Leadership Styles

Key Takeaways

[Music] have you ever worked for an autocratic leader or even more importantly do you have an autocratic leadership style yourself let's look at the ins and outs [Music] this video is the first in a three-part series on these styles of leadership be sure to take a look at the democratic and lazy fare styles in the next two videos foundational leadership research started in the 1930s Lewin Lippett and white wrote an article in 1939 in the Journal of Social Psychology that many researchers still cite as the big first study that kicked off this area of research Lewin and his co-authors asked the question in their study is not the Democratic group life more pleasant but authoritarianism more efficient people then and now have a lot of opinions about the different styles of leadership Lewin and his co-authors set out to get some research driven answers to these questions we'll look at more of their research in a moment to help visualize it there are some well-known autocratic leaders in movies like Darth Vader from Star Wars captain Sobel in the band of brothers and Miranda Priestly in The Devil Wears Prada played by Meryl Streep these are obviously exaggerations but they all have autocratic tendencies in common a basic description of the autocratic style goes like this it is an authoritarian boss centred approach to leadership and management the term autocratic is perhaps more commonly used than the term authoritarianism but essentially they mean the same thing these leaders assume full control of the group the goals and the decisions these leaders centralized decision-making and power some researchers describe this approach as an absolute control approach for the leader over the entire operation when it comes to communication it's no surprise that they have a top-down approach and they dictate instructions policies and activities to the group and they expect followers to comply it's a control compliance relationship these leaders take little or no input from group members they are not asking followers for their feedback they make decisions based upon their own perspective of a situation when it comes to decision-making I picture the autocratic leader coming into a room and just telling people what to do in terms of how they relate to followers autocratic leaders establish a high power distance between themselves and everybody else there are clear unequal power dynamics going on between the leader and the followers and that's because these leaders rely heavily on their positions of authority French and Raven call this legitimate Authority when you are an official manager you have a job description that explains your official authority and responsibilities that come with that position the autocratic leaders power in other words comes from their job title in contrast autocratic leaders don't rely on their strong relationships and influence to lead you don't usually see autocratic leaders socializing and connecting with their followers in warm ways they don't eat meals together with subordinates for example they don't get to know them personally very much they distance themselves relationally from others in ways that show that inequality so let's talk more about the research by Lewin and his co-authors these authors did experiments leading groups of 10 year olds in fact and to me it's interesting that this research started with a teacher-student dynamic if you think of the various teachers that you have had over your life it's possible that some of them had an autocratic style the children were put into a number of small groups and they were asked to perform various tasks like making theatrical masks painting murals carving soap and making model airplanes the adults then acted as the teachers and used a variety of leadership styles with those groups autocratic democratic and lazy fare styles the researchers then watched how the children bonded to the different leadership styles they also interviewed the children and the parents to get their perspective on how their experience was under each leader so what exactly did they find well this early research had mixed results but it laid the foundation for how we still to this day think about autocratic leaders under autocratic leaders followers were more aggressive toward each other and some versions of the experiments the children were 30 to 40 times more aggressive than they were under a democratic leader this was at times a general aggression among all the group members but was sometimes focused on one particular group member where say four members of the group ganged up on a person a scapegoat to the point where that participant quit the group participants tended to be more productive when the autocratic leader was watching them and directly supervising them but there was usually a sharp rise in aggression when the autocratic leader left the room and other experiments participants were much more resigned and apathetic and they did get aggressive under an autocratic leader they basically shut down so in terms of strengths and weaknesses let's start with these strengths this style can be useful when a quick decision a decisive decision is necessary for example when there's a crisis situation there's not enough time to gather everybody together and get lots of feedback sometimes a delayed decision will be much worse than the leader just making a decision on their own it's also useful when you have low skilled workers who essentially need to be told what to do and this aligns with part of what Hersey and Blanchard model of situational leadership says when a follower has low skill and low motivation their model says you have to focus almost entirely on tasks and using directive communication also when there's a leadership void and people lack direction then it's better to have an autocratic leader also if there's already lots of conflict an autocratic leader can basically suppress the conflict among participants in the show run this doesn't solve the underlying problem that's causing the conflict but this style can be used to contain conflict in the short run so autocratic leadership may not be your favorite style but it is still a style that works under certain circumstances at least in the short run however in the long run many people believe that the drawbacks clearly outweigh the advantages this is a very demanding and stressful style for both leader and follower it requires constant hands-on attention because followers will wait to be told what to do that's the norm this style establishes the leader gives orders and subordinates comply with those orders most followers won't take initiative under an autocratic leader and participants make more persistent demands for attention from autocratic leaders so since followers are not taking action on their own leading this way requires constant pressure for the leader and the followers also followers will work hard when the boss is watching that's true which is a positive aspect of this but they act out when the leader leaves the room when the leader literally steps out of the room another problem is turnover which is very expensive followers are more likely to exit a group or an organization when they are working under an autocratic leader this has been shown in a 2004 article by van gut Jepsen and Hart in the Journal of experimental social psychology as we wrap up my question is this does this style sound like your leadership style if so clearly it can work under certain circumstances but only under limited circumstances in general most followers do not thrive under autocratic leaders be sure to take a look at the next video in this three-part series on Democratic leadership style have you ever worked for a democratic leader after this lesson you might notice some characteristics that you have in common with this leadership style this is the second lesson in a three-part series be sure to take a look at the other lessons on the autocratic leadership style and they'll a a fair style to help us visualize it we see the Democratic leadership style and characters like Captain jean-luc Picard from Star Trek dick winters the commander of Easy Company in the Band of Brothers and Nova prime played by Glenn Close in guardians of the galaxy these characters echo what we see in the Democratic leadership style Democratic leaders take a collaborative approach with their followers even though Democratic leaders still have a position of power and still make many of the big decisions they prefer to get feedback and input from followers to help leaders shape those decisions they like to listen to a range of opinions to make sure they're hearing about all the good options they have what you call a two heads are better than one philosophy a leader might even test ideas with followers and say hey here's what I was thinking of doing what do you think or I've been hearing negative feedback about this external vendor we've been using what has been your experience with this vendor in cases like these the leader may still make the ultimate decision but at other times Democratic leaders may delegate power to followers when they can especially when those decisions directly influence the followers jobs this is called a decentralized approach to power and authority that contrasts with the centralized approach of autocratic leaders in other words as the official leader a Democratic leader still has the right to make decisions just like the autocratic leader but instead delegates those decisions and provides the freedom to followers to make the best choices possible so let's say a department a team is about to purchase new computers a Democratic leader would likely give some basic criteria on cost or compatibility but then delegate the final decision and each follower would purchase their own computer I'd like to make an important point about this if a decision goes badly the Democratic leader is not off the hook they are still responsible for the outcomes and for the team decisions so they're not handing their power and responsibility over they can't delegate their accountability they just believe the best decisions will be made with lots of input from their followers in terms of power distance Democratic leaders tend to have more equal relationships between themselves and followers so they establish a low-power distance compared to autocratic leaders the gap between the leader and the follower does not feel as obvious to make that concrete democratic leaders would be more approachable and friendly in conversations and make efforts to connect with followers they have good communication and might ask followers about their projects and about their lives outside of work and react more spontaneously in conversations to be clear Democratic leaders still have what French and Raven call legitimate power that is tied to their position but they don't emphasize that they tend to rely more on mutually beneficial relationships with followers to have that influence they trust their followers to provide helpful feedback and to make good decisions in terms of outcomes many followers prefer to work for this type of leader I was recently looking at a 2019 study on the leadership styles of Headmaster's over the teachers they supervise in the Journal of Education teaching and learning and these authors found that the Headmaster's with the democratic style of leadership had a clear positive influence and handling discipline situations with teachers it's important to note that the autocratic and lazy fair Headmaster's did still address discipline and showed some effectiveness with followers but the Democratic style was the most effective it was more effective than lazy fair and then lastly autocratic leaders were the least effective so those other Styles still were effective just not as effective as Democratic leaders let's look at the ups and downs of the style we'll start with these strengths Democratic leaders tend to make high-quality informed decisions they gather lots of inputs so their decisions are very likely to be supported and executed by their followers followers of demmick leaders can get more creative and innovative because they are given room to practice problem-solving Democratic leaders get consistent long-term productivity out of their followers and this is a key difference between democratic and autocratic leaders when an autocratic leader leaves the room their followers do not work as hard in contrast Democratic leaders followers work hard whether they are in the room observing or not followers are bought into the decisions goals and directions these leaders have also good communication with followers and not surprisingly followers have a high satisfaction level when working under Democratic leaders in terms of drawbacks we see mainly weaknesses in certain situations so first when a situation is high pressure and time is short like a crisis maintaining the Democratic cell probably will not help much if something suddenly happens to an organization it might be the best response is the quickest response and sometimes that means a Democratic leader is not going to be able to take a lot of time to gather input and feedback they're not going to have the luxury of collaborating in a situation like that I like to use the metaphor of professional sports when there are just a few seconds left on the clock and your team is down by one point that's not the time to have a long democratic collaborative discussion a democratic style is not going to fit that situation a second weakness shows up in the situations that sometimes require a judgment call on the part of a leader because consensus is not possible and you may have to make a decision that fractures the harmony of the group for a while a third weakness shows up when you have a follower who is not particularly trustworthy so if the leader is a team player but the follower is not the Democratic leadership style may not be as suitable for that follower overall though the Democratic style is largely viewed as the most effective of the three styles we're looking at most research sees it that way and most people with practical experience see it that way too it doesn't fit all situations equally but it's a solid leadership style for most people most of the time so my question for you is does this sound like your style of leadership if so you're probably off to a good start most followers will do well under your style just recognize that some situations may call for another approach as mentioned this is the second video in a three-part series on leadership styles be sure to take a look at the lesson on the autocratic and lazy fare styles in those videos at its core the lazy fare leadership style is about giving your people space to work so they can be at their best and many followers like this style but this style does not have the best reputation in practice so let's take a look we are at the end of a three part series the first two videos are about the autocratic and democratic leadership styles and we're starting with some of the earliest research on this from the late 1930s by Lewin Lippett and white they did a series of studies on how adult leaders with one of these three styles interacted with groups of children to see how it worked out a brief history of the term lays a fair goes like this it means let do or let them do it it's a French term that was originally about how to handle the economy at its root it's about the government not interfering with the economy just let it go how it's going to go don't interfere people in leadership studies took the sentiment and imported the term to describe the hands-off leadership style these leaders back off and give followers lots of room and space and autonomy to make their own decisions and solve their own problems Ronald Reagan the president was often mentioned as a classic lazy fair leader he once said directly in fact surround yourself with the best people you can find delegate authority and don't interfere as long as the policy you've decided upon as being carried out in other words let them do it and because of this some critics call this style a zero leadership style in other words some people say it's not really leadership at all but I think there's more to this as we will see to make it more concrete some examples of lazy Fair leadership on TV and movies would be Ron Swanson from Parks and Rec he's a classic hands-off leader he even says he has a libertarian philosophy which is about less government Michael Scott from the office he's at least some aspects of his style are giving people space to work or not work as the case may be but my favorite example is Frigga she's Thor's mother in the Marvel Universe but you know as I was looking into this I noticed that there aren't a lot of clear-cut examples of the lazy Fair leadership style and and TVs and in movies and I think it's because it's a hands-off style so on screen it doesn't look like much is happening it doesn't translate to the viewer as leadership behaviors when you're looking at it it's not obvious like that but you see a positive example in Frigga so Thor's mother and we'll have a little science fiction moment here she's the queen of Asgard but she doesn't have a top-down style even though she's a queen in most instances she stays out of the day-to-day operations of Asgard she's not about pushing her authority but she does have authority she just comes in at key moments for example to nudge Thor or to counsel the king or to encourage Loki have people come to her for guidance and she helps them figure it out without telling them what to do she's a bit hands-off but these examples give you a taste of what it looks like in daily life compared to autocratic leaders and democratic Styles the lazy Fair leader will give some over all directions and deadlines and goals and resources but they will then encourage you to do it on your own they will have fewer meetings they are less likely to check in on you for progress updates and they're not going to observe you or watch you very much it's a philosophy of non-interference so when they do interact with you they are more likely to listen and give some general advice and not as likely to micromanage you they're not going to tell you how to do it this is because they have a lot of trust in their people if you come to them for advice in fact they might tell you what they would do personally but ultimately they expect that you'll take that conversation and go make your own decisions and it can be a very empowering style in this way followers feel freedom agency and responsibility for their project and that's really the whole key lazy faire leaders believe that their followers are at their best and are most motivated by autonomy followers will do great if you just let them do it so let's begin to look at whether or not this is effective many followers prefer this style compared to working with autocratic leaders in Lewin study seventy percent of participants preferred the laissez-faire style of leadership only thirty percent preferred autocratic leaders and in practice some successful leaders use this style Warren Buffett is currently the fourth wealthiest person in the world he runs Berkshire Hathaway and he's a lazy fair leader and he's famous for only scheduling about three or four meetings per month so he's not watching people very closely but he can do this because he has a key feature in common with most effective lazy fair leaders and it's a feature that Ronald Reagan mentioned that best case scenario is that these leaders surround themselves with the very best people they can possibly find if you're only dealing with followers who are the smartest most educated self-motivated and competent people then you really don't need to supervise them very closely they know how to do it they're excited to do it so giving them space to do their work makes sense but this style is not generally effective there are lots of studies that say this amount of freedom can cause stress for followers in fact in luhan's original study some participants preferred working under autocratic leaders these participants said about their lazy fair leaders he had too few things for us to do and he let us figure things out too much the ambiguity and lack of clarity can be stressful for some follow but still head-to-head 70% of luhan's participants preferred lazy faire leaders over autocratic leaders in the video on the Democratic leadership style I mentioned the 2019 study on leadership styles of head masters over the teachers they supervise the authors note that all three styles were effective in dealing with discipline issues and when they rank them the democratic leadership style was the best next was lazy fare and the last was the autocratic style but they were still all effective to some degree so yes leadership and the lazy fare style can be effective but it may not be the most effective in most situations let's clarify a few misunderstandings about this style in the real world no effective leaders are completely hands-off that's really not leadership no leader can avoid accountability the leader is still on the hook for results so lazy faire leaders still expect results from their followers at minimum they establish goals milestones and provide resources to help their followers move forward what makes them different from the other styles as they leave almost all of the day-to-day execution up to their followers another point of clarification is that this style sometimes has a bad reputation because people make a huge mistake and they think it means lazy which it doesn't lazy is a common word that means a person is unwilling to work hard the words just sound similar but lays a fair again which is French has an entirely different motivation it's about providing autonomy to your followers so they can work on their own a summary of the pros and cons goes like this on the positive side and there are some positives it works great in some situations namely when your followers are highly motivated skilled and educated if you're leading high end engineers doctors lawyers professors and other top-flight professionals then it can work really well it can work well in creative industries where people are driven in these situations the lazy Fair leadership can be very satisfying for followers it can be very motivating because followers can lead a more creative life and in the workplace and think of solutions that the leader might not think of it also requires less top-down pressure and direct supervision so it frees the leader to think about the bigger goals of the organization on the negative side it only works well in specific situations so the big criticism is that it results in low productivity in most cases for many situations followers do not use the autonomy mainly as a way to be more productive it's not useful when competence and motivation are low ambiguity is another big problem followers can get really stressed out when they are confused and lack direction and the lazy Faire style is not going to help much in that case it also involves other risks if your followers are not doing a good job it might be that a hands-off approach doesn't help you notice the problem it can also create more rooms for undesirable activities like bullying or conflict that you don't notice some people will take advantage of this freedom and autonomy in other words to do things other than working hard and some the lazy Fair leadership style can work in an ideal situation but when real problems do come up leaders should really adapt to the situation and take a more hands-on approach when needed so feel free to watch the other two videos in this series on the autocratic and democratic leadership styles [Music]