A number of different leadership styles exist. Some leaders strive to include their employees in decisions, while others take a more authoritarian approach. Leaders must understand that no leadership style is inherently better than another. Rather, each style has its own strengths and weaknesses.
It’s therefore beneficial for leaders to take a subjective inventory of their interactions with employees to identify exactly what type of approach they tend to follow. By understanding personal leadership styles, leaders become more empowered to identify their strengths and compensate for their weaknesses. Below is a breakdown of some of the classic leadership styles, as well as the pros and cons of each approach.
-
The autocratic leader
This type of leader takes an authoritarian approach to leadership and typically gives orders without asking for or expecting feedback. Autocratic leaders tend to have very clear expectations for their employees. Sometimes, autocratic leaders can become micromanagers to ensure that everything gets completed according to those expectations. Some employees benefit from autocratic leadership. Employees who are unsure of their position or their abilities tend to benefit from the close supervision of a strong leader, as it makes them feel like they are staying on track. At the same time, creativity is often stifled by an autocratic approach. Creative types do not have the freedom they need to innovative, and progress can become stifled.
Today, people often look negatively at autocratic leadership, but this approach is sometimes necessary. Beyond benefiting less confident employees, the autocratic leader gets things done quickly and is able to make tough decisions without second-guessing him or herself. This strength is a definite asset, particularly in difficult times.
-
The laissez-faire leader
Some leaders take a backseat when it comes to details and give their employees only general directions or end-game expectations. These leaders tend to have a lot of trust in their employees and their skills. Laissez-faire leaders have faith that their employees will get things done on time without a lot of checking in and handholding.
When employees are very competent or innovative, this approach can work very well. Such employees appreciate leaders who place confidence in them and will typically work hard to live up to the leader’s expectations. However, employees who are new or less competent may feel lost and become frustrated by the lack of specific direction. When these employees flounder, it can cost the company a lot of time and money and reflect poorly on leadership.
Laissez-faire leaders are also sometimes regarded in a pejorative light, since it seems like a lazy approach. However, some of the most innovative companies operating today, such as Google, famously employ this sort of approach. These companies are able to do so because they hire only highly capable employees who are self-motivated.
-
The democratic leader
This type of leader makes full use of the democratic process by asking for input from peers, employees, and team members. Because this style encourages a participatory environment, it can build morale at a company and make people feel like their voices are heard. When people see their impact on a product or process, they become more committed to its success. In addition, this approach to leadership ensures that a number of different points of view are represented in each decision. However, the democratic style can also backfire if the leader continually makes decisions that don’t reflect the opinions of the group as a whole. In this case, people may lose faith in the leader.
Companies often consider the democratic style as the gold standard of leadership. While this approach can drive innovation and keep people committed to the company, it also consumes a lot of time and is not always appropriate. With some decisions, it simply does not work to poll a large number of people and ask what they think—either it would take too long to reach a consensus, or the matter is so sensitive that only executive leaders should weigh in.
-
The coaching leader
Some leaders think of themselves as coaches. Instead of telling people exactly what to do or giving them a long-term task to accomplish on their own, they offer suggestions about which routes to pursue and focus on helping their employees develop proficiency and confidence. This approach to leadership can work well for both employees who lack confidence and those who are more experienced, provided that the leader still has something to teach them.
However, this approach also requires a large time investment, and some leaders may struggle to coach employees and continue to handle their own responsibilities. At the same time, investing in a handful of truly talented, promising employees can be a great way to keep them involved with the company and groom them for higher positions. Organizations that plan to promote from within can benefit greatly from coaching-inspired leadership.
The coaching approach does have some limitations. Some team members are stubbornly set in their ways. Any time spent coaching these individuals is wasted. People can only be coached when they want to learn and grow in their positions. The reach of coaching is also limited by the expertise of the leader. Individuals can only serve as a coach if they are themselves extremely proficient in a given topic. To be great coaches, leaders need to look honestly at what they do and do not know.