This is considered the finest style in the modern milieu. The key peculiarities of that style are as follows: mutual decision-making process; development of intelligence, good organization, and competency; democratic ways of encouragement and punishment. According to Woods (2010), this style is extremely effective. However, there is a significant shortcoming. When the participator is sure that he or she will not be strongly punished in case of failure, the effectiveness of the work can decrease. Thus, it is vital to develop the main aspects of the style with attention to the issue of punishment. In other words this style can be the base for dealing with headship, but it should be combined with other styles according to the specific case.Laissez-faire This type of headship can be characterized as total delegation of all the aspects to the participators of the certain milieu. The role of the person in charge is minimal. The participators are free to choose the methods of goals’ achievement. Nevertheless, the leader is supposed to take part in the operating process only in case he or she is asked by the participators. This is a great type for the environments with high-skilled and dedicated workers. However, Hackman and Johnson (2004) argue that this style of headship may lead to the decrease of productivity and effectiveness in case the inferiors are not trustworthy and their skills are not that high.Transactional This type of headship is the great way of dealing with managing activity during the downturn or even critical situation when it is vital to save the situation, but not to ensure the further development. The basis for the activity is the smart combination of reward and punishment in certain period of time. The great example of this type of headship is the activity of the coach during the football match when it is vital to give the direct commands to the players. Vera and Crossan (2004) argue that the key peculiarities of transactional leaders are permanent setting of the goals and keeping all the participators involved in the process.
Hackman, M., & Johnson, C. (2004). Leadership: A communication perspective (4th ed.). Long Grove, Ill.: Waveland Press.
Kippenberger, T. (2002). Leadership styles. Oxford, U.K.: Capstone Pub.
Padavic, I., & Earnest, W. (1994). Paternalism as a component of managerial strategy. The Social Science Journal, 389-404.
Salin, D., & Hoel, H. (2010). Organisational Causes of Workplace Bullying. Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace Developments in Theory, Research, and Practice, Second Edition, 140-243.
Schultz, D., & Schultz, S. (2010). Psychology and work today: An introduction to industrial and organizational psychology (10th ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Vera, D., & Crossan, M. (2004). Strategic Leadership and Organizational Learning. The Academy of Management Review, 222.
Woods, P. (2010). Democratic leadership: Drawing distinctions with distributed leadership. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 7(1), 3-26.
Please type your essay title, choose your document type, enter your email and we send you essay samples