The role of a leader has been incremental, especially in this dynamically changing society. It is also true that outcomes of groups or corporations can be different, depending on the leaders’ guides. Because every individual possesses different philosophies, there are numerous types of leaders. This article is about to present four distinguishable leaderships and their lingering ramifications.
The first one is named democractic leadership. The very definition of this can be found in collaborative manners. A democractic leader has a tendency to support members behind. In the same contextual matter, the leader is inclined to make decisions based on opinions from members, not pursuing his or her own principles. The leader, via implementing democractic leadership, encourages individuals to speak out in front of matters. Furthermore, an effective leader endeavors to find a compromise in the midst of conflicting arguments. The act of democractic leadership is significant especially when making huge decisions which can affect numerous others.
The second one is titled autocratic leadership. Under this leadership, in contrast to traits of democratic leadership, a leader tends to make decisions by him or herself. Additionally, a leader might make some order or regulations in which employees should obey. Individuals’ opinions are likely to be underestimated or rather ignored since an autocratic leader is willing to impose his or her sole opinion. One of the political systems driven from this leadership is dictatorship. In this ideology, a leader has full capacities to control all of his or her citizens. Fortunately, as globalization and open discussions are prevalent, the number of people who exercise autocratic leadership is shrinking.
The third type is called laissez-faire leadership. The origin of a terminology laissez-faire is attributed to a Scottish economist and philosopher Adam Smith. In one of his renowned books, Wealth of Nations, Smith argued the concept of a free market system. In a free market, individuals engage in economic activities without an intervention from the government. Here, a term laissez-faire (freedom) was originated. A leader who shows laissez-faire leadership is likely to let employees make decisions by themselves. In other words, there is a possibility that a leader might not be involved in decision making processes. Two circumstances can be applicable to this leadership. First, a leader might not sincerely care for his or her organizations. Second, a leader fully trusts his or her members. Of course, if a leader acts in a prerequisite of the former one, the prospect of such groups is not bright. In contrast, if a leader has a belief in the latter one, it may indicate that employees have chances or potentials to prove their abilities in workplaces.
The last one is named bureaucratic leadership. One noticeable difference from this leadership to democratic leadership is that a leader might impose sanctions on individuals' opinions if such proposals go against companies’ regulations or policies. That is, a bureaucratic leader is likely to emphasize “principles” or “traditions” within communities. A bureaucratic leader, though presenting a deed to listen and refer to individuals’ opinions, would revise submitted agendas or plans according to his or her perspectives. Since maintaining a hierarchy is one of the characteristics of bureaucracy, it is important for employees to know that they might not have enough freedom.
Four different types of leadership with its possible impacts have been expounded upon this article. Indeed, there is no answer which type is right or wrong since a certain type of leadership can be ideal, depending on surrounding environments. Nonetheless, it is an undeniable fact that each individual’s aspect and opinion should be respected beforehand ignoring him or her to make an argument.