Developing a Personal Leadership Style - Research Paper Example

Developing a Personal Leadership Style Abstract The paper explores peculiarities of six key types of headship and concludes that there is no universal style that can help deal with the majority of possible situations. The paper focuses on the works of Hackman, Salin, Padavic, Woods, Schultz, and other professionals in the field of headship and various approaches towards the goals’ achievement. As the conclusion, the paper claims that the finest method of developing a personal headship style is a smart combination of all the known types and utilization of the precise styles of activity according to the specific environment. Developing a Personal Leadership Style There are many variations of behavior peculiarities depending on the certain sphere of operating activity. It means, there is no ideal behavior for any specific case. Everything depends on the target goals as well as on type of operating environment. Thus, the development of personal style of being a leader depends both on the milieu and personal traits. This is because some spheres can require the specific traits that are not present in the person’s character. This in turn can lead to the situation when certain person simply cannot be a leader in the specific milieu. The purpose of the present paper is to analyze main types of headship and draw the conclusions concerning the possibilities of certain traits development according to the specific operating fields. There are six main headship styles. The detailed explanation is given below. Authoritarian This type can be characterized as “one person rules”. It means, the decision making process is conducted only by one certain person, and other participators of the process are obliged to act according to the demands of that person. Thus, a communication between the leader and inferiors develops only on the professional level. This style is considered outmoded and inappropriate in the modern society overfilled with democratic points of view. However, sometimes it is the only way of acting that can help achieve the target aims. For instance, the police officer that is giving the commands to the criminal, or the tutor that is telling the student to complete the certain task, utilize this style of headship. At the same time Salin and Hoel (2010) argue that this type of headship leads to appearance of climate of fear, which can be a great pitfall on the way to goals’ achievement. Nevertheless, if the person needs this type to be developed, he or she should train the ability to establish certain tasks and be responsible for all the outcomes. Paternalistic This type can be characterized as cooperating with inferiors like father with children. The main advantage of this style is high level of trust between the person in charge and the participators of certain space. Nevertheless, this can also lead to the situation when several participators could become favorites while others may remain unheeded. This in turn can be the reason for many dismissals of the participators that simply wish to become more valuable. Padavic and Earnest (1994) claim that this type of headship is not an appropriate one in the world of strong competition. The workers would simply seek for other jobs, and thus it would be wiser not to utilize its principles in case the participators are of great value. The only significant element of that style is the ability to build relations based on trust. Democratic This is considered the finest style in the modern milieu. The key peculiarities of that style are as follows: mutual decision making process; development of intelligence, good organization, and competency; democratic ways of encouragement and punishment. According to Woods (2010) this style is extremely effective. However, there is a significant shortcoming. When the participator is sure that he or she will not be strongly punished in case of failure, the effectiveness of the work can decrease. Thus, it is vital to develop the main aspects of the style with attention to the issue of punishment. In other words this style can be the base for dealing with headship, but it should be combined with other styles according to the specific case. Laissez-faire This type of headship can be characterized as total delegation of all the aspects to the participators of the certain milieu. The role of the person in charge is minimal. The participators are free to choose the methods of goals’ achievement. Nevertheless, the leader is supposed to take part in the operating process only in case he or she is asked by the participators. This is a great type for the environments with high-skilled and dedicated workers. However, Hackman and Johnson (2004) argue that this style of headship may lead to the decrease of productivity and effectiveness in case the inferiors are not trustworthy and their skills are not that high. Transactional This type of headship is the great way of dealing with managing activity during the downturn or even critical situation when it is vital to save the situation, but not to ensure the further development. The basis for the activity is the smart combination of reward and punishment in certain period of time. The great example of this type of headship is the activity of the coach during the football match when it is vital to give the direct commands to the players. Vera and Crossan (2004) argue that the key peculiarities of transactional leaders are permanent setting of the goals and keeping all the participators involved in the process. Nevertheless, this way of activity is passive and does not ensure the further development. Transformational This type of headship is characterized by active position of the leader that feels the specific peculiarities of the situation and acts accordingly. According to Schultz and Schultz (2010) the representatives of that type of headship are charismatic people, which tend to use unconventional approaches, and stimulate the development of independence among their inferiors. Moreover, all the participators are encouraged to use innovative methods of dealing with working situations. Despite the fact all the styles have advantages and weaknesses, the main approach during the process of developing a personal headship style should be the ability to utilize the advantages of specific style in certain situation. It means, none among reviewed styles can be called a universal instrument for managing people. At the same time, the combination of all the six types can help in dealing with majority of possible situations (Kippenberger, 2002). References Hackman, M., & Johnson, C. (2004). Leadership: A communication perspective (4th ed.). Long Grove, Ill.: Waveland Press. Kippenberger, T. (2002). Leadership styles. Oxford, U.K.: Capstone Pub. Padavic, I., & Earnest, W. (1994). Paternalism as a component of managerial strategy. The Social Science Journal, 389-404. Salin, D., & Hoel, H. (2010). Organisational Causes of Workplace Bullying. Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace Developments in Theory, Research, and Practice, Second Edition, 140-243. Schultz, D., & Schultz, S. (2010). Psychology and work today: An introduction to industrial and organizational psychology (10th ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall. Vera, D., & Crossan, M. (2004). Strategic Leadership and Organizational Learning. The Academy of Management Review, 222. Woods, P. (2010). Democratic leadership: Drawing distinctions with distributed leadership. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 7(1), 3-26. Read More