Leadership Styles and Frameworks You Should Know

Leadership Styles and Frameworks You Should Know

Leadership Styles and Frameworks You Should Know

Leadership is a complicated thing which wasn’t given to a person since childhood. To discover and study how to be a successful leader is hard work. Basically, who are leaders? They aren’t the ones who lead. Sounds strange? Yes, because they are people who are showing their inner strength make people following them instinctively.

Since the Internet is spreading in the world very fast, it is a saying that people are becoming more and more stupid, and in a few years, those who will still stay as a leader will have no problems to rule people for his/her deceptive purposes.

People will be that much brainwashed because of Google and its free and easy access to everything, which everything will be really sad.
Basically, do we need leaders? Of course, without the main person, companies couldn’t survive, meet deadlines, and work.

Leaderless groups are doomed to failure.

Every group needs to have the person who will regulate, show mistakes, give new ideas, cheer up workers and much more. How can you describe a leader? It is someone who is far-seeing, visionary, courageous and cool-headed.

If the person has all these qualities – it is a total winning combination. Also, if the person is ready to work for good of all, to forget about ego, to cede in not very important questions – this person is irreplaceable.

This style of leadership is strongly focused on both commands by the leader and control of the followers.

There is also a clear division between the leader and the members. Authoritarian leaders make decisions independently with little or no input from the rest of the group.

Authoritarian leadership is the best applied to situations where there is little time for group decision-making or where the leader is the most knowledgeable member of the group. The autocratic approach can be a good one when the situation calls for rapid decisions and decisive actions.

However, it tends to create dysfunctional and even totally inappropriate environments, often pitting followers against the domineering leader.

2. Participative or democratic – type of leader who participates in the group and offer guidance

This kind of style is the most suitable, effective and useful. Here, democratic leaders offer guidance to group members, but they also participate in the group and allow input from other group members.

Participative leaders encourage group members to participate but retain the final say in the decision-making process. Group members feel engaged in the process and are more motivated and creative.

Democratic leaders tend to make followers feel they are an important part of the team, which helps foster commitment to the goals of the group.

3. And relative or laissez-faire – he offers little and gives no guidance

Several researchers tell that people who were under delegative leadership found themselves less happy and there groups were less productive.

The children in this group also made more demands on the leader, showed little cooperation, and were unable to work independently. Delegative leaders offer little or no guidance to group members and leave decision-making up to group members.

While this style can be useful in situations involving highly qualified experts, it often leads to poorly defined roles and a lack of motivation.

Also, there are several additional styles.

4. The transformational leader – they tend to be emotionally intelligent, energetic, and passionate

They are not only committed to helping the organization achieve its goals, but also to helping group members fulfill their potential.

5. Transactional leaders have many advantages, the main one is that it creates clearly defined roles

People know what they are required to do and what they will be receiving in exchange for completing these tasks. It also allows leaders to offer a great deal of supervision and direction if it’s needed. Group members may also be motivated to perform well to receive rewards.

Which one to be? Depend on you and your tastes. But remember, you work with the same people as you are, try not to forget that your attitude has to be the same as you want to have to yourself. Anyway, check freebooksummary website in order not to find you one day being under control of some strange leader.

Train yourself to become the best leader.

Author Bio:
My name is Alexia Wolker. I’m a student of the Literary Department and a blogger. I support the effective adoption of new technologies or ways of working within writing by communicating complex information in an informative and inspiring way. I’m fond of writing articles for students, helping with essays.

Источник: https://iheartintelligence.com/leadership-styles-and-frameworks/

Leadership Styles: Choosing the Right Approach for the Situation

Leadership Styles and Frameworks You Should Know

There are as many approaches to leadership as there are leaders, from Lewin’s Leadership Styles framework of the 1930s to the more recent ideas about transformational leadership. There are also many general styles, including servant and transactional leadership. Building awareness of frameworks and styles can help you to develop your approach and to be a more effective leader.

From Winston Churchill and Angela Merkel, to Queen Elizabeth I and Martin Luther King, there can be as many ways to lead people as there are leaders.

Fortunately, businesspeople and psychologists have developed useful frameworks that describe the main ways that people lead. When you understand these frameworks, you can develop your own approach to leadership, and become a more effective leader as a result.

In this article and video, we'll highlight some of the common approaches to leadership that you can use. We'll also look at some specific styles of leadership, and we'll explore the advantages and disadvantages of each.

Click here to view a transcript of this video.

These frameworks and styles of leadership are several different approaches to leadership. You can read more about these approaches in our article on Core Leadership Theories.

Useful Leadership Style Frameworks

So, let's look at some useful approaches – shown mainly in the order they appeared – that you can use to become a more effective leader. Your own, personal approach is ly to be a blend of these, depending on your own preferences, your people's needs, and the situation you're in.

Lewin's Leadership Styles

Psychologist Kurt Lewin developed his framework in the 1930s, and it provided the foundation of many of the approaches that followed afterwards. He argued that there are three major styles of leadership:

  1. Autocratic leaders make decisions without consulting their team members, even if their input would be useful. This can be appropriate when you need to make decisions quickly, when there's no need for team input, and when team agreement isn't necessary for a successful outcome. However, this style can be demoralizing, and it can lead to high levels of absenteeism and staff turnover.
  2. Democratic leaders make the final decisions, but they include team members in the decision-making process. They encourage creativity, and people are often highly engaged in projects and decisions. As a result, team members tend to have high job satisfaction and high productivity. This is not always an effective style to use, though, when you need to make a quick decision.
  3. Laissez-faire leaders give their team members a lot of freedom in how they do their work, and how they set their deadlines. They provide support with resources and advice if needed, but otherwise they don't get involved. This autonomy can lead to high job satisfaction, but it can be damaging if team members don't manage their time well, or if they don't have the knowledge, skills, or self motivation to do their work effectively. (Laissez-faire leadership can also occur when managers don't have control over their work and their people.)

Lewin's framework is popular and useful, because it encourages managers to be less autocratic than they might instinctively be.

The Blake-Mouton Managerial Grid

The Blake-Mouton Managerial Grid was published in 1964, and it highlights the most appropriate style to use, your concern for your people and your concern for production/tasks.

With a people-oriented style, you focus on organizing, supporting, and developing your team members. This participatory style encourages good teamwork and creative collaboration.

With task-oriented leadership, you focus on getting the job done. You define the work and the roles required, put structures in place, and plan, organize, and monitor work.

According to this model, the best style to use is one that has both a high concern for people and a high concern for the task – it argues that you should aim for both, rather than trying to offset one against the other. Clearly, this is an important idea!

Path-Goal Theory

You may also have to think about what your team members want and need. This is where Path-Goal Theory – published in 1971 – is useful.

For example, highly-capable people, who are assigned to a complex task, will need a different leadership approach from people with low ability, who are assigned to an ambiguous task. (The former will want a participative approach, while the latter need to be told what to do.)

With Path-Goal Theory, you can identify the best leadership approach to use, your people's needs, the task that they're doing, and the environment that they're working in.

Six Emotional Leadership Styles

Daniel Goleman, Richard Boyatzis, and Annie McKee detailed their Six Emotional Leadership Styles theory in their 2002 book, «Primal Leadership.»

The theory highlights the strengths and weaknesses of six common styles – Visionary, Coaching, Affiliative, Democratic, Pacesetting, and Commanding. It also shows how each style can affect the emotions of your team members.

Flamholtz and Randle's Leadership Style Matrix

First published in 2007, Flamholtz and Randle's Leadership Style Matrix shows you the best style to use, how capable people are of working autonomously, and how creative or «programmable» the task is.

The matrix is divided into four quadrants – each quadrant identifies two possible styles that will be effective for a given situation, ranging from «autocratic/benevolent autocratic» to «consensus/laissez-faire.»

Transformational Leadership

The leadership frameworks discussed so far are all useful in different situations, however, in business, «transformational leadership» is often the most effective style to use. (This was first published in 1978, and was then further developed in 1985.)

Transformational leaders have integrity and high emotional intelligence. They motivate people with a shared vision of the future, and they communicate well. They're also typically self-aware, authentic, empathetic, and humble.

Transformational leaders inspire their team members because they expect the best from everyone, and they hold themselves accountable for their actions. They set clear goals, and they have good conflict-resolution skills. This leads to high productivity and engagement.

However, leadership is not a «one size fits all» thing; often, you must adapt your approach to fit the situation. This is why it's useful to develop a thorough understanding of other leadership frameworks and styles; after all, the more approaches you're familiar with, the more flexible you can be.

Specific Leadership Styles

As well as understanding the frameworks that you can use to be a more effective leader, and knowing what it takes to be a transformational leader, it's also useful to learn about more general styles, and the advantages and disadvantages of each one.

Let's take a look at some other styles of leadership that are interesting, but don't fit with any of the frameworks above.

Remember, not all of these styles of leadership will have a positive effect on your team members, either in the short or long term. (See our article on Dunham and Pierce's Leadership Model for more on how your actions as a leader will affect your team.)

Bureaucratic Leadership

Bureaucratic leaders follow rules rigorously, and ensure that their people follow procedures precisely.

This is appropriate for work involving serious safety risks (such as working with machinery, with toxic substances, or at dangerous heights), or with large sums of money. Bureaucratic leadership is also useful for managing employees who perform routine tasks.

This style is much less effective in teams and organizations that rely on flexibility, creativity, or innovation.

Charismatic Leadership

Charismatic leadership resembles transformational leadership: both types of leaders inspire and motivate their team members.

The difference lies in their intent. Transformational leaders want to transform their teams and organizations, while leaders who rely on charisma often focus on themselves and their own ambitions, and they may not want to change anything.

Charismatic leaders might believe that they can do no wrong, even when others warn them about the path that they're on. This feeling of invincibility can severely damage a team or an organization, as was shown in the 2008 financial crisis.

Servant Leadership

A «servant leader» is someone, regardless of level, who leads simply by meeting the needs of the team. The term sometimes describes a person without formal recognition as a leader.

These people often lead by example. They have high integrity and lead with generosity. Their approach can create a positive corporate culture, and it can lead to high morale among team members.

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.

However, others believe that people who practice servant leadership can find themselves «left behind» by other leaders, particularly in competitive situations.

This style also takes time to apply correctly: it's ill-suited to situations where you have to make quick decisions or meet tight deadlines.

Transactional Leadership

This 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 on a short-term task. The leader has a right to «punish» team members if their work doesn't meet an appropriate standard.

Transactional leadership is present in many business leadership situations, and it does offer some benefits. For example, it clarifies everyone's roles and responsibilities. And, 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 style is that, on its own, it can be chilling and amoral, and it can lead to high staff turnover. It also has serious limitations for knowledge-based or creative work.

As a result, team members can often do little to improve their job satisfaction.

In business, transformational leadership is often the best leadership style to use.

However, no one style of leadership fits all situations, so it's useful to understand different leadership frameworks and styles. You can then adapt your approach to fit your situation.

Источник: https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newLDR_84.htm

Kurt Lewin Leadership Styles

Leadership Styles and Frameworks You Should Know

The Kurt Lewin leadership styles is one of the oldest leadership styles frameworks there is. Additionally, the Lewin leadership styles are probably the most commonly mentioned today, very much undeserved, as I will show in this article. As my own leadership career and my interest and proficiency in leadership styles have grown, the more I doubt the Lewin leadership styles.

What are the Kurt Lewin Leadership Styles?

The Kurt Lewin Leadership styles originate from the 1930s and consist of democratic leadership, where the leader and the group decide together, autocratic leadership, where the leader makes all decisions, and laissez-faire leadership, where the group makes decisions without the leader.

Which of Lewin’s three leadership styles is the most effective?

According to the Lewin experiments, autocratic leadership is the most productive, followed by democratic leadership. With an absent leader, productivity remains in democratic leadership but drops rapidly in autocratic leadership. Laissez-faire is the least productive of the three leadership styles.

Leadership Styles by Kurt Lewin

Kurt Lewin, a behavioral psychologist, worked on experiments concerning autocratic behavior and leadership styles in the 1930s and 1940s, a time when trait theories of leadership werepopular. The Lewin leadership styles toolbox is behavioral, meaning that every leader has one of three personalities or behaviors.

Nothing in this framework mentions taking the situation and other circumstances into account, making it outdated compared to the Goleman Leadership Styles and the Full Range Leadership Model with its transformational leadership style. Lewin’s experiments involved the laissez-faire leadership style, the democratic leadership style, and the autocratic leadership style.

(We have an article on this topic right here: The Lewin Leadership Experiments.)

The Lewin leadership styles are some of the most commonly mentioned, and it is also the worst collection of styles for modern leaders, in my opinion. Please don’t use it or consider it an option; employ other leadership styles instead.

Keep on reading, and I’ll explain my position further. Before that, I want to introduce you to the three leadership styles by Kurt Lewin.

I also want to highlight that I’m not too fond of the Lewin leadership styles framework, and I explain why in this article: Criticism of the Lewin leadership styles: Why the Lewing leadership styles are bad and why you should avoid them.

Instead, I recommend more modern approaches such as transformational leadership, the Situational Leadership Model, and many others that you can learn about at our leadership styles page.

The Three Leadership Styles by Kurt Lewin – Short introduction

The autocratic, democratic, and laissez-faire leadership styles are all very different, and to a degree, even polar opposites. Here is a short introduction to them all. The discussion continues in the next chapter of this article.

What is the Democratic Leadership Style?

Democratic leadership builds on empowering team members to participate in decision-making, with a strive toward consensus. The engaging climate welcomes everyone’s opinions, leading to robust solutions. However, the democratic leader still has the final say on any decisions. This style is sometimes slow but generally very effective.

The Democratic Leadership style was introduced in the 1930s as one of the three leadership behaviors used in the Kurt Lewin experiments in 1938. The Lewin model assumes a leader has one of the three behaviors, and there is no push for leaders switching styles depending on circumstances.

Free E-Book! 27 Leadership Styles explained in 60 pages: Free e-book offer!

The democratic leadership style provides the advantages of increased creativity and innovation, collaboration, which helps to solve complex problems, high employee engagement, and strong accountability through shared goals.

The backside of this is that democratic leadership brings weaknesses in productivity, which can drop while waiting for time-consuming decision processes, and it does not work well in low-skilled, inexperienced teams.

Read more about the lower productivity in our article about the Lewin leadership style experiments.

You can also learn more about democratic leadership right here: What is democratic leadership, its advantages, disadvantages, how to implement it, etc.

What is the Autocratic Leadership Style?

Autocratic leadership is when the leader holds all the decision power and rarely consults others. Autocratic leadership is unpopular, has many disadvantages, and leads to low engagement and sometimes to a toxic environment. Autocratic leadership can be helpful in a crisis when control and fast decisions are crucial.

Autocratic leaders have been around for a long time in the shape of tyrants, dictators, monarchs, etc. Still, the Autocratic Leadership Style, or rather leadership behavior, is first mentioned by Kurt Lewin et al. in their 1938 leadership experiment.

The autocratic style is not defined as interchangeable, i.e., a leader is either an autocratic leader, a democratic leader or a laissez-faire leader, with no switching between styles depending on the situation. It is simply the personality of the leader.

Autocratic leadership provides advantages such as great clarity, quick decision-making, improved crisis-handling, and increased productivity in low-skilled teams, at least temporarily.

The disadvantages of autocratic leadership include a lack of empowerment, low engagement, and accountability within the team. It also adds an extreme dependency on the leader, and little happens if the leader is absent. Last but not least, intimidation, punishment, and fear are common in autocratic leadership, leading to a toxic work climate.

Read more in our detailed article: Autocratic Leadership, what is it, pros and cons, how to be effective.

What is the Laissez-Faire Leadership Style?

Laissez-faire leadership is a hands-off leadership style where team members are free to make all decisions. Laissez-faire leadership leads to low productivity and a perception of a disengaged leader. Laissez-faire leadership can work with highly-skilled, capable, and self-motivated teams.

Laissez-Faire is the polar opposite of autocratic leadership since laissez-faire means that the team makes all the decisions without the leader and autocratic leadership means the leader makes all the decisions without the tea.

Kurt Lewin and his colleagues first defined laissez-faire leadership during the Lewin Leadership styles experiments of 1938 and 1939. Laissez-faire leadership is also known as hands-off leadership, free-rein leadership, the absence of leadership, or simply zero leadership.

Laissez-faire is also part of the Full Range Leadership Model.

On the upside, a highly skilled and experienced team can do great when making all the decisions themselves, and the team members get an abundance of creative freedom with this approach. On the other hand, teams that lack the right maturity level can quickly fall apart, and confusion can spread, resulting in reduced productivity.

Learn more in our article here: Laissez-Faire Leadership, what it is, pros and cons, example leaders, example business situations.

So, to sum up, these styles are incredibly different, as you can see. Learn more about the experiments in our article, The Lewin Leadership Experiments, or continue reading below the image.

The Strengths of the Lewin Leadership Styles

Besides any advantages of the three different leadership styles, the framework as a whole has its pros, which you can read about here.

The Lewin Leadership Styles have the following advantages:

  • The simplicity of the Lewin leadership styles make them easy for anyone to understand, and they widened the leadership discourse beyond the trait theory approach.
  • The extreme differences between autocratic, laissez-faire, and democratic, make it easier to understand your personal leadership in comparison
  • The significant differences and the simplicity can quickly spawn some good and fruitful group discussions around leadership

The Weaknesses of the Lewin Leadership Styles

The three styles in this framework, autocratic, democratic, and laissez-faire each have their cons. This chapter outlines the cons of the Lewin styles framework as a package.

The Lewin Leadership Styles have the following disadvantages:

  • The framework is so simple that no modern leader should try to align with one single style, perhaps except for democratic leadership, which often works well
  • The Lewin styles lack situational and contextual connection completely, making the framework a behavioral leadership style theory, which is insufficient when addressing modern leadership complexities
  • Two three styles are useless as personalities and behaviors and should be avoided entirely
  • The knowledge of these three leadership styles is so widespread that people actually believe in them as a promising paradigm for leadership

Alternatives to the Lewin leadership styles

My advice is to use an alternative to the Lewin leadership styles that are more modern, take situational aspects into account, and provide additional tools than just the extremes for leaders to use. Check out many other and better frameworks on our leadership styles page.

These include the great Goleman six leadership styles, servant leadership, transformational leadership, situational leadership model, and many others.

I am very skeptical of the Lewin leadership styles, and I explain why in this article: Criticism of the Lewin leadership styles: Why the Lewing leadership styles are bad and why should avoid them.

Sources:
Lewin, Kurt, Patterns of Aggressive behavior in experimentally created social climates. Journal of Social Psychology, 10:2 (1939:May) (https://tu-dresden.de/mn/psychologie/ipep/lehrlern/ressourcen/dateien/lehre/lehramt/lehrveranstaltungen/Lehrer_Schueler_Interaktion_SS_2011/Lewin_1939_original.pdf?lang=en)

For additional sources, refer to the three detailed articles on autocratic leadership, laissez-faire leadership, and democratic leadership.

Источник: https://www.leadershipahoy.com/kurt-lewin-leadership-styles/

Psychologydo
Добавить комментарий

;-) :| :x :twisted: :smile: :shock: :sad: :roll: :razz: :oops: :o :mrgreen: :lol: :idea: :grin: :evil: :cry: :cool: :arrow: :???: :?: :!: