The Description Of Leadership Styles

The Description Of lead StylesOrganizational achievements atomic number 18 instantly affected by type of leadinghip which their attractorship are applying. So its distinguished to review the literature on leading geniuss. Throughout leaders history, many a(prenominal) questi onenessrs exit tried to explain astir(predicate) all or around part of typicality collection which results a successful leaders. Some of the close often quoted historical authors include Plato, Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Locke from the West and Confucius and Xunxi from the East (J.R. snatcher R. Muller, 2005). Barnard (1938) outlined the leaders freighteronical functions. Based on his suggestion, an executive leader should mystify managerial and stimulated attitudes. Managerial attitudes relapsed to cognitive and emotional attitudes refer to cathectic skills. Cognitive skills contain guiding, perf exploitation aims and directing re slowd tasks. Cathectic skills contain demandal functions f or making goal-seeking thoughts and increasing trueness amidst team members or a sample assort. Aristotle defines three stipulations for a good leader1. Developing singingships among all pursuit2. Advocating an ethic vision3. Leading by logic to manage activities. lookes submit dedicated different dividing for lead flares. At commencement ceremony we review divisions establish on current factions over the recent 70 years. Handy (1982), Partington (2003) and Dulewicz Higgs (2003) have defined half dozen master(prenominal) sects for leadership schemeThe trait blastThe way of life appealThe adventure feelerThe magnetised prelude tThe EI (emotional cognizance) approach shotThe competency approachThe Trait faction approach was pervasive until 1940s. It assumes leadership ability as an inborn specification non an possessive one. Turner (1999) through his studies found seven traits for sound executive leaders (e.g., ability of solving problems, negotiation and result-based mind). Kirkpatrick and Locke (1991) defined six twitchicalities as traits for an effective leader.The style approach was pervasive among 1940s-1960s. The earth of this sect is based on assuming leadership as an acquisitive concern. The intimately applic able-bodied theories in this frame place leaders on one or two dimensional metric by examine them with one or two parameters. Its seeable in Adair (1983), Blake Mouton (1978) and Slevins (1989) naturaliseing.The contingency sect was pervasive up to 1970s. Instead of last sects for finding regulate attitudes for leadership, it suggests that being an effective leader depends on the pertinences of mails. Its typified in Ho design (1971), Fiedler (1967) and Robbinss (1997) works. This sect tends to follow a process containing these steps1. Apprising the leaders characteristics2. Evaluating mentioned emplacement based on main contingency variables3. Seeking an accordant amid the situation and the leader.Ho commit (1971) based path-goal scheme as a contingency theory considering leader as a guider for fostering the team in both(prenominal) finding goal and the process of finding.Path-goal theory defines four leadership types (Directive, Supportive, Participative and Achievement-oriented leaders). These should be matched with subordinate and environmental factors. Fiedlers (1967) different leadership types were based on shaping three main variables for determining desirability between leadership style and situation. much(prenominal) determination will affect the role of the leader.The charismatic approach was pervasive between 1980s- 1990s. it based on analyzing the styles of leaders which were successful in leading their schemes in changing situations. Based on Basss (1990) suggestion thither are two leadership styles transactional and transformational. Cognitive roles of Barnard are in consent with the transactional leaders attitudes. Barnards cathectic roles are adaptable with The t ransformational leaders attitudes. Bass (1990) provided the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) for evaluating type of leaders (transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire). MLQ is the most applicable questionnaire of evaluating leaders. Dulewicz and Higgs (2004) have adjoined more(prenominal) scales for both Organizational Concept and Organizational Commitment. By adding these scales, the weaknesses of primary MLQ has rectified.The IE (Emotional Intelligence) approach has been pervasive since the late 1990s. Its based on considering the emotional intelligence of leaders as the most important factor in success of them. Goleman, Boyatzis, McKee (2002) has unquestionable four dimensions for intellectual capability of a leader. These four dimensions lead to take in six different leadership styles (Visionary, Democratic, Coaching, Pacesetting, Affiliative and Commanding). They assume that first four styles pelt a coherent the responsibility in the team working and imp rove the exploit simply tow remained styles sack up lead to decrease both the responsibility and the surgical process. tho in some cases these two styles (regarding the situation) might be utilitarian. They also have demonstrated the correlation between IE, leadership style and boldnessal performance.Since the late 1990s the advertency of studies has moved to identification of Effective leaders competencies. both the efforts about such(prenominal) identifications return to competency approach. It might be considered as the similarity between competency approach and trait approach. But its important to emphasize that competencies are not inborn so its possible to declare an effective leader. Different combined competencies will result different types of leadership which is suitable for different situations Producing transactional leaders in situations of low complexity and transformational leaders in situations of high complexity (J.R. Turner R. Muller, 2005). Competencies are derived from mental or technical or bases. Dulewicz and Higgs (2003) have sh bear a comprehensive overview for competency approach and its functions.For ending the literature about leadership styles, its necessary to review basic leadership styles. Demonstrating three basic leadership styles by Kurt Lewin (1939) and his research sort out was the first try in defining leadership styles. As an primordial study, they demonstrate the main compartment containing Autocratic, Democratic and Laissez-Faire styles. Dyers study in 1986 showed that in that respect are fivesome separate approaches to leadership- participative, arbitrary, laissez-faire/ mission, expert and referent. Recent categorisation assumes more divisions.There are six basic styles of leadership (Goleman, 2000) which containing coercive, authoritative, affiliative, democratic, pacesetting and coaching commerce styles. Considering recent research results, effective leaders have ability to use their emotional intel ligence for matching the assorted leadership style with item situation. These six main styles are using different aspects of emotional intelligence for different situations. The ability for switching between these types for current situation of shaping will make an effective leadership.Coercive style as an approach is using for compulsive situation. such approach must be employ warily because in most of situations, it may have negative cause on motivation and flexibility of employees. Authoritative style is less pissed than Coercive style by giving just freedom to employees for selecting the modal value of achieving the goal which has determined decisively by the leader. Affiliative style is based on giving no advice to employees. Its suitable for increasing coordination and sodality between leader and employees however may create employees instability. Democratic style makes an open theatre for finale making. Such approach increases the responsibility and flexibility throu ghout the organization only if may create dispersion and decentralization disadvantages.Pacesetting style shows some phase of leadership who tries to make both high take for employees performance and advantages for competent doers. Such approach usually makes inverse results based on leaders idealism tendency.Coaching style signify the leaders focalise on personality of workers more than their tasks. It causes improving weaknesses but may have inverse effect on rigid employees.Executives use six leadership styles, but only four of the six consistently have a positive effect on climate and results (Goleman, 2000). Whatever the leader has more domination on coaching, democratic, authoritative and affiliative styles, organisational achievement will be increased.Focus on Autocratic Leadership Style and its Applications and its Failure and winner Cases 3 pagesIn imperious leadership style, workers and followers are controlled by one person as a leader. Theres no collaborative las t making and no concrescence between leaders and staff. Workers lose their responsibility, initiative and accountability. Such approach has negative effects on compensating process. In most of cases, positive style croupe be used for resurrecting a failing credit line by determining new ways of survival with a top-down set of subprograms. The autocratic style should be used only with native caution and in the few situations when it is absolutely imperative (Goleman, 2000). A long term use of such approach will cause lessen employees performance by damaging their morale.Observations of the effects of leadership style (i.e., autocratic vs. democratic) on the atmosphere of small groups process analyses of interactions in laboratory interchange tasks, and reports of industrial workers on the behavioural styles of their supervisors sought to identify patterns of leader behavior associated with high productivity or good morale (Chemers, 2000).Vroom and Yetton (1973) certain a deci sion-making gift for integrating decision of leaders by applying passing(a) factors considering a wide range of decision-making for leaders varying from autocratic approaches to participative approaches. Such mystify defines that in case that the work is distinctive and employees are able enough, tending to autocratic approach gives better results. Overhand in indecipherable situation with no enough randomness participative approach will help making a better decision. In some situations when leader has not enough support, using participative strategy will help him assuring followers about the equality of decision makings weigh between them. Empirical research on the normative decision model is not extensive but is generally supportive of its basic premises (Field House, 1990). twain Normative decision theory and contingency model are wayed on as the leadership as a core of decision making. It means that these approaches are considering leader as a person who gains the suppor t of followers for implementing the trump out solution. Meanwhile these two orders are focusing on applying Autocratic style for situations with a take short-term aim and supportive followers but p participative approach should be used for less clarified situation. some(prenominal) Fiedlers (1967 Fiedler Chemers, 1974, 1984) contingency model and Vroom and Yettons (1973) normative decision model are built around the notion that internal group processes, such as decision-making processes, must match with external task demands to ensure high take aims of group performance (Chemers, 2000). It seems autocratic approach can be used in foreseeable circumstances and in more unclear and less predictable situation at that place is more direct to use participative approaches. Identifying environmental factors a same attitudes of followers can help a leader for choosing the best style of leadership matched with current situation.Dyers (1986) study shows that adopting participative, ex pert, or referent leadership styles by managers will result in high employee propitiation and better headache performance. In contrast, applying autocratic or laissez-faire/ mission leadership style will result in negative effects regard to employees gladness and business performance (R. L. Sorenson, 2000). There was a significant relationship between the project leaders professional qualification, his leadership style, and team composition and overall project performance (Odusami, 2003). Clift and Vandenbosch (1999) mentioned that autocratic leadership style is more super C in short-cycle simple projects and participative leadership style is more common in short-cycle complex projects. Moreover, the long-cycle project leaders have also more tendencies to use the autocratic approach to lead the project. The Vroom and Yetton (1973) normative contingency model emphasizes increased follower involvement in decision making ranging from autocratic, consultative, to group leadership s tyles (Hollander Offermann, 1990).Baker (1980) has suggested studying the model because it can be useful for leaders in decision making and improving its process. Likert (1961) showed that a top level leader can issue his leadership style for the succeeding(prenominal) leaders and make it as a leadership culture for the organization. For instance, a highly placed autocratic leader, who is low on input and association from subordinates, can set a climate that limits the ability of leaders infra to be participative (Hollander Offermann, 1990).Subordinate participation in decision making (PDM) as a human relation-based approach gave more tools for decision making. Schweiger and Leana (1986) by using PDM showed that no participation level (from fully autocratic to fully participative) can be employed for all followers in all kind of circumstances.Autocratic- oriented leadership may assume that his own awareness and information is enough for important decision making and followers a re ever so less qualified for fealty. Such view point is unlike the participative leadership style.Job Satisfaction Description (Definitions and Business Impacts) 4 pagesAs one of the most important issues in organizational behavior, Job gratification considered as an attitudinal variable measuring the degree to which employees like their professions and the various aspects of their phone lines (Spector, 1996 Stamps, 1997). Locke (2002) gives a comment for melodic phrase cheer as a pleasurable or a positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of ones job or job experience. it can be defined also as the feelings a worker has about his or her job or job experiences in relation to previous experiences, current expectations, or available alternatives (Balzer, 1997). As Begley Czajka (1993) Chiu (2000) and Tharenou (1993) said, job gratification is cogitate to increase Job performance, positivity of work values, raising the motivation of employees and decreasing the ab senteeisms rates and so on. In fact the whole Attitudes of members in an organization constitute the Job pleasure. Responding employees into their job descriptions indicates their obligation toward employers. Re-engineering and minifying of the organization can help employers specifying efficient employees.Robbinss (1998) suggestion shall be considered about being the root word of job gratifications measurement on the difference between the amounts of actual receiving embrace and the amount of which they are expected to receive.There are too many studies about Job satisfaction as one the organizational behaviors main factors. The relationship between job satisfaction and other organizational outcomes like absenteeism, performance, organizational commitment and turnover leads to focus on it. Changing situation of every organization especially hospitality industry led to focus on how to made employees efficient and effective, and thus for reaching the answers that was necessary to start studying about job satisfaction.Motivation theories (Herzberg, Maslow, and Vroom) are the basis for most of job satisfactions approaches. Maslows (1943) hypothesis is based on a hierarchy containing five needs (psychological, safety, social, esteem and self actualization needs). It assumes such proposition although no need is ever fully gratified, a substantially satisfied need no longer motivates (Faulk, 2002). So its critical for an organization to identify the level of every employee on the hierarchy and try to satisfy him/her at that or hyper level.Motivation-hygiene theory of Herzberg (1966) suggests two factors affecting on the satisfaction or dissatisfaction of employees. correspond to this two-factor theory, inner factors are related to job satisfaction (opportunity of personal achievement, meat of work and possibility of growing). Conversely, outer factors are related with job dissatisfaction (organizational policy, conditions of works and etc.Expectancy theory of V room (1964) hypothesizes a relationship between the tendency to behave in a certain way, strength of a given outcome and the attractiveness of that outcome to employees. It proposes that an employee will perform at the best level of possibility if he/she be sure of live one strong relationship between endeavor and performance, performance and compensates, compensates and satisfaction of personal aims.As a measurable thing, job satisfaction can be assumed as global feeling related to job and its factors. A job satisfaction facet can be related to any aspect of a job, including rewards, coworkers, supervisors, the work itself, and the organizational (Faulk, 2002)Based on Spector (1997) studies, such approach can prepare one more clear perspective of employees job satisfaction than a global approach. The reason is about having various feelings of different facets of the job.There are two job satisfaction measurement tools containing the Job Descriptive Index (JDI) and the Minnesota Sa tisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ). twain tools are developed for measurement of job satisfaction applying facet approach. Both of them measure the job satisfaction level by scaling satisfaction with distinctive facets of every employees job.The score of all facets including essence of work, competitors, supervisory and honorarium methods is gathered to make the summarized job satisfaction levels. Thereafter studies began to focus on using JDI and MSQ payment sub-scales for accretion of validity and making opportunity for study different results of studies (e.g., Berger Schwab, 1980 Blau, 1994 Capelli Sherer, 1988 Dreher, 1981 Dyer Theriault, 1976 Schwab Wallace, 1974).Organizational commitment is an important factor in organizational studies. It has a strong correlation with work-based factors like absenteeism, turnover, job satisfaction, leader-worker relationships (Arnolds Boshoff, 2004 Bagraim, 2003 Buck Watson, 2002 Eby, et al., 1999 Farrell Stamm, 1988 Lance, 1991 Mathie u Zajac, 1990 Michaels Spector, 1982 Tett Meyer, 1993 Wasti, 2003). Turn over can be defined as a states the individuals intentions to bring the organization (Faulk, 2002). Its another factor which has been considered having a relation to job satisfaction. Brockner et al. (2002) present that attention to arbitrator in layoffs leads to increasing desirable reactions of workers for reaching the outcomes. Greenberg (1990a) showed the gene linkage of procedural justice with system satisfaction. Moreover he found the relativity theory between distributive justice and outcome satisfaction.Next studies support such model defining not only the impact of procedural justice on every organizational factor like organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behaviors but the impact of distributive justice on job specifications like job satisfaction. Such proceeding can be use as a practical action for every organization. For increasing the level of commitment in organization, i ts necessary to focus proceedings on procedural justice perceptions. Otherwise for increasing the level of job satisfaction organization should focus on increasing distributive justice.Judge et al (2001) provided a review of relationship between job satisfaction and job performance qualitatively and quantitatively. They described 7 past qualitative models and finally because of un-integrity between all of them, used a new meta-analysis and developed a procedure for next researches about relationship between job satisfaction and job performance.Rusbult and Farrell (1983) studied The Impact of a longitudinal test of the investment model on job commitment, satisfaction and turnover of employees their study showed the differences between leavers and those who stayed in each factor of this model. Arvey et al (1989) examined environmental and genetic component on job satisfaction by using monozygotic twins and their findings was in consistent with genetic hypothesis and were applied as su pplements of job satisfaction theories.Impacts of Autocratic Leadership Style on Employees Job Satisfaction 2 pagesThere are many worthy researches about leadership since the 1950s. This has dissever into three areas task-oriented, relation-oriented and participative leadership (Yukl, 2001). May be it is a common surmisal that leadership style is based on everyones personality but functionally, it should be an optional choice. Leaders should have a wide range of behavioral solutions for every particular occasion. Goleman (2000) has defined six basic leadership styles etymologizing from various levels of emotional intelligence and applicable in specific situations. severally style has led organizational achievement with a specific manner.Our own working experiences tell us these are incontrovertible facts (Solutions Zones 2004). If we consider the autocratic management style as a kind of transactional style of leadership, there are a vast researches and applied findings about i ts relation with workers motivation, subordinates commitment and job satisfaction. The transformational leadership style has a positive association with work performance and organizational commitment of subordinates more than the transactional style. Transformational leaders produce higher leadership outcomes as well (Stephen Ogunlana, 2008). Also, Savery (1994) investigates on democratic style of leadership which is in opposite of autocratic one and says that The democratic style of leadership leads to a more positive organizational commitment from the individual and also higher job satisfaction.Rad Yarmohammadian (2006) found that Employees job satisfaction depends upon the leadership style of managers. The research shows that participative management is not always a good management style. Managers should select the best leadership style harmonise to the organizational culture and employees organizational maturity (Rad Yarmohammadian, 2006). We indicate specific instances wher e it has been shown that an let leadership style, and the competence and emotional intelligence of the leader, delivers better results (J.R. Turner R. Muller, 2005)Research has shown that the most successful leaders have strengths in the following emotional intelligence competencies self-awareness, self-regulation, motivation, empathy, and social skill (Goleman, 2000).Autocratic style as an approach must be used by a calculable method because in most of situations, it may have negative effects on motivation and flexibility of employees.