or innovation. Much of the time, bureaucratic leaders achieve their position because of their ability to conform to and uphold rules, not because of their qualifications or expertise. This can cause resentment when team members don't value their expertise or advice. 3. Charismatic Leadership A charismatic leadership style can resemble transformational leadership because these leaders inspire enthusiasm in their teams and are energetic in motivating others to move forward. This ability to create excitement and commitment is an enormous benefit.

The difference between charismatic leaders and transformational leaders lies in their intention. Transformational leaders want to transform their teams and organizations. Charismatic leaders are often focused on themselves, and may not want to change anything. The downside to charismatic leaders is that they can believe more in themselves than in their teams. This can create the risk that a project or even an entire organization might collapse if the leader leaves. A charismatic leader might believe that she can do no wrong, even when others are warning her about the path she's on; and this feeling of invincibility can ruin a team or an organization. Also, in the followers' eyes, success is directly connected to the presence of the charismatic leader. As such, charismatic leadership carries great responsibility, and it needs a long-term commitment from the leader. 4. Democratic/Participative Leadership Democratic leaders make the final decisions, but they include team members in the decision-making process. They encourage creativity, and team members are often highly engaged in projects and decisions. There are many benefits of democratic leadership. Team members tend to have high job satisfaction and are productive because they're more involved in decisions. This style also helps develop people's skills. Team members feel in control of their destiny, so they're motivated to work hard by more than just a financial reward. Because participation takes time, this approach can slow decision-making, but the result is often good. The approach can be most suitable when working as a team is essential, and when quality is more important than efficiency or productivity. The downside of democratic leadership is that it can often hinder situations where speed or efficiency is essential. For instance, during a crisis, a team can waste valuable time gathering people's input. Another downside is that some team members might not have the knowledge or expertise to provide high quality input. 5. Laissez-Faire Leadership This French phrase means "leave it be," and it describes leaders who allow their people to work on their own. This type of leadership can also occur naturally, when managers don't have sufficient control over their work and their people. Laissez-faire leaders may give their teams complete freedom to do their work and set their own deadlines. They provide team support with resources and advice, if needed, but otherwise don't get involved. This leadership style can be effective if the leader monitors performance and gives feedback to team members regularly. It is most likely to be effective when individual team members are experienced, skilled, self-starters. The main benefit of laissez-faire leadership is that giving team members so much autonomy can lead to high job satisfaction and increased productivity. The downside is that it can be damaging if team members don't manage their time well or if they don't have the knowledge, skills, or motivation to do their work effectively. 6. People-Oriented/Relations-Oriented Leadership With people-oriented leadership, leaders are totally focused on organizing, supporting, and developing the people on their teams. This is a participatory style and tends to encourage good teamwork and creative collaboration. This is the opposite of task-oriented leadership. People-oriented leaders treat everyone on the team equally. They're friendly and approachable, they pay attention to the welfare of everyone in the group, and they make themselves available whenever team members need help or advice. The benefit of this leadership style is that people-oriented leaders create teams that everyone wants to be part of. Team members are often more productive and willing to take risks, because they know that the leader will provide support if they need it. The downside is that some leaders can take this approach too far; they may put the development of their team above tasks or project directives. 7. Servant Leadership

This term, created by Robert Greenleaf in the 1970s, describes a leader often not formally recognized as such. When someone at any level within an organization leads simply by meeting the needs of the team, he or she can be described as a "servant leader." Servant leaders often lead by example. They have high integrity and lead with generosity . In many ways, servant leadership is a form of democratic leadership because the whole team tends to be involved in decision making. However, servant leaders often "lead from behind," preferring to stay out of the limelight and letting their team accept recognition for their hard work. Supporters of the servant leadership model suggest that it's a good way to move ahead in a world where values are increasingly important, and where servant leaders can achieve power because of their values, ideals, and ethics . This is an approach that can help to create a positive corporate culture and can lead to high morale among team members. However, other people believe that in competitive leadership situations, people who practice servant leadership can find themselves left behind by leaders using other leadership styles. This leadership style also takes time to apply correctly: it's ill-suited in situations where you have to make quick decisions or meet tight deadlines. Although you can use servant leadership in many situations, it's often most practical in politics, or in positions where leaders are elected to serve a team, committee, organization, or community. 8. Task-Oriented Leadership Task-oriented leaders focus only on getting the job done and can be autocratic. They actively define the work and the roles required, put structures in place, and plan, organize, and monitor work. These leaders also perform other key tasks, such as creating and maintaining standards for performance. The benefit of task-oriented leadership is that it ensures that deadlines are met, and it's especially useful for team members who don't manage their time well. However, because task-oriented leaders don't tend to think much about their team's well-being, this approach can suffer many of the flaws of autocratic leadership, including causing motivation and retention problems. Tip: In practice, most leaders use both task-oriented and people-oriented styles of leadership together. Our article on the Blake Mouton Managerial Grid explains how you can do this. 9. Transactional Leadership This leadership style starts with the idea that team members agree to obey their leader when they accept a job. The "transaction" usually involves the organization paying team members in return for their effort and compliance. The leader has a right to "punish" team members if their work doesn't meet an appropriate standard. Although this might sound controlling and paternalistic, transactional leadership offers some benefits. For one, this leadership style clarifies everyone's roles and responsibilities. Another benefit is that, because transactional leadership judges team members on performance, people who are ambitious or who are motivated by external rewards including compensation often thrive. The downside of this leadership style is that team members can do little to improve their job satisfaction. It can feel stifling, and it can lead to high staff turnover. Transactional leadership is really a type of management, not a true leadership style, because the focus is on short-term tasks. It has serious limitations for knowledge-based or creative work. However, it can be effective in other situations. 10. Transformational Leadership As we discussed earlier in this article, transformation leadership is often the best leadership style to use in business situations. Transformational leaders are inspiring because they expect the best from everyone on their team as well as themselves. This leads to high productivity and engagement from everyone in their team. The downside of transformational leadership is that while the leader's enthusiasm is passed onto the team, he or she can need to be supported by "detail people."

That's why, in many organizations, both transactional and transformational leadership styles are useful. Transactional leaders (or managers) ensure that routine work is done reliably, while transformational leaders look after initiatives that add new value. It's also important to use other leadership styles when necessary this will depend on the people you're leading and the situation that you're in. Key Points In business, transformational leadership is often the best leadership style to use. However, no one style of leadership fits all situations, so it helps to have an understanding of other styles. Common leadership styles include: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Autocratic leadership. Bureaucratic leadership. Charismatic leadership. Democratic/participative leadership. Laissez-faire leadership. People/relations-oriented leadership. Servant leadership. Task-oriented leadership. Transactional leadership. Transformational leadership. By learning about the pros and cons of each style, you can adapt your approach to your situation.

Leadership is less about your needs, and more about the needs of the people and the organization you are leading. Leadership styles are not something to be tried on like so many suits, to see which fits. Rather, they should be adapted to the particular demands of the situation, the particular requirements of the people involved and the particular challenges facing the organization. In the book Primal Leadership, Daniel Goleman, who popularized the notion of Emotional Intelligence, describes six different styles of leadership. The most effective leaders can move among these styles, adopting the one that meets the needs of the moment. They can all become part of the leaders repertoire. Visionary. This style is most appropriate when an organization needs a new direction. Its goal is to move people towards a new set of shared dreams. Visionary leaders articulate where a group is going,

but not how it will get there setting people free to innovate, experiment, take calculated risks, write Mr. Goleman and his coauthors. Coaching. This one-on-one style focuses on developing individuals, showing them how to improve their performance, and helping to connect their goals to the goals of the organization. Coaching works best, Mr. Goleman writes, with employees who show initiative and want more professional development. But it can backfire if its perceived as micromanaging an employee, and undermines his or her selfconfidence. Affiliative. This style emphasizes the importance of team work, and creates harmony in a group by connecting people to each other. Mr. Goleman argues this approach is particularly valuable when trying to heighten team harmony, increase morale, improve communication or repair broken trust in an organization. But he warns against using it alone, since its emphasis on group praise can allow poor performance to go uncorrected. Employees may perceive, he writes, that mediocrity is tolerated. Democratic. This style draws on peoples knowledge and skills, and creates a group commitment to the resulting goals. It works best when the direction the organization should take is unclear, and the leader needs to tap the collective wisdom of the group. Mr. Goleman warns that this consensus-building approach can be disastrous in times of crisis, when urgent events demand quick decisions.

Pacesetting. In this style, the leader sets high standards for performance. He or she is obsessive about doing things better and faster, and asks the same of everyone. But Mr. Goleman warns this style should be used sparingly, because it can undercut morale and make people feel as if they are failing. Our data shows that, more often than not, pacesetting poisons the climate, he writes. Commanding. This is classic model of military style leadership probably the most often used, but the least often effective. Because it rarely involves praise and frequently employs criticism, it undercuts morale and job satisfaction. Mr. Goleman argues it is only effective in a crisis, when an urgent turnaround is needed. Even the modern military has come to recognize its limited usefulness.

Leadership Styles
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 leadership. This early study has been very influential and established three major leadership styles: (Lewin, LIippit, White 1939, U.S. Army Handbook, 1973): o o o
autocratic or authoritarian participative or democratic delegative or laissez-fair

Although good leaders use all three styles, with one of them normally dominant, bad leaders tend to stick with one style (normally autocratic).

Authoritarian (autocratic)

I want both of you to. . .

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 (democratic)

Let's work together to solve this. . .

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. A leader is not expected to know everythingthis is why you employ knowledgeable and skillful employees. Using this style is of mutual benefit as it allows them to become part of the team and allows you to make better decisions.

Delegative (laissez faire)

You two take care of the problem while I go. . .

In this style, the leader allows the employees to make the decisions. However, the leader is still responsible for the decisions that are made. This is used when employees are able to analyze the situation and determine what needs to be done and how to do it. You cannot do everything! You must set priorities and delegate certain tasks. This is not a style to use so that you can blame others when things go wrong, rather this is a style to be used when you fully trust and confidence in the people below you. Do not be afraid to use it, however, use it wisely! NOTE: Laissez Faire (or laisser faire) is the noninterference in the affairs of others. [French : laissez, second person pl. imperative of laisser, to let, allow + faire, to do.]

Forces

A good leader uses all three styles, depending on what forces are involved between the followers, the leader, and the situation. Some examples include: o
Using an authoritarian style on a new employee who is just learning the job. The leader is competent and a good coach. The employee is motivated to learn a new skill. The situation is a new environment for the employee.

Using a participative style with a team of workers who know their job. The leader knows the problem, but does not have all the information. The employees know their jobs and want to become part of the team.

Using a delegative style with a worker who knows more about the job than you. You cannot do everything and the employee needs to take ownership of her job! In addition, this allows you to be at other places, doing other things.

Using all three: Telling your employees that a procedure is not working correctly and a new one must be established (authoritarian). Asking for their ideas and input on creating a new procedure (participative). Delegating tasks in order to implement the new procedure (delegative or laissez faire).

Forces that influence the style to be used included:

o o o o o o o o

How much time is available. Are relationships based on respect and trust or on disrespect? Who has the informationyou, your employees, or both? How well your employees are trained and how well you know the task. Internal conflicts. Stress levels. Type of task. Is it structured, unstructured, complicated, or simple? Laws or established procedures such as OSHA or training plans.

Positive and Negative Approaches

There is a difference in ways leaders approach their employee. Positive leaders use rewards, such as education, independence, etc. to motivate employees. While negative employers emphasize penalties. While the negative approach has a place in a leader's repertoire of tools, it must be used carefully due to its high cost on the human spirit. Negative leaders act domineering and superior with people. They believe the only way to get things done is through penalties, such as loss of job, days off without pay, reprimanding employees in front of others, etc. They believe their authority is increased by frightening everyone into higher levels of productivity. Yet what always happens when this approach is used wrongly is that morale falls; which of course leads to lower productivity. Also note that most leaders do not strictly use one or another, but are somewhere on a continuum ranging from extremely positive to extremely negative. People who continuously work out of the negative are bosses while those who primarily work out of the positive are considered real leaders.

Use of Consideration and Structure

Two other approaches that leaders use are: Consideration (employee orientation) leaders are concerned about the human needs of their employees. They build teamwork, help employees with their problems, and provide psychological support. Structure (task orientation) leaders believe that they get results by consistently keeping people busy and urging them to produce. There is evidence that leaders who are considerate in their leadership style are higher performers and are more satisfied with their job (Schriesheim, 1982). Also notice that consideration and structure are independent of each other, thus they should not be viewed on a continuum. For example, a leader who becomes more considerate, does not necessarily mean that she has become less structured