Participative versus Directive Leadership Styles - Essay Example

? Since most people prefer to be involved in decisions concerning their jobs, a participative style of leadership will always be more effective than a more directive style BY YOU YOUR SCHOOL INFO HERE DATE HERE Introduction When considering leadership opportunities in the organisation, the two most fundamental leadership styles available are directive and participative leadership. Both styles are considerably different in approach and method and will not always produce consistent results when utilised in different organisational environments and cultures. Participative leadership is best defined as a style that deals with the process of actually making decisions whilst directive leadership is about tangible execution of decisions once they have been properly established. Directive leadership is often more autocratic whilst participative leadership deals more with consensus and direct stakeholder involvement in decision-making processes. In the organisational environment, some cultures and individual employee profiles will require a more directive leadership style in order to ensure compliance and goal-attainment. In a more decentralised organisation, more participative leadership is usually the method of leadership that will attain the most positive performance results. It has been said, however, that since the majority of workers want to be involved in organisational decision-making, then the participative style of leadership will be more effective than directive style. Evidence, however, somewhat refutes this notion, suggesting that both styles have practically equal probability of being effective so long as they are utilised properly and in a suitable organisational environment. Both styles are highly dependent on organisational culture, employee attitude and motivational capacity and organisational structure in order to achieve effective leadership outcomes. Participative versus directive leadership styles Participative leadership involves processes and procedures that tend to open communication channels with employees to gain their input in decision-making (Mullins 2005). The four stages of participative leadership are gaining consensus, consulting with important internal stakeholder, delegating responsibilities, and active involvement by key organisational actors (Mullins 2005). Thus, participative leadership is closely related to transformational leadership style, a style in which the leader acts as a teacher, mentor, and also opens lines of communications with employees where vision and mission are continuously reiterated (Fairholm 2009). Managers using participative style often will use charismatic, psycho-socially-based principles of leadership to gain long-term commitment and dedicated followership. Directive leadership is more arbitrary, focusing less on relationship development with employees and more on establishing order through controls or the development of transactional philosophy. Transactional leadership is establishing rewards based strictly on performance where low-performance reprimands are established for failing to meet organisational objectives or project goals. Directive style of leadership establishes specific job role responsibilities and then motivating performance of employees through routine evaluations and serving as a figure in the environment to ensure that compliance to procedure and goals is being accomplished by individuals or teams. Having defined both leadership styles and their differences, both can be properly explored to determine their potential success ratios when utilised in different organisational environments and cultures. In order to understand fully the style of leadership that will be most effective, it is necessary to examine existing research findings on participative versus directive leadership. Gill, Flaschner and Shachar (2006) identified that participative leadership style has a direct relationship with improved employee dedication, job satisfaction and reduced job burnout. Why is this necessarily? Participative leadership style maintains the potential to impact the employee at the emotional and psychological level, appealing to their fundamental needs associated with self-esteem development and social belonging. According to psychological theory, these are essential needs of most individuals that must be addressed in order to become fully self-actualised and dedicated to top performance achievement in the workplace (Morris and Maisto 2005; Yousef 2000). When a manager involves employees in decision-making processes and as consultants throughout a special project, they are illustrating trust in the rationale of employees and also establishing a sense of importance as key human capital resources in the organisation. Participative leadership would seem to be most effective in a decentralised organisation; one that promotes consensus and dissemination of information from the bottom-up which is unlike a centralised organisation where top-down controls and knowledge exchange occur at the highest levels of organisational political systems. As one example, in the banking industry, participative leadership often provides employees with more motivation and dedication. As frontline employees dealing with a vast variety of different social demographics, frontline employees in the bank have much more intimate knowledge of customers than managers maintain. Participative leadership allows the frontline bank employees to make decisions that will impact service quality and customer relationship development. In this environment, by illustrating trust in the rationale of employees, the bank develops a positive organisational culture where employees are motivated, loyal, and committed. There are, most definitely, disadvantages to using the participative leadership style in all organisational cultures and structures. DeBruin, Parker and Fischhoff (2007) identify that participative leadership can actually lead to inefficiency. In a culture where inter-office competition is commonplace, participative leadership can allow a more dominant employee to attempt to gain control over group activities (DeBruin et al. 2007). Many people in the organisation are influenced and coerced through social pressures from their peers and colleagues, thus indecisiveness for the sake of satisfying the emotions of the collective group can occur. This can lead to unproductive meetings or a phenomenon known as groupthink where the group does not offer a wide variety of differing solutions to organisational problems so as to maintain social harmony within the group structure. Where there are strong social bonds between employees that strongly impact decision-making processes, directive leadership where clear goals are established by the leader would avoid groupthink and conflict avoidance. Wu (2006) further identifies that the type of leadership style most effective in the organisation will depend on cultural characteristics of employees. For instance, in Taiwan, there is considerable power distance between managers and employees (an accepted business principle), thus managers will often maintain standoffish attitudes and procedures that do not focus on relationship development between ranking organisational officials and subordinates. In the U.S., however, there are not a great deal of collectivist values in a country where employees want to be recognised for individual accomplishments and performance. Here, participative leadership would be considered an expectation and entitlement, thus it is likely that consensus and discussion in decision-making would be most effective at gaining positive psycho-social outcomes. Japanese leaders, also, will use participative leadership style as it encourages proper flow of information and knowledge between organisational actors (Wu 2006). Thus, it should be recognised that long-standing and deeply-rooted cultural values will determine whether participative or directive leadership maintain the most capacity to ensure positive organisational outcomes. According to Brower, Schoorman and Tan (2000) developing employee trust in their leaders is critical to building positive leader-follower relationships. Participative leadership gives the impression to employees that their leader trusts their decision-making capabilities where respect and dignity are mutual exchanges between leader and follower. By being more active in the consultation process, employees should achieve higher job satisfaction (Kim 2002). When blended with dimensions of transformational leadership style, employees experience more autonomous function in their job roles, illustrating leadership reliance and faith in the ability of employees to be more self-managed and independent of rigid managerial control systems. However, not all organisational environments can successfully sustain this more liberal management philosophy. In some organisations where there are long-term employees handling operational functions, there can be long-standing cultural values that prevent participative style from being effective. Consider an organisation where employees have a decade or more of experience with the firm. This can lead to very head-strong and stubborn organisational employees that are quick to resist change principles and lack of committed conviction to the organisation. In an organisation where change resistance is commonplace, it might be necessary to utilise directive leadership styles to ensure compliance and that performance goals have been met sufficiently. When the project outcomes are critical to strategy fulfilment or competitive advantage, it would not be beneficial to utilise participative style when controls and evaluation are necessary to ensure results of a project have been met effectively. Participative style might illustrate to employees that they can perform to usual, resistance standards of performance thus removing motivation to seek top quality performance outcomes. In this case, a centralised project manager with clear performance goals and responsibilities would be more beneficial than seeking consensus from those who are likely to reject change principles regardless of their format or intention. Klidas, van den Berg and Wilderom (2007) do, however, offer that participative leadership style, where empowerment is a critical component, is very effective in the hospitality industry where service quality is vital to achieving competitive advantage. The hospitality industry relies on excellence in the customer-employee intervention and where such interventions are unpredictable and generally unique from each scenario to another. This is a high stress environment where change is constant and necessary to achieve brand competitiveness among similar industry competition. Thus, participative leadership style in this environment builds the self-confidence of workers and allows them flexibility and creativity to provide excellence in service delivery. It is likely that directive leadership style in this type of environment would send employees the impression of oppression, impacting their motivation and dedication to sustaining the needs of customers. By setting up subjugated control systems in a directive style, employees in the hospitality industry can experience job burnout or develop mistrust for management and thus impact long-run turnover ratios when employees seek new employment that offers better opportunities for autonomous working function. Conclusion As has been illustrated by the research, participative leadership style and philosophy will not always produce the most superior results in the organisation. There are mitigating factors that make directive leadership more effective when there are strong cultural characteristics that forbid autonomy and consensus or when there are dangerous risks of employees resisting change principles that stem from long-standing values or tenure. A leader must understand these complex dimensions of attitude, values and human behaviour before establishing a viable leadership strategy in the organisation. When the project requires strict compliance, directive style can achieve productivity and performance results. When the project requires the input of workers throughout the project cycle, it is likely participative style will provide a better basket of solutions and creative ideas. It should be concluded, then, that both styles maintain equal probability of success, but only when they are utilised in the proper environment and with individuals that can effectively achieve results when given autonomous roles and responsibilities. As illustrated by the research, participative style will not always create effective social, psychological or performance-based outcomes and should be evaluated against cultural criteria before being utilised as routine leadership policy. References Brower, H.H., Schoorman, F.D. and Tan, H.H. (2000). A model of leadership: The integration of trust and leader-member exchange, Leadership Quarterly, 11(2), pp.227-250. Fairholm, M. (2009). Leadership and organisational strategy, The Public Sector Innovation Journal, 14(1), pp.26-27. DeBruin, W.B., Parker, A.M. and Fischhoff, B. (2007). Individual differences in adult decision-making competence, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(2), pp.938-956. Gill, A.S., Flaschner, A.B. and Shachar, M. (2006). Mitigating stress and burnout by implementing transformational leadership, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 18(6), pp.469-480. Klidas, A., van den Berg, P.T. and Wilderom, P.M. (2007). Managing employee empowerment in luxury hotels in Europe, International Journal of Service Industry Management, 18(1), pp.70-88. Morris, C.G. and Maisto, A.A. (2005). Psychology: An Introduction, 11th ed. Pearson Prentice Hall. Mullins, L.J. (2005). Management and Organisational Behaviour, 7th ed. [online] Available at: www.pearsoned.co.uk (accessed November 7, 2012). Yousef, D.A. (2000). Organisational commitment: A Mediator of the relationships of leadership behaviour with job satisfaction and performance in a non-Western country, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 15(1). Wu, M. (2006). Compare participative leadership in three cultures, China Media Research, 2(3), pp.19-30. Kim, S. (2002). Participative management and job satisfaction: Lessons for management leadership, Public Administration Review, 62(2), pp.231-240. Read More