January 26th, 2021 
Construct a six-slide PowerPoint presentation that presents the knowledge you learned about leadership styles from the textbook. You can create your PowerPoint from scratch or download and use this template as a guide: Week 3 PowerPoint template. Use the bullet points below as a guide for each of your slides.
Slide 1:
Include the title of the assignment, your name, the schools name, the course code and name (i.e., BUS 105: Business and Academic Success), your instructors name, and todays date.
Slide 2:
Define authoritarian leadership in your own words.
Identify three characteristics or traits associated with this style.
Slide 3:
Define democratic leadership in your own words.
Identify three characteristics or traits associated with this style.
Slide 4:
Define laissez-faire leadership in your own words.
Identify three characteristics or traits associated with this style.
Slide 5:
Identify a well-known leader.
Briefly describe who the leader is or was.
Identify their leadership style.
Are (or were) they an authoritative, democratic, or laissez-faire leader?
Tip: Consider a current well-known leader or a past, historical leader (e.g., Oprah, Bill Gates, Malala Yousafzai, Elon Musk, Abraham Lincoln). Chapter 3 provides some examples of leaders you could use. Additionally, consider reviewing the Leadership Snapshots in Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 for examples.
Slide 6:
Describe your own leadership style.
What leadership style do you most identify with and why?
What are your leadership strengths and areas of opportunity?
From the book
3.1 Leadership Philosophy Explained
Each of us approaches leadership with a unique set of beliefs and attitudes about the nature of people and the nature of work. This is the basis for our philosophy of leadership. For example, some think people are basically good and will happily work if given the chance. Others think people are prone to be a bit lazy and need to be nudged to complete their work. These beliefs about people and work have a significant impact on an individuals leadership style and probably come into play in every aspect of a persons leadership.
Do you think people like work, or do you think people find work unpleasant? This was one of the central questions addressed by Douglas McGregor in his famous book The Human Side of Enterprise (1960). McGregor believed that managers need to understand their core assumptions about human nature and assess how these assumptions relate to their managerial practice.
In particular, McGregor was interested in how managers view the motivations of workers and their attitudes toward work. He believed that understanding these motivations was central to knowing how to become an effective manager. To explain the ways that managers approach workers, McGregor proposed two general theoriesTheory X and Theory Y. McGregor believed that by exploring the major assumptions of each of these theories people could develop a better understanding of their own viewpoints on human behavior and the relationship of these viewpoints to their leadership style. The following is a description of both theories. As you read, ask yourself if the assumptions of the theory are consistent or inconsistent with your own attitudes about leadership.
Theory X
Theory X is made up of three assumptions about human nature and human behavior (see Table 3.1). Taken together, these assumptions represent a philosophy of leadership that many leaders exhibit to one degree or another.Theory X is made up of three assumptions about human nature and human behavior (see Table 3.1). Taken together, these assumptions represent a philosophy of leadership that many leaders exhibit to one degree or another.
Assumption 1: The average person dislikes work and will avoid it if possible.
This assumption argues that people do not like work; they view it as unpleasant, distasteful, or simply a necessary evil. According to this assumption, if given the chance, people would choose not to work. An example of this assumption is the worker who says, I only go to work to be P-A-I-D. If I didnt need to pay my bills, I would never work. People with this perspective would avoid work if they could.
Assumption 2: People need to be directed and controlled.
This assumption is derived directly from the first assumption. Since people naturally do not like work, management needs to set up a system of incentives and rewards regarding work that needs to be accomplished because workers are often unwilling or unable to motivate themselves. This assumption says that without external direction and incentives people would be unmotivated to work. An example of this is the high school teacher who persuades students to hand in homework assignments by threatening them with bad grades. The teacher forces students to perform because the teacher thinks that the students are unwilling to do it or incapable of doing it without that force being applied. From the perspective of Theory X, leaders play a significant role in encouraging others to accomplish their work.
Assumption 3: People want security, not responsibility.
The picture this assumption paints is of workers who want their leaders to take care of them, protect them, and make them feel safe. Because it is too difficult to set their own goals, workers want management to do it for them. This can only happen when managers establish the guidelines for workers. An example of this assumption can be observed on a sorting line for an orchard, where the employees only have to focus on completing the specific tasks set before them (e.g., picking out bad fruit, filling boxes with fruit) and are not required to take initiative for decisions on their own. In general, because of the pace and repetitiveness of the work, the sorters are not required to accept many challenging responsibilities. Instead, they are told what to do, and how and when to do it. Consistent with this assumption, this example highlights how some workers are not ambitious but want job security above everything else.
So what does it mean if a persons personal leadership philosophy is similar to Theory X? It means these leaders have a tendency to view workers as lazy and uninterested in work because they do not value work. As a result, Theory X leaders tend to be directive and controlling. They supervise followers closely and are quick to both praise and criticize them as they see fit. At times, these leaders remind workers of their goal (e.g., to be P-A-I-D) or threaten them with punishment to persuade them to accomplish tasks. As the person in charge, a Theory X leader sees his or her leadership role as instrumental in getting the job done. Theory X leaders also believe it is their role to motivate followers because these workers have little self-motivation. Because of this belief, these leaders take on the responsibility for their followers actions. From the Theory X perspective, it is clear that followers have a need for leadership.
Theory Y
Like Theory X, Theory Y is based on several specific assumptions about human nature and behavior (see Table 3.2). Taken together, the assumptions of Theory Y present a distinctly different perspective from the ideas set forth in Theory X. It is a perspective that can be observed to a degree in many leaders today.
Assumption 1: The average person does not inherently dislike work. Doing work is as natural as play.
Rather than viewing work as a burden or bad, this assumption suggests people see work as satisfying and not as a punishment. It is a natural activity for them. In fact, given the chance, people are happy to work. An example of this can be seen in what former president Jimmy Carter has done in his retirement. He has devoted much of his time and energy to constructing homes throughout the United States and around the world with Habitat for Humanity. Certainly, the former president does not need to work: He does so because work is natural for him. All his life, Carter has been used to making a contribution to the well-being of others. Working with Habitat for Humanity is another opportunity for him to contribute. Some people view work as a natural part of their lives.
Assumption 2: People will show responsibility and self-control toward goals to which they are committed.
As opposed to Theory X, which suggests that people need to be supervised and controlled, Theory Y suggests that people can and will make a conscious choice to work on their own.
People can be committed to the objectives of their work. Consider some examples from the sports world. Successful athletes are often highly committed to their goals and usually do not need to be controlled or supervised closely. Coaches design training plans for these athletes, but the athletes do the work themselves. A successful long-distance runner does not need to be pushed to run 60 training miles a week in preparation for a marathon because the runner is already motivated to run long distances. Similarly, an Olympic swimmer does not need to be forced to do daily 3-mile pool workouts at 5:00 a.m. because the swimmer chooses to do this independently of any coachs urging. These athletes are self-directed because they are committed to their goals. This is the point of Theory Y. When people can find commitment in their work, they will work without needing leaders to motivate or cajole them. Put another way, when people have a passion for their work, they will do it even without outside direction.
Assumption 3: In the proper environment, the average person learns to accept and seek responsibility.
While Theory X argues that people lack ambition, prefer to be directed, and want security, Theory Y assumes that the average person is inherently resourceful and, if given the chance, will seek to take responsibility. If given the chance, people have the capacity to engage in a wide range of goal-setting and creative problem-solving activities. Theory Y argues that, given the opportunity, people will act independently
3.2
3.2 Leadership Styles Explained
What behaviors do you exhibit as a leader? Do you like to be in control and keep up on the activities of your followers? Or do you believe in a more hands-off approach in leading others, letting them make decisions on their own?
Whatever your behaviors are as a leader, they are indicative of your leadership style. Leadership style is defined as the behaviors of leaders, focusing on what leaders do and how they act. This includes leaders actions toward followers in a variety of contexts. As noted in the previous section, your leadership style is driven by your personal leadership philosophy. In the following section, we discuss the most commonly observed leadership styles associated with Theory X and Theory Y: authoritarian, democratic, and laissez-faire. While none of these styles emerges directly from Theory X or Theory Y, the authoritarian and democratic styles closely mirror the ideas set forth in these theories, respectively.
The primary work on styles of leadership was by Lewin, Lippitt, and White (1939), who analyzed the impact of various leadership styles on small group behavior. Using groups of 10-year-old boys who met after school to engage in hobby activities, the researchers analyzed what happened when their adult leaders used one of three styles: authoritarian, democratic, or laissez-faire. The groups of boys experienced each of the three styles of leadership for a six-week period.
The outcome of the study by Lewin and colleagues was a detailed description of the nature of the leadership behaviors used for each of the three styles (White & Lippitt, 1968). They also described the impact each of these three styles had on group members.
The following sections describe and elaborate on their findings and the implications of using each of these leadership styles. Be aware that these styles are not distinct entities (e.g., like personality traits). They overlap each other. That is, a leader can demonstrate more than one style in any given situation. For example, a leader may be authoritarian about some issues and democratic about others, or a leader may be authoritarian at some points during a project and democratic at others. As leaders, we may display aspects of all of these styles.
Authoritarian Leadership Style
In many ways, the authoritarian leadership style is very similar to Theory X. For example, authoritarian leaders perceive followers as needing direction. The authoritarian leader needs to control followers and what they do. Authoritarian leaders emphasize that they are in charge, exerting influence and control over group members. They determine tasks and procedures for group members but may remain aloof from participating in group discussions. Authoritarian leaders do not encourage communication among group members; instead, they prefer that communication be directed to them. In evaluating others, authoritarian leaders give praise and criticism freely, but it is given based on their own personal standards rather than based on objective criticism.
Recent research on authoritarian leadership distinguishes between autocratic leadership, where authority and power are concentrated in the leader; authoritarian leadership, which uses a domineering style that generally has negative outcomes (House, 1996); and authoritarian followership, which is the psychological mindset of people who seek powerful leaders (Harms, Wood, Landay, Lester, & Vogelsang Lester, 2018). There is also evidence that situational and personality factors can make authoritarian leadership more likely, including uncertain or negative circumstances where strong leadership is perceived to be a solution to problems, such as when a group is performing poorly, under time pressure, or facing an external threat (Harms et al., 2018).
Some have argued that authoritarian leadership represents a rather pessimistic, negative, and discouraging view of others. For example, an authoritarian leader might say something like Because my workers are lazy, I need to tell them what to do. Or, My job is to motivate the workers because they tend to lose interest in their tasks.
Others would argue that authoritarian leadership is a much-needed form of leadershipit serves a positive purpose, particularly for people who seek security above responsibility. In many contexts, authoritarian leadership is used to give direction, set goals, and structure work. For example, when employees are just learning a new job, authoritarian leadership lets them know the rules and standards for what they are supposed to do. Authoritarian leaders are very efficient and successful in motivating others to accomplish work. In these contexts, authoritarian leadership is very useful.
What are the outcomes of authoritarian leadership? Authoritarian leadership has both pluses and minuses. On the positive side, it is efficient and productive. Authoritarian leaders give direction and clarity to peoples work and accomplish more in a shorter period. Furthermore, authoritarian leadership is useful in establishing goals and work standards. On the negative side, it fosters dependence, submissiveness, and a loss of individuality. The creativity and personal growth of followers may be hindered. It is possible that, over time, followers will lose interest in what they are doing and become dissatisfied with their work. If that occurs, authoritarian leadership can create discontent, hostility, and even aggression.
In addition, authoritarian leadership can become abusive leadership, where these leaders use their influence, power, and control for their personal interests or to coerce followers to engage in unethical or immoral activities. For example, a coach who withholds playing time from athletes who openly disagree with his play calls or a boss who requires salaried employees to work up to 20 hours of overtime each week or be replaced with someone who will are both examples of the dark side of authoritarian leadership. Historically, we have seen how authoritarian leaders such as Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler took advantage of susceptible followers by projecting power, conviction, and control during unstable political times and getting people to go along with their violent schemes.
While the negative aspects of authoritarian leadership appear to outweigh the positive, it is not difficult to imagine contexts where authoritarian leadership would be the preferred style of leadership. For example, in a busy hospital emergency room, it may be very appropriate for the leader in charge of triaging patients to be authoritarian with various types of emergencies. The same could be true in other contexts, such as the chaperone of a middle school canoe trip, who for the sake of student safety needs to establish and enforce clear rules for conduct.
In the 2004 film Miracle, based on the 1980 U.S. mens Olympic hockey teams experience, coach Herb Brooks uses an authoritarian style of leadership to prepare his college-age athletes to face the heavily favored Soviet team. Brooks is aggressive and demanding, pushing his players to become more fit and do extra workouts and benching them when they dont give their best. At first, they dont like Brooks or his coaching method, but under his direction, the team develops confidence and a sense of unity that enables the players to perform at their peak and win the gold medal.
Despite the negatives of authoritarian leadership, this form of leadership is common and necessary in many situations.
Democratic Leadership Style
The democratic leadership style strongly resembles the assumptions of Theory Y. Democratic leaders treat followers as fully capable of doing work on their own. Rather than controlling followers, democratic leaders work with followers, trying hard to treat everyone fairly without putting themselves above followers. In essence, they see themselves as guides rather than as directors. They give suggestions to others, but never with any intention of changing them. Helping each follower reach personal goals is important to a democratic leader. Democratic leaders do not use top-down communication; instead, they speak on the same level as their followers. Making sure everyone is heard is a priority. They listen to followers in supportive ways and assist them in becoming self-directed. In addition, they promote communication between group members and in certain situations are careful to draw out the less-articulate members of the group. Democratic leaders provide information, guidance, and suggestions, but do so without giving orders and without applying pressure. In their evaluations of followers, democratic leaders give objective praise and criticism.
The outcomes of democratic leadership are mostly positive. First, democratic leadership results in greater group member satisfaction, commitment, and cohesiveness. Second, under democratic leadership there is more friendliness, mutual praise, and group mindedness. Followers tend to get along with each other and willingly participate in matters of the group, making more we statements and fewer I statements. Third, democratic leadership results in stronger worker motivation and greater creativity. People are motivated to pursue their own talents under the supportive structure of democratic leadership. Finally, under a democratic leader group members participate more and are more committed to group decisions. A democratic leadership style is effective for U.S. presidents who appoint highly qualified individuals to their cabinet, each of whom has great responsibility for running their respective government departments. While the president has the final responsibility for making decisions, in cabinet meetings the members can share the newest information, debate policy, brainstorm different scenarios, and make better recommendations together. Abraham Lincoln was a U.S. president known for actively listening to his cabinet members and inviting different viewpoints. At the same time, however, he exhibited autocratic leadership in some decision making while leading the country through the Civil War.
The downside of democratic leadership is that it takes more time and commitment from the leader. Work is accomplished, but not as efficiently as if the leader were authoritarian. For example, running staff meetings has sometimes been likened to herding cats, because people arent always controllable; they have their own ideas and opinions and want to voice them, and consensus isnt guaranteed.
Laissez-Faire Leadership Style
The laissez-faire leadership style is dissimilar to both Theory X and Theory Y. Laissez-faire leaders do not try to control followers as Theory X leaders do, and they do not try to nurture and guide followers as Theory Y leaders do. Laissez-faire stands alone as a style of leadership; some have labeled it nonleadership. The laissez-faire leader is a nominal leader who engages in minimal influence. As the French phrase implies, laissez-faire leadership means the leader takes a hands-off, let it ride attitude toward followers. These leaders recognize followers but are very laid back and make no attempt to influence their activities. Under laissez-faire leadership, followers have freedom to do pretty much what they want to do whenever they want to do it. Laissez-faire leaders make no attempt to appraise or regulate the progress of followers, which may be due to various reasons, including disinterest, reluctance to take a stand, or limited positional authority. For example, an interim coach, church pastor, or college president may be hired to occupy a short-term role until a full-time replacement is found. The interim may not be expected or empowered to initiate changes or restructure the organization and mainly functions as a stabilizing presence and a placeholder for the eventual organizational leader.
Given that laissez-faire leadership involves nominal influence, what are the effects of laissez-faire leadership? Laissez-faire leadership tends to produce primarily negative outcomes. The major effect is that very little is accomplished under a laissez-faire leader. Because people are directionless and at a loss to know what to do, they tend to do nothing. In the earlier example, if an interim leader is in a position too long and takes no action on important issues facing an organization, followers may get frustrated. Without a sense of purpose and direction, group members have difficulty finding meaning in their work; they become unmotivated and disheartened.
Giving complete freedom can also result in an atmosphere that most followers find chaotic. Followers prefer some direction; left completely on their own, they become frustrated. As a result, productivity goes down.
Sometimes, however, the lack of leadership from above can result in frustration that spurs followers to act and create positive outcomes. An example of this would be the student survivors of the shootings at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, in 2018, who organized a protest movement against gun violence: March for Our Lives. They were motivated in part by the perception that incumbent politicians werent doing enough to curb gun violence and keep students safe. On their website, they issued the call that [n]ow is the time for the youth vote to stand up to the gun lobby when no one else will (March for Our Lives, 2019a). The groups mission statement explains, As a nation, we continue to witness tragedy after tragedy, yet our politicians remain complacent. The Parkland students, along with young leaders of all backgrounds from across the country, refuse to accept this passivity and demand direct action to combat this epidemic (Book Report Network, 2019). The group has galvanized youth and others across the country to work to facilitate change through efforts aimed at encouraging voter registration, calling on local leaders around the country to commit to change, and advocating for gun violence prevention through new policies (March for Our Lives, 2019b).
In addition, people who are self-starters, who excel at individualized tasks and dont require ongoing feedback, may prefer working under laissez-faire leaders. It gives them the freedom to be themselves.
For example, Angela is the president of a website development company who uses independent contractors from across the globe. In certain respects, you could describe her leadership style as laissez-faire. The programmers who develop the websites code are in Poland, the designer is in India, the content writer is in the United Kingdom, and Angela is in the United States. When developing a site, Angela maps out and communicates the basic framework for the website and then relies on all of the individual contractors to determine the tasks they need to do for the sites development. Because their tasks can be dependent on anothersfor example, the designer needs the programmers to write the code to make the page display graphics and images in a certain waythey do communicate with one another, but because of time zone differences, this is mostly done by email. As their leader, Angela is kept apprised of issues and developments through an electronic project management system they share, but because all of the contractors are experts at what they do and trust the other team members to do what they do best, she lets them problem-solve issues and concerns with one another and rarely gets involved.
While there are a few situations where laissez-faire leadership is effective, in a majority of situations, it proves to be unsuccessful and unproductive.
3.4
3.4 Leadership Styles in Practice
Each leader has a unique style of leadership. Some are very demanding and assertive while others are more open and participative. Similarly, some leaders could be called micromanagers, while others could be labeled nondirective leaders. Whatever the case, it is useful and instructive to characterize your leadership regarding the degree to which you are authoritarian, democratic, or laissez-faire.
It is important to note that these styles of leadership are not distinct entities; it is best to think of them as occurring along a continuum, from high leader influence to low leader influence (see Figure 3.1). Leaders who exhibit higher amounts of influence are more authoritarian. Leaders who show a moderate amount of influence are democratic. Those who exhibit little to no influence are laissez-faire. Although we tend to exhibit primarily one style over the others, our personal leadership styles are not fixed and may vary depending on the circumstances.
A diagram visualizes the different styles of Leadership and where they fall on the range of Leader Influence.Description
Figure 3.1 Styles of Leadership
Consider what your results of the Leadership Styles Questionnaire on pages 7375 tell you about your leadership style. What is your main style? Are you most comfortable with authoritarian, democratic, or laissez-faire leadership? If you are the kind of leader who likes to structure work, likes to lay out the ground rules for others, likes to closely supervise your followers, thinks it is your responsibility to make sure followers do their work, wants to be in charge or to know what others are doing, and believes strongly that rewarding and punishing followers is necessary, then you are authoritarian. If you are the kind of leader who seldom gives orders or ultimatums to followers, instead trying to work with followers and help them figure out how they want to approach a task or complete their work, then you are primarily democratic. Helping each follower reach his or her own personal goals is important to a democratic leader.
In some rare circumstances, you may find you are showing laissez-faire leadership. Although not a preferred style, it is important to be aware when one is being laissez-faire. Laissez-faire leaders take a very low profile to leadership. What followers accomplish is up to them. If you believe that your followers will thrive on complete freedom, then the laissez-faire style may be the right style for you. However, in most situations, laissez-faire leadership hinders success and productivity.
Summary
All of us have a philosophy of leadership that is based on our beliefs about human nature and work. Some leaders have a philosophy that resembles Theory X: They view workers as unmotivated and needing direction and control. Others have a philosophy similar to Theory Y: They approach workers as self-motivated and capable of working independently without strong direct influence from a leader.
Our philosophy of leadership is played out in our style of leadership. There are three commonly observed styles of leadership: authoritarian, democratic, and laissez-faire. Similar to Theory X, authoritarian leaders perceive followers as needing direction, so they exert strong influence and control. Resembling Theory Y, democratic leaders view followers as capable of self-direction, so they provide counsel and support. Laissez-faire leaders leave followers to function on their own, providing nominal influence and direction.
Effective leadership demands that we understand our philosophy of leadership and how it forms the foundations for our style of leadership. This understanding is the first step to becoming a more informed and competent leader.
authoritarian leadership style 62
democratic leadership style 63
laissez-faire leadership style 64
Posted in 