Compare Democratic and Autocratic Leadership free essay sample

Leadership, a crucial element in business, can be defined as â€Å"a process of influencing the activities of an organized group toward goal achievement† (Yukl, 2013, p. 76). There are four main types of leadership styles: the autocratic, democratic, paternalistic and laissez-faire leadership styles. Daft (2008, p. 44) suggests that â€Å"the extent to which leaders should be boss-centered or subordinate-centered partly depends on organizational circumstances. † After taking into account the organizational circumstances, companies should be able to select suitable types of leadership styles. Therefore, it is worth arguing that the democratic style of leadership should be applied more frequently than the autocratic style of leadership, for example, in companies adopting flat organizational structure. Power division, followers’ motivation and decision quality in both styles are compared in the following essay. Before proceeding to the comparison and contrast, it is necessary to firstly explain the autocratic and the democratic leadership styles. In autocratic leadership style, leaders have full authority over others in making decisions. We will write a custom essay sample on Compare Democratic and Autocratic Leadership or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page Salem, 2013) Not only do leaders monitor the efforts of the followers, but often they track followers’ schedules closely as well. (Leadership-toolbox, 2008) On the other hand, democratic leaders share authority with followers and pay attention to participation in order to complete the allocated tasks. (Salem, 2013) Participation can be persuasive and consultative, which implies â€Å"facilitating the conversation, encouraging followers to share ideas, and then synthesizing all the available information into the best possible decision. (Leadership-toolbox, 2008) Companies in flat organizational structure which has relatively few layers of management can obviously work better if applying the democratic leadership style. Turning to the section of power, the level of power division in the two leadership styles differs. Regarding to the autocratic leadership style, as the leaders retain authoritarian control over all decisions, followers may not have a single chance to impact the outcomes. â€Å"They learn that it is safer to suppress their innate capacity and wait instead for commands. (Cloke and Goldsmith, 2002) In democratic companies, however, humanity is usually adhered during the operation. (Semler, 1989) Democratic leaders normally uphold the right of followers to affect decisions by provid ing opportunities for them to voice their concerns. Companies in flat organizational structure with â€Å"a wide span of control and a chain of command,† (Nicholas, 2009, p. 325) can better guarantee the right of followers through face-to-face or indirect interaction. Ricardo Semler (1989), CEO of SEMCO, a manufacturing company in Brazil which advocates democratic leadership style and adopts flat organizational structure, agrees that workers should be treated as competent and trustworthy adults and should be offered freedom to question and express their opinions. Various ways of distributing power cause wide ranges of consequences, among which the motivation of followers tends to be the most notable part. Martin Evans (1970, p. 277-298) and Robert House (1971, p. 12-339) have developed an abstract theory of leadership called path-goal theory. It reveals that leadership behavior has considerable impact on followers’ motivation, gratification and efforts. In autocratic leadership, it is hard for leaders to balance the authority with the morale of followers. Autocracy can typically lead to dissatisfaction and misunderstanding about decisions as well as a high level of administration. Besides, â€Å"too much direct scrutiny and too heavy pressure can squelch the upward mobility of followers. † (Yukl, 2013, p. 9) On the contrary, democracy helps followers to build confidence and to reduce stress in jobs. If a company which implements flat organizational structure leads democratically, followers can be fully engaged and be treated with dignity in consultation. As a result, only minimal supervision may be required despite the number of followers (Nicholas, 2009) and a higher degree of decision acceptance may be gained. Followers may feel more proud and more motivated if their companies succeed. Thus, involving followers in making decisions is indispensable for strengthening the motivation. Having considered the motivation, the quality of decisions also varies in the light of the differentiated power control in two leadership styles. In autocratic style, because of less contribution from followers, companies may fail to reach creative decisions and eventually spoil the performance. In stark contrast, due to a healthy environment of communication, followers in democratic style, if have more knowledge and detailed information, can cooperate with leaders to create and select the best alternative and to achieve their compatible goals with joint efforts. In companies having flat organizational structure, for instance, Google, engineers have unprecedented right to choose which projects they work on. The feasibility is proved by pioneering products such as Gmail and Google Project Glass. (Kahney, 2008) The innovation of companies in flat organizational structure thrives when democracy is implemented. However, there is an exception. From the perspective of democratic leadership style, it is comparatively time-consuming to make collaborative efforts. After consistent consultation, democratic leaders may have to decide among overwhelming possibilities and slow down the process. In the opposite, autocratic leaders set objectives and allocate tasks by themselves, so they can decide far more speedily and efficiently than democratic leaders in an emergency. Referring to the statistics, â€Å"most descriptive case studies support the benefits of democratic leadership style. †(Bradford and Cohen, 1984) A rigorous analysis of over 500 such studies by Johnson and Johnson (1989) showed that supportive processes are far superior to conflict-inducing processes concerning group performance and members’ satisfaction. Accordingly, it is wise for leaders to conduct a substantial amount of counsel and empower their followers. Although distinguished in the modes of processing, the autocratic and the democratic leadership styles should both be achievement-oriented. Two styles of leadership are supposed to serve the same objective, which is enabling companies to successfully accomplish the targets with a decent standard of performance. It is clear from above that, in terms of power separation, enthusiasm of followers and decision quality, democratic leadership style modifies better than autocratic leadership style, especially in companies having flat organizational structure. In fact, diverse kinds of companies may need to adopt special styles of leadership according to their specific organization structures, culture or industries. Nevertheless, it is an increasingly accelerating trend to combine and adapt the autocratic and democratic leadership styles to the needs of particular companies.