When we think of being a leader in practice, or any business that matter, we probably view ourselves as the person in charge, the one who guides the vision for the business and the go-to member of the team for any problems that occur. But true leadership is far more than that. Leadership also comes in many forms. While one particular style may come more naturally to you, it’s important to consider the benefits and limitations of each form.
Why are different styles important?
Quite simply, we humans are all different. We all have our own backgrounds and influences that shape the way we communicate and view the world around us. This naturally affects the way we approach situations at work too, and the way we present ourselves to others. Whilst it is important to acknowledge our own style of leading, we also need to consider the varied and specific personalities in our team. Truly effective leaders recognise the need to adapt their approach depending on the person and the situation. We are, after all, in the role of leading a team of people and not machines.
The many faces of leadership
It would be impossible, and possibly counterproductive, to classify everyone into one style of leadership. To do so would be to suggest that we cannot change, or that we are unable to accommodate different styles of working. However, identifying our default leadership style can help us to utilise our strengths and consider where we need to develop.
Autocratic leadership: An autocratic leader typically takes control over all decision making with little consultation from other team members. This style has been linked to that of dictatorship and military-style organisation. The authoritarian style leader is seen as the ‘boss’ and all processes, delegation and arrangements are determined by this person.
Autocratic leadership can be beneficial in emergency situations where urgent instructions are needed quickly with clear direction. Results can be met promptly, and all team members have a defined role. This style of leadership does not invite advice however, and it risks creating a culture of fear where employees are discouraged from speaking up. Over the long-term, team wellbeing can suffer, and individuals may resent the lack of opportunity to take responsibility for their own work.
Democratic leadership: A democratic leader invites team members to participate in decision-making processes. The leader remains in control and is there to offer guidance, but ideas and group discussions are encouraged. Democratic leaders promote honesty, fairness and courage, and are typically value-driven.
This style of leadership boosts creativity, and employees can feel engaged in the shared ownership of projects. Individuals may be more committed to the overall process if they have personal input, and stronger levels of engagement can result in high productivity. The potential downsides, however, are that team members may not have the expertise required to contribute to decisions effectively, leading to poorer contributions overall. It therefore necessitates a leader who is a clear communicator and can manage projects to ensure successful completion.
Laissez-faire leadership: Under the style of laissez-faire leadership, also known as free-style leadership, the leader holds the role of a supervisor and does not generally interfere with the day-to-day performance of their team. This form of leadership can work well in organisations where employees are highly skilled and who can complete their tasks independently without consultation from their employer.
In the right setting, laissez-faire leadership can result in high levels of employee satisfaction and can lend itself to developing and preparing individuals for senior leadership roles. However, the role of the leader may be somewhat diminished, and guidance may be lacking in situations that warrant managerial input.
Parental leadership: A parental leader takes on the role of the patriarch or matriarch and treats their team as members of a family. In return – and playing on the somewhat traditional stereotypes of family settings – the leader will expect hard work, loyalty and obedience from their employees. Individuals are cared for and listened to, but the leader retains authority to make final decisions, much like a parent.
Parental leadership can work well in situations of mutual trust but tends to break down in instances or perceived favouritism or nepotism. Similarly, high productivity can result when employees feel cared for as part of ‘the family’ as individuals go out of their way to impress the parental figure, but resentment may occur if team members feel they are infantilised.
Servant leadership: The servant leader sees themselves as a ‘servant first’ – that is, the needs of their team are considered before their own. Each employee is focused on in regard to their professional growth, health and personal development, and leaders value humility and the empowerment of those who work for them.
Strictly speaking, servant leadership could be considered more of a behaviour than a leadership style and is fairly revolutionary in its approach. Servant leadership can yield innovation and high productivity in a team who feel validated and nurtured, rather than controlled. Equally, employees may remain loyal to an organisation where their wellbeing is prioritised. The potential downside is that it relies on the ethical and fair conduct of the leader, and goals of the organisation may be unmet if there is an overall lack of management.
Are women more likely to adopt particular leadership traits?
The stereotype would have us believe that men are autocrats and women are nurturers. This narrative even enters popular dialogue, with ambitious men regularly represented as “inspirational” whereas ambitious women are described far less favourably. It could be suggested that this gender bias is the result of public perception of so-called ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ characteristics; testosterone versus oestrogen, if you will. But the truth is that both men and women can default to any leadership style.
It could certainly be argued that men may be more innately confident – largely owing to greater numbers of leadership role models who are male – and this may present itself in more assertive characteristics. But don’t be mistaken – democratic and servant leadership styles require confidence to go against the norm. It could be suggested that the more autocratic styles feel like ‘safer’ options, purely as a result of being exposed to these more traditional leadership forms when we were growing up. But it takes courage to truly assess, as a leader, what style of leadership would most benefit our team, the individuals within it, and our evolving business goals. True leadership, in any form, requires the ability to reflect and adapt.
References:
https://www.thesuccessfactory.co.uk/blog/autocratic-leadership-everything-you-need-to-know
https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-democratic-leadership-2795315
https://searchcio.techtarget.com/definition/paternalistic-leadership
For exclusive access to more stories like this, subscribe to our monthly newsletter
You may also like:
Thriving in leadership: doing the right thing when you’re in charge
Should women be more ambitious?