Example of leadership styles research paper

Leadership styles are premised on the philosophy of a particular leader. A leader is motivated into using a particular style due to the surrounding circumstances that prevail in his tenure. However, it should be appreciated that the overall organizational structure, the nature of the employees and the prevailing economic situations all in one way or another contribute to the leadership style. It is noteworthy that the style adopted to contribute to the efficiency of a leader; the ultimate the successful delivery of leadership in the organization is predicated on the style of leadership. This paper seeks to examine the leadership styles and approaches in an organizational setup and relates the same to the ultimate effectiveness of the organization. Leadership approaches can be summed in five main categories; autocracy, participation, delegation, situational and bureaucracy. It should be noted that in many cases, leaders prefer to apply an overlap and interlude of various leadership styles in the organization.
A leader may elect to lead in an autocratic style. In autocracy, the leader dictates terms and conditions for the employees. The leader derives his mandate from the authority conferred on him. He deals with matter authoritatively. In this approach, employees are there to listen and implement instructions. Employees are expected to conform to given instructions and commands. This type of leadership is accompanied with sackings, rebuttals, dress downs, among other things. Often, the leader would be on the forefront to exercise his or her authority. The leader uses his authority to get things done with effect and without delay.
This style of leadership often has a dual character. It could be succeed or fail. The effectiveness of this leadership is premised on the employee fear of consequences of disobedience or failure to take instructions. As is the position, employees are often conforming since failure to conform earns them penalties. In addition, this type of leadership lacks cohesion and integration. This is what could contribute to its ineffectiveness. Employees often strive to do only what is required by the law and policies of them. This type of leadership requires follow up and intense coordination.
Alternatively, a leader could elect to use the participative leadership approach. As the word suggests, in the participative approach, employees and the leader participate. Participation entails contribution in two levels. That is, at the formulation and secondly at the implementation. In that front, participative leadership entertains performance by employees at the two levels. In this context, the leader is often the first among equals. He sets the tempo for work and provides a facilitative environment for employees. In the long run, the leader takes a back position and allows the participation of employees. This approach is often democratic in the sense that contribution from the employees is entertained and discussed. In many occasions, the policies are developed from the suggestions floated by employees. This kind of leadership assumes that employees are all knowledgeable and that their contribution would be essential for the overall success of the business. In that context, the leader often organizes for brainstorming sessions, treaties and parties. The organizational setup is cohesive and stable. In addition, in participative leadership, conflict is entertained and solved through an inclusive process. The conflict is handled constructively for the purpose of developing the organization.
This leadership style is effective and enduring. It enables the organization run successfully and often nips an employee talents and skills. Employees never hold back in such organizations. Employees own the processes and would give their best effort at workplace. In addition, this style of leadership breaks the barriers between management and employees and is most effective for the implementation of an open door policy. However, it must be implemented with caution to fully regulate the excesses of the employees who may take advantage of the leadership approach to exploit the business.
Another alternative at the option of a leader is the delegation approach. Delegation also referred to as laissez faire entails the conferring of roles and responsibilities to employees. Under this leadership style, the leader gives authority, power and responsibility on employees and leaves them to their own devices. Employees are expected to be accountable for their work and the manner in which they exercise their powers. Under this model, the leader plays a facilitating and spectator role. He sits back and watches from the background the working of the employees.
This method is effective in specialized areas in the organization where the leader in many circumstances lacks the expertise and technical knowhow to operate the department. Often, for successful results to be obtained, the leader is required to delegate authority in accordance to the professional competence of the employee in question. It would be dangerous to confer responsibility to an employee who lacks the applicable competence. In addition, the effectiveness of this style depends on the discipline and diligence of the employees. This is the case essentially because the leader does not monitor every detail of operations and merely plays a facilitative role.
A leader may also elect to adopt the situational leadership approach. Situational approach depends on the situation and level of leadership and management. In this context, the leader examines the overriding objectives and current business conditions. In cases where the workforce need intense monitoring, the leader would apply an autocratic model that regulates and oversees all operations. In conditions where the workforce are qualified and the nature of work requires specialization, the leader would opt for delegation of duties, responsibilities and authority. This leadership approach is hence the most flexible. The leader assumes the path that promises to address the short term goals given the prevailing conditions.
Consequently, in the short term, it is the most effective approach of leadership. It appears tailor made for the prevailing conditions and adjusts with the dynamic nature of conditions. This approach is premised on the fact that organizational objectives and conditions are often different. However, in the long run, this approach lacks certainty and stability and fails to nature the employees within the best practices model.
A leader may opt for the bureaucratic approach. This approach works for leaders who believe in bureaucracies. For these setups, the organizations are run by definite rules. The rules of engagement are prescribed to the workers and it is expected that they confer to every position of the rules. The bureaucratic leader prefers formality and compliance to policy. In addition, all agreements, steps and procedures are documented. The employees are allowed a degree of autonomy and flexibility to the extent that such is consistent with the rules and policies. The leader does not exercise his authority most of the time. He prefers to rely on the rules of the game to guide his employees. In that context, an employee is required to work by the body of laws and rules. Another component of the bureaucratic leader is the bureaucracy itself. This refers to the organizational system that the leader supports and adopts. In this system, work is specialized and delegated according to the competencies of the employees. This approach mirrors the delegation approach. However, in the bureaucracy, the worker lacks authority and responsibility. All the worker is expected to do is to discharge the duties and tasks and take instructions from the leader. A bureaucrat is also slow to informal operations and prefers that a predetermined approach be used in implementation. Lastly, bureaucracies depend on hierarchies. This is to mean that the operations must be in line with the underlying hierarchy and the employees must respect the hierarchical structure of the organization.
This approach is effective in large organizations. In addition, the operations must not be of immediate and fast characters. This is because the bureaucracy is slow and long. It is stable and reliable in the discharge of duties and tasks. The formality enables the organization discharge the duties with precision. In addition, the leader is accorded the respect he deserves. The bureaucracy has an internal feedback mechanism that is hierarchical in nature. This facilitates the flow of information from the top to the bottom and vice versa. The flaw of bureaucracy lies in the inflexible and formal nature. The organizational structure would be long and end up consuming the leader and the organizational time.
In conclusion, the leadership style and approach pursued is justifiable by the prevailing conditions of the organization. A leader is free to tailor make the approaches to enable the solution of leadership challenges and duties.

References

Ivancevich, J., & Konopaske, R. (2010). Organizational Behavior and Management. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies, Incorporated.
Shafritz, J. M., Ott, S. J., & Jang, Y. S. (2010). Classics of Organization Theory. New York: Cengage Learning.
Watkins, M. D. (2012, June). How Managers Become Leaders. Havard Business Review, 1-34.
Zaleznik, A. (2010). Managers and Leaders: Are they different? Havard Business Review, 1-6.