Authoritarian Democratic and Laissez-Faire Leadership Styles
The authoritarian leadership approach is whereby the leader has individual control over almost if not everything. In addition, an authoritarian leader also takes little to no input from those they lead. An example of an authoritarian leader is Queen Elizabeth I, who exercised complete control of the United Kingdom. Some advantages of an authoritarian leadership style include. First, it is crucial to establish work standards and goals (Northouse, 2018). Second, it is both productive and effective, especially when the followers are not experienced. In contrast, some disadvantages include the high probability of abuse of power (Northouse, 2018). Secondly, this type of leadership leads to a loss of eccentricity, dependence, and humility.
Democratic leadership style involves group participation when it comes to decision-making processes. Leaders take up the role of a guide instead of a director. As such, it is shared leadership because everyone can participate in a leader’s role. Some advantages of democratic leadership include more group participation and better relationships (Northouse, 2018). There is also more creativity, commitment, and motivation from the followers. On the other hand, a disadvantage of this leadership style is that if even work is done successfully, it is not as efficient as it would be with other, more authoritative leaders.
The laissez-faire leadership approach is dissimilar to both the democratic leadership approach and the authoritarian leadership approach. Accordingly, using the Laissez-Faire approach, leaders are neither authoritative nor guide; rather, they take on a hands-off leadership (Northouse, 2018). Also known as nonleadership, Laissez-Faire style leaders have little to no influence over their followers. As such, this approach is known to have been the least effective.
From my perspective, I think of the ten characteristics of servant leadership noted by Spears: conceptualization, foresight, and persuasion are the hardest for public leaders to learn. Conceptualization means that one should be able to develop long-term goals and find ways to achieve those goals (Tran & Spears, 2020). However, the future is always uncertain, and anything can happen, case and point, such as the recent global pandemic. Therefore, trying to figure out the best long-term goal can be challenging. The same case applies to foresight. There is too much unpredictability because of a rapidly developing world. Lastly, persuasion can be a challenge for public leaders because today, with access to the internet, people can access a lot of misleading information, and this can prove a challenge to a leader. A good example is still related to the global pandemic, whereby there were numerous misconceptions about the virus (Mian & Khan, 2020). Many leaders could not persuade their followers with the correct information, leading to many casualties.
References
Mian, A., & Khan, S. (2020). Coronavirus: the spread of misinformation. BMC medicine, 18(1), 1-2.
Northouse, P. G. (2018). CUSTOM: Grand Canyon University ADM 620 Leading Public
Organizations Custom Electronic Edition. SAGE Publications, Incorporated.
Tran, D. Q., & Spears, L. C. (2020). Servant-leadership and community: Humanistic perspectives from Pope John XXIII and Robert K. Greenleaf. Humanistic Management Journal, 5(1), 117-131.
ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE
We’ll write everything from scratch
Question 
Discuss the authoritarian, democratic, and laissez-faire leadership styles.
Authoritarian Democratic and Laissez-Faire Leadership Styles
Which three of the ten characteristics noted by Spears do you think are most difficult for public leaders to learn? Explain why you think those are the most difficult.