|
Compare And Contrast Leadership Theory There are competing leadership theories. Fred E. Fiedler, one of the leading psychologists in the field of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, divides these different leadership theories into three categories which exist together on an axis: authoritarian, democratic, and laissez-faire. To compare and contrast leadership theory then deals mainly with these various methods a leader uses to carry out their decision-making and delegating roles.
Authoritarian leaders make decisions and pass directives to subordinates who carry these out under close supervision; questions are discouraged and subordinate behavior is closely controlled. The democratic variety leader takes a structured but cooperative approach that focuses on the group and tends to foster professional competence. Ideas and suggestions are welcomed from subordinates, and leaders tend to sell their ideas rather than dictate. Then there is laissez-faire. To compare and contrast the leadership theory of laissez-faire to the other two demonstrates easily the anarchy and unpredictability to be found in this last approach. Nevertheless, with some people and/or situations the laissez-faire leadership theory is best, and an authoritarian style leader is sure to be less efficient and appreciated in such situations. |
The tendency is for people to adopt whatever leadership theory or style feels the most comfortable. This will, of course, vary according to the person’s values and willingness to open up decisions for discussion. Some styles are more effective than others depending on the individual, their environment, and the team or task in question. A great leader is one who can compare and contrast leadership theory, and make use of the most useful one. While one’s particular leadership tendencies are well developed by the time they are first cast into a leadership role, they are not entrenched. Through introspection and the guidance of leadership coaches, many have moved ahead with the improved effectiveness of their leadership due to a firm grasp of various leadership theories.
|
|
|
|
||