Leadership Styles: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

Abstract

A leader’s behaviors or leadership style has a great influence on their followers.  In an effort to achieve organizational goals, leaders seek to influence and/or motivate employees in such a way to successfully achieve goals.  This paper will focus on five leadership styles:  Charismatic, Participative, Authoritative, Entrepreneurial, and Servant.  Both positive and negative characteristics associated with each leadership style will be explored.  The paper will discuss the good, bad, and ugly relative to each type of leadership style.

Preface

At the heart of every organization’s success or failure is the concept of leadership.  The great phenomenon referred to as “leadership” is defined as “the ability to inspire confidence and support among the people who are needed to achieve organizational goals” (Dubrin, 2007).  The way in which members of an organization are instructed, empowered, motivated, and rewarded is highly influenced by the styles and behaviors of an organization’s leaders.  Leaders are the backbone to any organization.  Leader’s have the task of providing direction and insight to followers in an effort to comply with the organization’s mission and meet organizational goals.  However, whether leaders are able to successfully complete the tasks depend heavily on their approach, their leadership style.  Leadership style is defined as “the relatively consistent pattern of behavior that characterizes a leader” (Dubrin, 2007).  Although many leadership styles and tactics exist, this research effort will examine the aspects of five different leadership styles.  Charismatic, Participative, Authoritative, Entrepreneurial, and Servant leadership styles will be presented and positive and negative characteristics attributed to each style will be examined.  The characteristics of charismatic leadership will be discussed first.

Charismatic Leadership

What exactly is it that emotionally connects President John F. Kennedy, Presidential Candidate Barack Obama, and the Burger King Corporation’s Chief Executive Officer, Greg Brenneman to people?  It’s without thought their unnoticeable charm, personality, and attractive attitudes, also known as charismatic qualities.  These individuals can all be categorized as Charismatic leaders.   Charismatic leadership is derived from a person’s charisma, a Greek word meaning “divinely inspired gift” (Dubrin, 2007).  Charismatic leaders are known for their charm and appeal to others and tend to gain followers from their personality. The charismatic leader is visionary, energetic, emotionally expressive, has masterful communication skills, and possesses a great ability to inspire trust” (Dubrin, 2007).  In some instances, charismatic leaders are thought of as heroes who are able to use their personal magic to lead others (Charismatic Leaders, n.d).

Leaders who use charismatic techniques tend to “use impression management to cultivate a certain relationship with group members” (Dubrin, 2007).  As mentioned above, charismatic leaders are visionary.  Often times, in an effort to articulate an organization’s vision, the charismatic leader uses metaphors and stories in ways that everyone can understand (Charismatic Leaders, n.d.).  Followers see the leader as one who possesses the ability to visualize the future with clarity; however, more importantly followers see how they fit into this future state and believe it will be better than present conditions (Charismatic Leaders, n.d.).   Accordingly, they tend to support the goals of the leader more readily. Charismatic leaders develop followers who feel independent, confident, powerful, and capable.

Charismatic qualities are very similar to those found in transformational leadership roles. Charismatic leaders can lead organizations into new areas, inspire followers and sometimes even obtain extraordinary performance results from an organization. Charismatic leaders can achieve heroic feats – turn around ailing corporations, revitalize aging bureaucracies, or launch new enterprises (Charismatic Leaders, n.d.).  The charismatic leader accomplishes these great tasks by:

• Communicating a compelling vision of the future;
• Believing in their vision;
• Promoting their beliefs with boundless energy;
• Propounding creative ideas;
• Inspiring extraordinary performance in followers by expressing confidence in followers’ abilities to achieve high standards, and building followers’ trust, faith, and belief in the leader; (Avolio & Howell, 1992);
• Expressing confidence in followers’ abilities to accomplish collective goals; and
• Encouraging followers to think on their own and question established ways of doing things (Charismatic Leaders, n.d.).

            While charismatic leaders are often heralded as heroes and saviors who use their personalities to transform organizations, there is also evidence that charisma can have negative impacts as well.  Charisma can be a double edged sword, and its effects are dependent on the motives of the leader exercising the charisma (Shahani, 2008).

            Charismatic leaders can display unethical, narcissistic behaviors and pursue visions related more to their own personal gain than to the betterment of their organization.  Tourish (2008) details that some charismatic leaders have a strong need for power, display high self-confidence, and hold strong convictions.  Their narcissistic tendencies also develop oversensitivity to criticism, poor listening skills, a lack of empathy, and an unhealthy competitive drive.  Conger (1990) also discusses the creation of illusions of control through information power and attributing negative outcomes to external causes as common practices for such leaders.

            Howell and Avolio (1992) conducted interview research and concluded on seven types of behavior associated with unethical charismatic leaders.  Such behaviors include:

• Using power only for personal gain or impact;
• Promoting their own personal vision;
• Censuring critical or opposing views;
• Demanding their own decision be accepted without question;
• Practicing one-way communication;
• Displaying insensitivity toward the needs of their followers; and
• Relying on convenient external moral standards to satisfy self interests.

All of these negative characteristics of charisma in leaders can translate into consequences for their followers.  Elimination of dissent and the promotion of a homogeneous mentality can lead to compliant, unquestioning followers who follow blindly down the wrong path (Tourish, 2008).  Unethical charismatic leaders undermine followers’ motivation and ability to challenge existing views.  “They squash self-development, engagement, and empowerment” (Howell & Avolio, 1992, p 49).  In times of crisis, followers in this environment easily become dependent on the leader for direction and action.

Participative Leadership (Democratic Leadership) 

According to the research by the U. S. Army Handbook (1973), it has been discovered that participative leadership styles involve 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 employees will respect.

Participative leadership is normally used when a leader has part of the information to solve a problem, and employees have other parts. Using this style is of mutual benefit because it allows employees [to have an active role] in the team and allows the leader to make better decisions (U.S. Army Handbook, 1973).

It is stated that Participative Leaders, rather than making decisions on their own, seek to involve other people in the process, including subordinates, peers, superiors and other stakeholders. The amount of influence others are given depend on the leader’s preferences and beliefs.  The degree of influence can range from non-participative, which would equate to being authoritative (see next section) to highly participative (Participative Leadership, 2008).  The chart below explains behaviors from one extreme to the other.

The level of participation may also depend on the type of decision being made. Decisions on how to implement goals may be highly participative, while decisions regarding subordinate performance evaluations are more likely to be made by the manager (Participative Leadership, (2008).

As stated by McCrimmon (2007), “there is simply no better way to make people feel valued than to ask them, genuinely, for their advice” (p 1).  Individuals can be rewarded and recognized for their efforts; however, those tactics are not as effective as involving them in decision making (McCrimmon, 2007).  “Employees who play a part in deciding what to do, feel a much greater amount of ownership over making it happen” (McCrimmon, 2007, p. 1).

While Participative Leadership can add to a team’s cohesiveness and increase team morale, leaders who engage in participative leadership can be viewed as unsure of themselves and the relationship with the group that he/she is troubled to lead (Harding, 1987).  To use a participative/democratic approach in every situation is not practical.  The participative leadership style is not always the most effective approach to leadership, particularly in environments where quick decision-making is required.

In addition, participative leadership can be a lengthy process when a large number of individuals are involved in making decisions.  When dealing with large groups, it is unlikely that anything will get done because the group may dwell on the subject or pieces of detail rather than arriving at decisions. This style of leadership is time consuming and can take longer to produce results, but the results tend to be of higher quality (Harding, 1987, Chynoweth, 2008).

Another drawback to participative leadership is that the team must be motivated enough to want to be involved.  Consequently, not all group members want to be involved in decision making. It is up to the leader to make the individuals feel their input is necessary and useful.  If this assurance is not in place the followers or team members may leave because they believe that the leader is an autocratic leader using participative styles to put his or her predetermined ideas into effect.  This could cause lower morale among the followers.

Authoritarian Leadership Style

            Authoritarian leaders are firm but fair.  They tactfully provide clear direction but leave no doubt about what is expected or who makes the final decisions.  They solicit some, but not much, input from subordinates on how to do the job and ways to make the job easier.Authoritarian leaders see their influence as a keypart of their job. They persuade subordinates to do the job by explaining the “why” behind decisions.  They monitor all jobs closely and provide negative and positive feedback to their subordinates (Dubrin, 2007).

The Authoritarian leadership style is characterized by a leader who possesses leadership skills such as being decisive, task oriented, and confidence.  Despite its very negative connotations, the authoritarian leadership style is very well suited for certain environments such as the military, prisons, or anywhere else where quick decision making is necessary.  It is ideal in environments where decisions are life threatening.

Authoritative leadership is also good for productivity.  In a 2003 study by the University of Michigan, Authoritarian leadership environments were found to be 30% more productive in terms of work output than any other leadership environment.  It also found that workers were characteristically more obedient than those in a more [participative/democratic environment].  What does that mean in a more corporate environment?  It means that the bottom-line is sure to benefit from such leadership.

It is also important to note that while it may seem that the bottom-line is the only benefit a company can derive from the authoritarian leadership style; Authoritarian leadership can also be used in conjunction with other styles.  For instance, a leader could be authoritarian when it comes to making decisions about a certain area of work.  Employees would know not to question this project and do as the leader says.  This would be perfect if say the environment was a tax firm and the leader was authoritarian when it came to allocating the tax returns.  Workers would have quick and efficient guidance for the biggest chunk of their business.

The biggest drawback to authoritative leadership is that leaders tend to make all the decisions and pass the directives to subordinates who are expected to carry these out under very close supervision.  Any attempt to question said directives is highly discouraged.  The autocratic leader is “someone who usually needs to dominate other team members” (Hudson, 2004, p.4).  As a result, the autocratic leader’s approach is often confused with yelling and demeaning behavior. Another disadvantage to authoritative leadership according to Phelps (2000), is that members under this type leadership may be “uncooperative or resentful” and may not be prepared to respond to authoritative directions in a crisis” (p. 8).

     The directive style is least effective “when applied to tasks that are more complex than straightforward, over the long term, or with self-motivated, capable employees” (Mathews, 2008). For example, this style may work for drill instructors in boot camp, but not for all leaders in the fleet. In the fleet, leaders need to be mentoring and assisting the professional development of individual people who have just the basic idea of what the military life is about. The authoritarian style asks for no input or advice from others. The autocratic style could be interpreted as an abuse of power when directed towards unmotivated people.

 According to Anello & Hernandez (1996), “the authoritarian leader gives orders and expects immediate obedience. The prototype of this mental model is military slavery. When working in groups, the reaction of the group members is resentment, submission or rebelliousness. Furthermore, negative effects on group functioning are mysterious problems and slowdowns. Group members feel frustrated because no focus is placed on their thoughts or on their development potential”  (Anello & Hernandez , 1996, p. 3).

The disadvantages of authoritarian or autocratic leadership style may very well outweigh the advantages. This leadership style is definitely not recommended when working in groups or when there is not a need for urgency or quick action.  If a leader uses this method of leadership for the long term, it will result in reduced employee motivation of capable employees, which in turn, will result in loss of focus on the organization’s goals and objectives.

Entrepreneurial Leadership

The concept of Corporate Entrepreneurship has transformed over the last four decades and the definitions have varied considerably over time.  In the world of business, entrepreneurs are described as aggressive catalysts that cease opportunities that others would view as chaos, contradiction, or confusion.  Additionally, entrepreneurial leadership has been branded as the symbol of business tenacity and achievement.  Not only is it an integral component of the renewal process that pervades and defines market economies, but it is also the critical foundations for any net increase in global employment (Kuratko, 2007).

Entrepreneurial leaders lead by means of personally demonstrated values as opposed to institutionalized policies, while motivating by mission rather than fear (Housing Zone, 2002).  Entrepreneurs are the backbone of this country.   If it were not for entrepreneurs taking a chance by creating a product or a service to offer to the public, where would we be in terms of employment (Washington, n.d)?

As organizations’ leadership style preferences shift to include those who have an entrepreneurial sense, organizations will find it easier to motivate and encourage employees because of the principles that entrepreneurial leaders value and support.  Entrepreneurs have a strong sense of achievement which drives them to work long hours and take sensible risks to accomplish goals (Dubrin, 2007).  Additionally, entrepreneurs tend to display enthusiasm and creativity to a great degree which makes them successful at the art of persuasion. They also tend to be tenacious visionaries who focus on the future.

Also, the popularity of this leadership style is transcending to the global business market.  The utilization of this style has been adopted by a number of Asian countries including China.

A well-known example of a present day leader who embraces an entrepreneurial leadership style is Robert Edward “Ted” Turner III.  The accolades that he is noted for includes founding both TBS and CNN.  Turner transitioned his father’s billboard business into a media empire (Ted Turner, 2007).  Turner, like many other entrepreneurial leaders, was able to effectively transition vision and an inept ability for forwarding thinking into action and results.

            In all of their struggles, one difficulty Entrepreneurial Leaders encounter is the inability of others to grasp the vision because many individuals are afraid of change.  On many occasions, entrepreneurs lack support in their quest for new frontiers.  An idea can become a dream, which can become an invention, which can then become reality (Wolter, 2007).

Dreams die when they are not allowed to birth, which brings us to the other difficulty shadowing the entrepreneur’s dreams – financial backing.  Hans K. Hvide (2007) researched this analysis and stated that “One of the oldest ideas in the study of entrepreneurship is that entrepreneurs may be unable to establish a venture at an efficient scale due to liquidity-constraints arising from capital market imperfections.  This idea can be traced back to Adam Smith, who in the Wealth of Nations stated that entrepreneurs: ‘have all the knowledge, in short, that is necessary for a great merchant, which nothing hinders him from becoming but the want of sufficient capital’” (Hvide, 2007).  According to the National Association of Small Businesses Investment Companies’ (NASBIC) President Lee Mercer, in an article written by Crystal Detamore-Rodman (2003) stated, “venture dollars, along with the banking industry’s reticence to lend to small businesses, has contributed to an overall capital shortage. Banks that had been out doing subordinated debt financing had gotten out a little bit further on the risk curve than normal.  The banks own proclivity and the regulators kind of forced a pullback.  So there has been a tremendous pullback in bank credit available even for small businesses that have had longtime banking relationships” (p. 3).

            Furthermore, moral support as well as financial backing should not be allowed to deter the spirit of creativity.  Our country was and still is built upon dreams and change.  Entrepreneurial leadership characteristics reflect an individual who is a strong achiever, risk taker, enthusiast, dreamer, creator, and visionary, just to name some (Dubrin, 2007).  In absorbing this, it is not so difficult to assume that there could be problems for a leader to maintain such energetic character.  An entrepreneurial leader should acquire financial and moral support from the beginning rather than finding themselves trapped in a failing business venture in the end.

Servant Leadership

            Coined and defined by Robert Greenleaf in 1970, the concept of Servant Leadership is one of the most popular leadership tactics used (McCrimmon, 2008).  The goal of Servant Leadership is to “enhance the growth of individuals in the organization and increase teamwork and personal involvement” (Servant Leadership, 2008, p. 2).  Servant leaders are encouraged to serve others while striving to achieve organizational goals and upholding the organization’s values and integrity (Servant leadership, 2008).  Servant leadership focuses primarily on motivating employees or team members.  Such leadership “makes those in charge think harder about how to respect, value and motivate people reporting to them” (McCrimmon, 2008).  In an effort to serve their followers, servant leaders often engage in behaviors such as:

• Focusing on meeting the needs of those they lead;
• Develop employees to bring out the best in them;
• Coaching others and encouraging their self expression;
• Facilitating personal growth in all who work with them; and
• Listening and building a sense of community. (McCrimmon, 2008)

An advantage surrounding Servant leadership is that the tactic focuses on collaboration, trust, empathy, and the ethical use of power (Servant Leadership, 2008). One primary characteristic of a servant leader is the natural desire to “serve first.” (Servant Leadership, 2008).   The intentions of the servant leader are positive and as a result, servant leaders often place the needs of their followers ahead of their own.  They do not engage in activities to increase their own power or influence.  Other examples of servant leader qualities include the following:

• Listen on a deeper level and truly understand;
• Takes time to think, rather than just reacting
• Chooses words carefully, so as not to damage those being led;
• Uses intuition and foresight;
• Hears without judgment; and
• Keeps an open mind (McGee-Cooper, n.d).

Although there are many positive characteristics surrounding the idea of servant leadership, the leadership style has several drawbacks.  Many argue that a disadvantage of the leadership style is that the approach overshadows the idea of seeing leaders and employees as partners (McCrimmon, 2008).  Instead, leaders are thought of as servants.  According to McCrimmon (2008), “Serving people’s needs creates the image of being slavish or subservient, [which is] not a very positive image” (p. 1).  Critics suggest that leaders should “consider” employees’ concerns, but not be a servant to them.  Although many see the servant leadership style as admirable, they tend to agree that it is the “image of [a servant] with its slave-like connotation that is problematic and misleading” (p.1).

Conclusion

The leadership styles that were discussed above represent a portion of the styles that exist.  It is important for an organization to determine and prioritize the goals and values prior to selecting a leadership style.  There is no best leadership style because each organization is different, thus having different leadership requirements.  In fact, many organizations use a combination of the leadership styles discussed.  In order to implement a style that will benefit the organization, management should choose their leaders based on characteristics that are consistent within the direction in which the organization desires to go.  Regardless of the type of style selected, leaders should have the ability to motivate employees through their leadership tactics.  More importantly, leaders should understand that what works for one employee may not work for another.  Selecting a leadership style is important; however, leaders must ensure that the chosen style will be beneficial rather than detrimental to the organization.

References

Anello, E., & Hernández, J. D. (1996). Module 1: Liderazgo Moral (2a ed.). Retrieved July 1, 2008, from  http://cnx.org/content/m16915/latest

Avolio, B. J. & Howell, J. M. (1992).  The Ethics of charismatic leadership

Avolio, B. J., Howell, J. M. (1992).  The Ethics of charismatic leadership, Academy of Management Executives.  Retrieved July 8, 2008 from http://www.breakoutofthebox.com/charisma.htm

Bass, B. M. & Valenzi, E.R. (1974). Contingent aspects of effective management styles. Retrieved July 1, 2008 from http://eduscapes.com/sms/administration/management.html

Charismatic Leadership. (n.d). Retrieved July 20, 2008 from http://changinminds.org/disciplines/leadership/styles/charismatic_leadership.htm.

Chynoweth, C.  (2008). Leaders who put onus on the led: The participative style of leadership puts the players on a par with the coach when it comes to making decisions. Times Online. Retrieved July 1, 2008, from http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/career_and_jobs/senior_executive/article3319315.ece

Conger, J. (1990). The dark side of leadership. Organizational  Dynamics, Autumn 1990, p 44-55.

Decision Making Styles. (n.d.) Retrieved July 6, 2008, from

          http://www.leadershipmanagement.com/html-files/decision.htm

Detamore-Rodman, C. (2003). Solid Backing. Entrepreneur Magazine. Retrieved July 14,   2008 from http://www.entrepreneur.com/money/financing/sbaandgovernmentfunding/article58870.html

Dubrin, A. J. (2007). Leadership research findings, practice, and skills. 5ed. Houghton Mifflin Company. Boston, NY.

Harding, H. (1987). Management Appreciation. London: Pitman Publishing.

Housing Zone.  (2002). Entrepreneurial leadership. Professional Remodeler, 6, p. 124.  Retrieved July 5, 2008 from http://web.ebscohost.com.libproxy.troy.edu/ehost/pdf?vid=11

Howell, J.M. & Avolio, B.J. (1992). The ethics of charismatic leadership: submission or liberation? Academy of Management Executive, May 1992, 6, 2, p. 43-54.  Retrieved from Business Source Premier: EBSCOhost    

Hudson, K. (2004). Leadership and Management. Retrieved July 1, 2008 from http://dynamicnursingeducation.com/class.php?class_id=28&pid=14

Hvide, H. K. (2007).  Does lack of liquidity impair entrepreneurs?  Retrieved July 16, 2008 from http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/577

Kuratko, D. F. (2007). Entrepreneurial leadership in the 21st century. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 13, pp. 1, 11. Retrieved July 5, 2008, from

           http://proquest.umi.com.libproxy.troy.edu/pqdlink?Ver=1&Exp=07-04-2013&FMT=7&DID=1286979651&RQT=309

Leadership Styles. (n.d.) Retrieved July 3, 2008 from http://www.wikieducator.org/Leadership_styles

Lewin, K., LIippit, R. and White, R. K. (1999). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created social climates. Journal of Social Psychology. 10, 271-301.

Mathews Group. (2008). Inventory of Leadership Styles. Retrieved July 1, 2008 from

            http://www.mathewspartners.co.uk/downloads/Leadership_Styles.pdf

McCrimmon, M. (2007). What is participative leadership? The importance of involving employees in making decisions. Retrieved July 1, 20008 from http://businessmanagement.suite101.com/article.cfm/what_is_participative_leadership

McCrimmon, M. (2008). What is servant leadership? Retrieved July 18, 2008 from http://www.leadersdirect.com/servant.html

McGee-Cooper, A. (n.d.). Servant leadership:  a powerful tool for fast change.  Retrieved July 18, 2008 from http://www.servantleadership.org/resources/fastchg.php

Participative Leadership. (n.d.).  Retrieved June 30, 2008 from http://changingminds.org/disciplines/leadership/styles/participative_leadership.htm

Phelps, B. (2000). Resources for Leadership. Retrieved July 1, 2008 from http://www.whitestag.org/resources/sb217.htm

Servant Leadership. (2008). In Wikipedia, The free encyclopedia. Retrieved July 18, 2008, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Servant_leadership.

Shahani, A. (2008).  Charismatic Leadership – hypnotic effect.  Retrieved July 4, 2008 from  http://ezinearticles.com/?Charismatic-Leadership—Hypnotic-Effect&id=1246209

Ted Turner biography. (2007). Retrieved July 5, 2008, from

            http://www.netglimse.com/celebs/pages/ted_turner/index.shtml

Tourish, D. (2008). Charismatic leadership and corporate cultism at Enron: the elimination of dissent, the promotion of conformity and organizational collapse.  Retrieved July 3, 2008 from http://www.rickross.com/reference/general/general782.html

U-M Study. (2003). Leadership and Organizational Behavior Studies.  Retrieved July 5, 2008 from http://rcgd.isr.umich.edu/ehap/

1. S. Army Handbook (2008). Leadership styles. Retrieved June 30, 2008 from http://www.skagitwatershed.org/~donclark/leader/leadstl.html

Washington, D. A. (n.d.) Providing Financial Solutions for Business and Personal Needs. The Washington Consulting Group, Inc. Retrieved July 14, 2008 from http://www.creditminded.com/entrepreneurs.htm

Wolter, R. (2007). Dare to Dream. Entrepreneur Magazine.  Retrieved July 15, 2008 from http://www.entrepreneur.com/magazine/entrepreneur/2007/october/184392.html