We all have our own style: how we like to dress, the type of movies we enjoy, the type
of car we prefer—even our communication style, or how we prefer to communicate.
We often refer to different ways people communicate when they lead groups as their leadership
style, and that’s what this video will focus on: the Styles perspective on leadership,
specifically the view proposed by Kurt Lewin in 1939.
Lewin has been referred to by some as the father of modern psychology.
After the trait leadership perspective fell out of favor (that was the belief that leaders
are born, not made, and share common traits), Lewin suggested an alternative approach.
Instead of focusing on traits of leaders, he advised looking at leadership styles.
He came to this conclusion after running experiments with children to see how they responded to
different behaviors.
Lewin identified three leadership styles: Authoritarian, Democratic, and Laissez-faire.
We’ll start with Authoritarian, sometimes called Autocratic.
This style is a very directive.
The autocratic leader has complete authority and control over the group and the decisions
being made.
The work is done the same way, with little room for creativity.
Group members are not encouraged to provide input.
Most people hold negative views of an autocratic leader, often describing them as “bossy”
or “a dictator.”
However, there are definitely times when the authoritative leadership style is effective:
When decisions need to be made quickly, in an emergency situation, when the leader is
the most knowledgeable and experienced person in the group, and when it’s important to
know who is in charge.
It can also be appropriate when the group is languishing and not getting anything done.
Sometimes someone has to step in and take charge.
Beyond the obvious drawback that the authoritarian style tends to be less enjoyable from a subordinate’s
perspective, the lack of hearing dissenting views may result in poor decisions.
If you use this style, make it clear that, even though you are in charge, you respect
everyone.
If your team members have expertise, acknowledge it or, at the very least, don’t discount
it, even if your decision is firm.
Recognize your team’s accomplishments, both as individuals and as a group, in public if
possible.
Refrain from criticizing in public, however.
Be consistent in how you apply your decisions and interact with people.
And be reliable and trustworthy.
You don’t have to tell your team everything, but what you do tell them should be truthful.
Be very clear as to your expectations.
If possible, give the reasoning behind those expectations and what your team can expect
in the future.
And make sure you can provide your team with what they need to do the job, such as training,
information, and resources.
Another way to say this is, “Be pleasant while being firm, unless there is a good reason
not to soften the message.”
We turn next to Democratic leadership, sometimes referred to as a Participative, or Participatory
leadership style.
Rather than giving directions, the leader participates in the group and encourages others’
to share their ideas and opinions, even though the leader may have the final say over decisions.
Rather than telling, the democratic leader guides or facilitates.
In Lewin’s original research, decisions were made by majority rule rather than by
the leader.
The democratic leadership style is effective in producing more ideas, both in quantity
and creativeness.
Because dissenting opinions are heard, decisions may be more effective.
Like the children in Lewin’s original research, people tend to feel better about being members
of the group and may be more committed to the project as well as to the group.
An obvious drawback is that decisions take more time, meetings can seem endless or numerous—especially
if the leader isn’t skilled.
It won’t work if your group members aren’t competent or motivated.
And, sometimes, you just don’t need everyone’s input or for them to feel good about the situation.
When you use this style, Encourage your group to communicate.
You’ll need to monitor the group to ensure that all participate and that no one dominates
the discussion.
If possible, hold your views to yourself until after others have offered theirs.
Treat all ideas with respect, even if you don’t agree with them.
Hold off on evaluating until all ideas have been voiced.
Pay attention to the discussion to make sure it doesn’t wander off.
An agenda will definitely help in this case.
And be aware of your verbal and nonverbal communication to make sure you are using provisional
language and that your facial expressions show your interest and desire to understand.
If you are the final decision-maker, know when to move from a participant role to the
decision-maker role and, when you make your decision, explain the rationale without apology.
If you are a facilitator who is helping the group make the decision, know when to call
for that decision.
So, encourage participation while staying on track.
These first two styles, authoritarian and democratic, are discussed the most.
In fact, some textbooks omit the third leadership style that Lewin proposed, the laissez-faire
approach.
Laissez-faire is French for “allow to do.”
It’s been called the “do nothing” approach.
Laissez-faire leaders use a hands-off style, letting the group members make decisions.
Another way to look at it is as a delegative approach.
Some suggest that someone who is a role model can end up being a laissez-faire leader; even
by doing nothing—or, at least, not intentionally doing something—others will emulate them.
Also, consider how someone’s mere presence can motivate the group: A group tends to be
more productive and focused if a manager is on the premises, even if the manager does
nothing but observe.
It can be effective with highly skilled and motivated teams that, when given appropriate
direction and resources at the beginning, can complete the project with minimal involvement
by the leader.
This style can also work well if independence is a value of the group.
But, if the group is neither competent nor motivated, this leadership style can be disastrous.
Group members may be dissatisfied with the group’s progress—and the leader.
Oftentimes, if a laissez-faire leader is ineffective, someone else with an authoritarian or democratic
style will take over, meaning that the laissez-faire leader is a leader in name only.
If you plan to use this style, Make sure you provide the necessary information,
background, tools, and resources in the beginning.
Ensure that all know of looming deadlines.
Monitor the group’s progress, from a distance, so that you can step in, if necessary.
Be flexible; you may need to change leadership styles.
The takeaway from this is, if you’re going to be a laisse-faire leader, make sure the
style is warranted and be willing to change.
Processing Time!
Which of Lewin’s three leadership styles do you think is the most effective?
According to Lewin, the most effective leadership style was Democratic while the least effective
was laissez-faire.
As Lewin’s research was done with children, do you think his findings can be generalized
to adults?
Lewin believed that we all have a dominant leadership style—the style we prefer to
use.
Which of the three styles do you think is your preferred style?
You may have answered, “It depends” to this last one.
That’s not a surprise, as Lewin’s theory was used to develop other leadership styles
theories, most notably Hersey and Blanchard’s Situational Leadership Theory.
So we can credit Lewin for some of the management training that is available today.