Leadership Styles Essay

Most individuals probably feel as if they know enough about leadership to speak on the subject. In many cases, however, this is not truly the case at all. Leadership is a broad concept, and there are several different styles and approaches to consider when studying the topic. It is important to consider these styles and approaches when evaluating the effectiveness, or lack thereof, of any particular form of leadership. With that in mind, this essay will consider the leadership styles of two leaders who are involved in the current presidential election process. Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, and Gary Johnson, the Libertarian nominee each utilize different leadership styles, though, the two operate within the same professional arena. That said, the two candidates share the same battle of being outsider candidates struggling to gain notoriety and momentum from a portion of the voting population no longer willing to support mainstream political candidates. This essay begins with a theoretical discussion of leadership and then focuses on the two political leaders, comparing and contrasting each one. This will allow for conclusions to be drawn about how they both work within the same public sphere, while employing different styles to earn votes.

Which leadership style is best for certain situations? There are many different types of leadership styles that are best for certain situations or special circumstances. There are leaders that are visionaries, some who command and coach, others that set high standards for those whom they are in charge of, and still more who focus on democratic ways of doing things along with team work. The question leaders and ordinary people must ask is this: if a situation comes down to it, when you must rely on a leader; what is the best style, and how will their decisions affect those they are in charge of?

The first leadership style is the Directing style (S1), this is where the leader provides direction to their members who are committed to doing a specific task but lack the necessary abilities to do so. This type of leadership style is more of a one way communication from the leader to his/her members. The focus of this style is more on getting the task done rather than building a relationship. The second leadership style is the Coaching style (S2), under this style the leader still need to direct his/her members but not as much as the directing style. This style will help the members develop skills and a sense of reasoning by encouraging them to share ideas and suggestions rather than the leader directing and tell the members what should be done. The leader will focus on both the task and relationship which can help boast both employee’s performance and self-esteem. The third leadership style is the Supporting style (S3), in this style the leader is more of a democratic leader and focuses more on building relationships and less on the task to be done. The leader encourages and work together with his/her members to create their goals and also ask their members for advice on the best way to approach a task. With this style, the leader will provide positive feedback and involve their members in decision making to help improve their performance and skills. The final leadership style under the situational leadership model is the Delegating style (S4), the leader gives

The Contingency Theory applied to factors unique to each situation to determine whether specific leader characteristics and behaviors will be effective. Researched findings credit Fiedler 's contingency theory as the first to specify how situational factors interact with leader traits and behavior to influence leadership effectiveness. This theory suggests high interest in the situation determines the effectiveness of task- and person-oriented leader behavior.

primarily determined by selecting the right leader for a certain situation (characterized by assessing leader-member relations, task structure, and position power; Fiedler, 1967) or by changing the situation to fit the particular leader’s style. House’s path-goal model, being more complex than the other two, assumes that leadership styles vary not only with different subordinates but also with the same subordinates in different situations. On the other hand, the theories clearly share some common points. First, all the theories contain situational moderating variables. Second, they implicitly assume that leaders can properly assess pivotal follower and situational factors. Third, leaders make their behaviors contingent on the followers and the situation. Compared to the former approaches, situational models conceptualize leadership as an interpersonal process, concern with follower, task, and situational variables rather than focus

Choosing the right leadership style of the situation or employee is very important, but just as important is choosing the right leadership style for the organization. Every organization has their own culture and that culture often lends itself to a particular leadership style or styles. If the leadership style your manager uses is in contrast with the culture of the organization there can be difficulties. Not only could this lead to a butting heads between the leadership of the organization, but also the employees are often left confused and bewildered by the conflicting information of what they know of the organization and the instructions they are receiving from their manager. Hiring leaders and management for your organization whose

The same principles underlie many other approaches such as a Fiedler’s contingency model of leadership suggest a productive group and effective performance of a team is based upon the style of leadership and to an extent to which the leader is able to apply his leadership qualities under given circumstances. The style of the leader is determined in terms of relationship and tasks, whereas the situational factors will include the power of the leader, relationship with the follower and the level of the situation. This theory assumes that a task-oriented leader will be extremely effective when he is able to control and influence his subordinates and the situation. On the other, a relationship-oriented leader will be extremely effective when there will be less control over the situation (Yukl, 2001).

The success of a leader depends on the type of leadership style that he or she uses in a situation. We can use the metaphor of leaders as farmers. The type of equipment that the farmer uses take to farm the land and the way that he or she uses the equipment will determine how productive the effort will be. If the farmer takes an axe to plough the land instead of a plough, well, the result will be a disaster. That said, there is a time and place for all leadership styles (Rhea Blanken). In the following paragraphs, we will explain the eight common leadership styles, when to use them, the impact that each has on an individual, the management, and the organization.

Situational leadership: According to this theory, the effectiveness of the leader is significantly correlated with situational factors which restrict the performance of the leader positively or negatively. In other words, “the efficiency of leader’s skills or traits are determined by the situation in which leaders exercise leadership” (Dessler,1976), These factors are:

The incompatibility between leadership style and the situation might lead to failure and result in negative outcomes. This theory is predictive and suggests that leaders should not be expected to be successful leaders in every situation. "Contingency theory matches the leader and the situation, but does not demand that the leader fit every situation." (Northouse, 2013). From this view, being successful in one situation, does not exclude failure in other situation.

The model suggests that there are certain contingency factors that dictate how the various leadership approaches should be chosen. The contingency factors are follower development, task structure and situational urgency. The various leadership approaches include the directive, transformational and empowering, and transactional.

(Scott, 1981). The theory’s basic assumption is that there is no particular leadership style that suits all situations. The favorableness of the situation decides on the type of leadership style that has got to be adopted (Fiedler, 1967). Fiedler’s Contingency Theory of Leadership (1967), identified three factors that determine the favorableness of the situation and based upon the situation, the type of leadership that has got to be adopted. The first factor is the leader and member relationship which refers to the level of mutual trust and respect between the leader and the memebers. The second factor is task structure which refers to extent to which group tasks are clear and structured. The third factor is the leader’s position power which refers to the power of the leader’s position itself. Based upon the three factors, for favorable situations task-oriented leadership style and for moderately favorable situations relationship-oriented leadership style should be

One tactic management may use to provide the flexibility required for various situations is the contingency approach. This is approach recognizes that organizations are different, thus they require different management methods (Robbins & Coulter, 2007, p. 39). Fiedler’s Contingency Model states that a leader’s character and situation are the two factors affecting performance (Greer & Plunket, 2003; Mitchell, Biglan, Oncken & Fiedler, 1970). Each of these two factors has variables involved such as task or relationship oriented as part of their character and how much the leader feels accepted, whether a task is structured versus defined, and the level of power he or she has over others as part of their situation (Greer & Plunket, 2003; Mitchell et al., 1970).

Leadership style is the manner and approach of providing direction, implementing plans and motivating people. Leadership is important to a company’s productivity. The methods and manner that a manger uses to encourage employees towards the achievement of the companies objective is mean by leadership style.

Division of Public Administration and Policy, School of Political Sciences, University of Haifa, Haifa, Isreal