Four of the most basic leadership styles are: --Autocratic --Bureaucratic --Laissez-faire --Democratic This article will briefly

define each style and describe the situations in which each one might be used. Autocratic Leadership Style This is often considered the classical approach. It is one in which the manager retains as much power and decision-making authority as possible. The manager does not consult employees, nor are they allowed to give any input. Employees are expected to obey orders without receiving any explanations. The motivation environment is produced by creating a structured set of rewards and punishments. This leadership style has been greatly criticized during the past 30 years. Some studies say that organizations with many autocratic leaders have higher turnover and absenteeism than other organizations. Certainly Gen X employees have proven to be highly resistant to this management style. These studies say that autocratic leaders: --Rely on threats and punishment to influence employees --Do not trust employees --Do not allow for employee input Yet, autocratic leadership is not all bad. Sometimes it is the most effective style to use. These situations can include: --New, untrained employees who do not know which tasks to perform or which procedures to follow --Effective supervision can be provided only through detailed orders and instructions --Employees do not respond to any other leadership style --There are high-volume production needs on a daily basis --There is limited time in which to make a decision --A manager's power is challenged by an employee --The area was poorly managed --Work needs to be coordinated with another department or organization The autocratic leadership style should not be used when:

--Employees become tense, fearful, or resentful --Employees expect to have their opinions heard --Employees begin depending on their manager to make all their decisions --There is low employee morale, high turnover and absenteeism and work stoppage Bureaucratic Leadership Style Bureaucratic leadership is where the manager manages "by the book Everything must be done according to procedure or policy. If it isn't covered by the book, the manager refers to the next level above him or her. This manager is really more of a police officer than a leader. He or she enforces the rules. This style can be effective when: --Employees are performing routine tasks over and over. --Employees need to understand certain standards or procedures. --Employees are working with dangerous or delicate equipment that requires a definite set of procedures to operate. --Safety or security training is being conducted. --Employees are performing tasks that require handling cash. This style is ineffective when: --Work habits form that are hard to break, especially if they are no longer useful. --Employees lose their interest in their jobs and in their fellow workers. --Employees do only what is expected of them and no more. Democratic Leadership Style The democratic leadership style is also called the participative style as it encourages employees to be a part of the decision making. The democratic manager keeps his or her employees informed about everything that affects their work and shares decision making and problem solving responsibilities. This style requires the leader to be a coach who has the final say, but gathers information from staff members before making a decision. Democratic leadership can produce high quality and high quantity work for long periods of time. Many employees like the trust they receive and respond with cooperation, team spirit, and high morale. Typically the democratic leader: --Develops plans to help employees evaluate their own performance --Allows employees to establish goals

--Encourages employees to grow on the job and be promoted --Recognizes and encourages achievement. Like the other styles, the democratic style is not always appropriate. It is most successful when used with highly skilled or experienced employees or when implementing operational changes or resolving individual or group problems.

The democratic leadership style is most effective when: --The leader wants to keep employees informed about matters that affect them. --The leader wants employees to share in decision-making and problem-solving duties. --The leader wants to provide opportunities for employees to develop a high sense of personal growth and job satisfaction. --There is a large or complex problem that requires lots of input to solve. --Changes must be made or problems solved that affect employees or groups of employees. --You want to encourage team building and participation. Democratic leadership should not be used when: --There is not enough time to get everyone's input. --It's easier and more cost-effective for the manager to make the decision. --The business can't afford mistakes. --The manager feels threatened by this type of leadership. --Employee safety is a critical concern. Laissez-Faire Leadership Style The laissez-faire leadership style is also known as the "hands-off style. It is one in which the manager provides little or no direction and gives employees as much freedom as possible. All authority or power is given to the employees and they must determine goals, make decisions, and resolve problems on their own. This is an effective style to use when: --Employees are highly skilled, experienced, and educated. --Employees have pride in their work and the drive to do it successfully on their own.

--Outside experts, such as staff specialists or consultants are being used --Employees are trustworthy and experienced. This style should not be used when: --It makes employees feel insecure at the unavailability of a manager. --The manager cannot provide regular feedback to let employees know how well they are doing. --Managers are unable to thank employees for their good work. --The manager doesn't understand his or her responsibilities and is hoping the employees can cover for him or her. Varying Leadership Style While the proper leadership style depends on the situation, there are three other factors that also influence which leadership style to use. 1. The manager's personal background. What personality, knowledge, values, ethics, and experiences does the manager have. What does he or she think will work? 2. The employees being supervised. Employees are individuals with different personalities and backgrounds. The leadership style managers use will vary depending upon the individual employee and what he or she will respond best to. 3. The company. The traditions, values, philosophy, and concerns of the company will influence how a manager acts.

Presidency
A veteran member of the Liberal Party founded by Roxas, Marcos sought the party nomination for president in 1961, but gave way to Diosdado Macapagal as Liberal Party presidential candidate on the agreement that Macapagal will support his candidacy in 1965. He served as Macapagal's campaign manager and was elected president of the Liberal Party. In April 1964, he broke with the Liberal Party and turned to Nacionalista by Jose B. Laurel Jr. after incumbent Philippine president and party chairman Macapagal refused to honor their agreement and decided to run for reelection. He then ran as the Nationalist Party candidate and won the presidency in 1965. In 1969 he was reelected, the first Philippine president to serve a second term. Concentrating on agriculture, industry, and education, the country's economy grew during his first term. However, his administration was troubled by increasing student demonstrations and violent urban-guerrilla activities perpetrated by the growing communist movement.

First Term (1966-1969)

In November 1965, Ferdinand Marcos was elected 10th President of the Republic of the Philippines. During his inauguration on December 30, 1965, he vowed to fulfill the nation's "mandate for greatness" and to be a "leader of the people." In his first State of the Nation Address (SONA) in January 1966, he revealed his plans for economic development and good government. He wanted the immediate construction of roads, bridges and public works which includes 16,000 kilometers of feeder roads, some 30,000 lineal meters of permanent bridges, a generator with an electric power capacity of one million kilowatts (1,000,000 kW), water services to eight regions and 38 localities. To fulfill his inaugural vow "to make this nation great again," he mobilized the manpower and resources of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) to complement civilian agencies in such activities such as infrastructure construction; economic planning and program execution; regional and industrial site planning and development; and barrio programs for community development. He hired technocrats and highly educated persons to form part of his Cabinet and staff. His Cabinet included: Carlos P. Romulo (Education); Rafael Salas, Executive Secretary; Jose Yulo (Justice); Marcelo Balatbat (Commerce); Cesar Virata (Finance); Jose Aspiras (Press Secretary); Paulino Garcia (Health); Narciso Ramos (Foreign Affairs); Claudio Teehankee, Undersecretary of Justice; Onofre Corpuz , Usec (later, Secretary) of Education; Juan Ponce Enrile, Usec of Finance (later Secretary of National Defense); Fernando Campos, Usec of Commerce; Romeo Edu, Commissioner on Land Transportation; Teotino Aguilar, Usec of General Services; Benjamin del Rosario, General Manager of the GSIS; Blas Ople, Social Security Commissioner (later, Secretary of Labor and Employment); Col. Salvador Villa, Chairman of PNR; former Press Secretary Jose Nabu, Presidential Assistant on Housing; and Jose Zulueta, Presidential Consultant on Local Government. He also formed a high level economic and development council. His first term in office showed a lot of promise, building on the relatively robust economy by developing the country's infrastructure, education, and agriculture. It was during his first term that rice production was at its peak. Greater production of rice by promoting the cultivation of IR-8 hybrid rice. In 1968 the Philippines became self-sufficient in rice, the first time in history since the American period. In addition, the Philippines exported rice worth US$7 million. In foreign relations, he hosted the Manila Summit Conference with the heads of member nations of the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO),President Marcos initiated, together with the heads of State in Southeast Asia (Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and Singapore), the formation of a regional organization to combat the communist threat in the region the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). He secured increased economic and financial assistance from the United States, shortened the military bases agreement from 99 years to 25 years, and hosted a seven-nation summit conference on the crisis in South Vietnam. In October 1966, the Philippines hosted the summit of seven heads of state (United States, South Vietnam, South Korea, Thailand, Australia, New Zealand and the Philippines) to discuss the worsening problem in Vietnam and the containment of communism in the region. It was also during

his first term that the North Diversion Road was constructed with the help of the AFP engineering construction battalion. The North Diversion Road, now known as North Luzon Expressway, initially went from Balintawak to Tabang, Guiguinto, Bulacan.

Second Term (1969-1981)

In 1969, President Marcos was re-elected President of the Philippines for another 4 year term by defeating Sergio Osmena, Jr., making him the only Philippine President to be re-elected in Philippine history. The second term proved to be an overwhelming challenge to the re-elected President: an economic crisis brought by external and internal forces. In 1969, the Philippines experienced higher inflation rate and devaluation of the Philippine peso. Furthermore, the oil-producing Arab countries decided to cut back oil production, in response to Western military aid to Israel in the Arab-Israeli conflict, resulting in higher fuel prices worldwide. In addition, the frequent visits of natural calamities brought havoc to infrastructures and agricultural crops and livestock, and the combined external and internal economic forces led to uncontrolled increase in the prices of prime commodities. A restive and radicalized student activists demanding reforms in the educational system and opposition to several government policies; On January 30, 1970, demonstrators numbering about 50,000 students and laborers stormed the Malacaang Palace, and crashing a fire truck through Gate 4 that had been forcibly commandeered by the students and laborers. The Metropolitan Command (MetroCom) of thePhilippine Constabulary (PC) pushed them back to Mendiola Bridge. The event was dubbed as the "First Quarter Storm. In October 1970, a series of violence occurred in numerous campuses in the Greater Manila Area. The University of the Philippines was not spared when 18,000 students boycotted their classes to demand academic and non-academic reforms in the State University resulting in the 'occupation' of the office of the President of the University by student leaders. Other schools which were scenes of violent student demonstrations were: Philippine College of Commerce (now Polytechnic University of the Philippines (PUP)) San Sebastian College, University of the East, Letran College, Mapua Institute of Technology, University of Sto. Tomas and FEATI University. Student demonstrators even succeeded in occupying the Office of the Secretary of Justice Vicente Abad Santos for at least seven hours. The President described the brief communization of theUniversity of the Philippines and the violent demonstrations of the Left-leaning students as an "act of insurrection." There were incidents of killings, bombings, breakdown of law and order, and warlordism in different parts of the country; the rise of left-leaning groups and Communist insurgents. In 1969, the New People's Army had conducted raids, resorted to kidnappings and taken part in other violent incidents numbering 230, in which it inflicted 404 casualties, and in turn, suffered 243 loses. In 1970, its record of violent incidents was about the same, but the NPA casualties more than doubled. In the early 70's, violent land disputes and other social tensions eventually gave way to the formation of vigilante groups that acted like private armies of politicians, or rich Christians/Muslims land owners. The communal violence in Mindanao resulted in 100,000 refugees, burning of hundred of homes,

and the death of hundreds of Christians and Muslims in Cotabato and Lanao. The violence garnered international attention and sympathy from the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) as well as other Muslim countries like Libya--which provided military training and logistics to Moro Rebels. Muslim secessionism was one of the reasons for declaring Martial Law. On August 21, 1971, following the bombing of the Liberal Party proclamation rally in Plaza Miranda, President Marcos issued Proclamation No.889 suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. The Supreme Court affirmed the basis for the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in 1971 (Lansang vs. Garcia, 42 SCRA 449. The ponencia was penned by Chief Justice Roberto Concepcion and concurred by Justices J.B.L. Reyes, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Teehankee, Barredo, Villamor and Makasiar. Justices Castro and Barredo concurred fully in a separate opinion). On January 7, 1972, he restored the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus throughout the country. However, the country still faced continuous subversive activities to overthrow the government. Bombings linked to the Radical left (the Communists) intensified throughout the country. In 1970: A bomb exploded at the Joint US Military Advisory Group Headquarters in Quezon City (January), two Catholic schools and two government buildings in Calbayog City were blasted with dynamites (December). In 1971: Oil firms in Manila were bombed resulting in deaths and injuries. In 1972: a grenade was hurled at the ABS-CBN tower in January; the United States Embassy was bombed in February; a pillbox explosives were hurled at the gate of the Malacaang Palace and an explosion in the Greater Manila Terminal Food Market in March; the US Embassy was again bombed in April; a time bomb exploded in the Court of Industrial Relations in June; the Philamlife Building in Ermita, Manila was bombed in July. In September, bombs exploded in Carriedo Street in Quiapo, the Manila City Hall, and at the Quezon City Hall which disrupted the plenary session of the Constitutional Convention and proceedi YEAR AGO this week, on 30 June 2010, Benigno Simeon Aquino III, known as Noynoy, was sworn in as president of the Philippines. He came to power with a sense of destiny derived, above all, from his parents. His father, Benigno Ninoy Aquino, was gunned down on the tarmac of the Manila airport when he returned to the Philippines in August 1983 to lead the opposition against dictator Ferdinand Marcos. His mother, Corazon Cojuangco Aquino, became the iconic leader of a Yellow Revolution that captivated the world. Thrust into the presidency upon the downfall of Marcos in the People Power uprising of February 1986, she remained a widely respected figure in Philippine politics until her death from cancer in August 2009. This sense of destiny figured prominently in Noynoys inaugural speech last June. I will not be able to face my parents and you who have brought me here, he proclaimed, if I do not fulfil the promises I made. My parents sought nothing less, died for nothing less, than democracy and peace. I am blessed by this legacy. I shall carry the torch forward. As everyone in the crowd was aware, the torch of leadership wouldnt have been in Noynoys hands if not for the legacy of his parents. No one seriously considered him a presidential prospect until his mothers death less than twelve months before the inauguration, when an outpouring of grief and nostalgia propelled him into the race and eventually into the presidential palace, with the most decisive electoral margin of the post-Marcos years. When the father was assassinated at age fifty, many speculated regretfully as to what more he might have accomplished had he lived on. When the son assumed the presidency at age fifty, after a notably lacklustre record as a legislator, many speculated hopefully that there were many important accomplishments to come. One year on, opinion polls still register strong public approval and trust ratings for the president. He continues to enjoy a strong mandate for change, generated partly by the record-breaking unpopularity of his predecessor, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. While Arroyo came to be viewed as a

cynical manipulator intent on empowering and enriching herself at any cost, Noynoy is generally seen as a man with good intentions trying to do right by the country as a whole. But are good intentions enough? The record of Aquinos first year is decidedly mixed. A new style of leadership has begun to engender new hopes in the capacity of the country to begin to resolve its deeply entrenched problems. But there is also a strong sense that the achievements to date are insufficient for the magnitude of the countrys multiple challenges. Marites Vitug, a leading investigative journalist, has perhaps captured it best in a recent column addressed directly to Aquino: Overall, Mr President, youve changed the tone of leadership. But that should only be the beginning.
ngs in a subversive case before the Court of First Instance.