Lewin’s Leadership Styles

Different people exhibit different leadership styles, and the leadership approach used may vary depending on the situation and the problem being addressed. Kurt Lewin, a famous psychologist, identified three major leadership styles commonly used by leaders. These are the laissez-faire approach, autocratic leadership, and democratic/participative leadership. Laissez-faire leadership is a style of leadership in which the leader’s participation in making decisions is minimal (Barman, 2009). In other words, laissez-faire leaders are largely permissive and abstain from leadership activities. Typically, all a laissez-faire leader does is to provide followers with necessary information and material resources needed to execute their duties; he/she then leaves them to figure out how to allocate these resources (Bosiok, 2013).

According to Barman (2009), laissez-faire leadership works best in situations where employees or followers have the capacity and motivation to make decisions independently, and where central coordination is not necessary. Unless followers are mature, motivated and competent enough, this style can lead to frustration while also causing low productivity (Roussel, Swansburg & Swansburg, 2006). I have seen the laissez-faire leadership style in the university where some professors will only provide students with an outline of what is expected to be covered then ask them to visit the library and study on the topics. The students are left to figure out whether to form discussion groups or approach the professor individually for assistance.

If a leader wants to give some level of autonomy to his/her followers, the democratic style would arguably be more appropriate. Here, the leader engages followers in making decisions and in operations. Followers are encouraged to take part in goal setting and to give their ideas on how problems can be solved. Democratic leaders desist from controlling their followers or giving detailed instructions; they allow followers to create plans and schedules on how to go about their duties (Bosiok, 2013). In short, democratic leaders consult their team members, value their input, and view effective communication as a two-way concept.

I would give my church as an illustration of democratic leadership. The bishop in charge highly values teamwork; he has created several teams and encourages every member of the church to identify the team he/she associates best with. These teams autonomously engage in charting the future of the church, participate in laying out strategic plans to achieve the vision of the church. He has developed a slogan/philosophy for the church: Everybody is somebody and Jesus is Lord. 

Autocratic leadership is the stark opposite of democratic leadership. Also known as authoritarian leadership, this is a style where the leader exercises absolute power over followers, making all decisions alone and demanding that co-workers follow the instructions as well as directives that he issues without questioning (Bosiok, 2013). This is to say that autocratic leaders do not solicit followers’ input when making decisions; the leader’s concern for task accomplishment is greater than any concerns that he/she may have for his/her people (Roussel et al., 2006). Unlike democratic leadership that upholds two-way communication, autocratic leadership is “characterized by unidirectional communication channels… [and] leaders are mostly not interested in feedback” (Bosiok, 2013 p.56). In light of this, autocratic leadership may breed resentment in teams while also stifling creativity.

It may be argued that autocratic leadership is commonly manifested in the political arena through dictatorial regimes, but I also think that some families exhibit autocratic leadership. I know of a family where the husband/father solely makes all decisions involving finances and the wife is not allowed to question how money was spent, despite them running a family business.

Having analyzed Lewin’s leadership styles, I can confidently say I currently lean towards democratic leadership. Except on a few occasions when I have to make personal decisions that affect my own life, I always endeavor to solicit the views and input of my colleagues and anyone who will be affected by decisions I make, whether directly or indirectly. My philosophy is that everyone’s opinion counts, and for this reason I always try to encourage every person in my team to participate. I firmly believe that engaging everybody can be highly motivating, and I always do my best to make my team members feel a valuable asset to the team.

In the workplace, for example, whenever I am tasked to plan and budget for a staff meeting or a major event, I always identify a number of people together with whom we can plan and develop the budget. Similarly, I lead a team with which we meet twice every month to discuss on strategies of achieving the goals that we set together as a team. In short, I am careful not to make any decisions without hearing what my team members have to say. In addition, I always try to identify people within my team who can be in charge of action plans and activities aimed at achieving the greater goal. In other words, I lead by delegating work together with authority as much as possible. All these behaviors make me a democratic leader.

I find the democratic leadership style highly effective, but I am aware that it has its merits and demerits just like any other leadership style. Regarding the merits, democratic leadership fosters collaboration in achieving goals (Gandolfi & Stone, 2017). It also promotes creativity, which may help in enhancing organizational effectiveness by delivering higher quality results. Similarly, democratic leadership promotes organizational commitment as employees feel valued and consider themselves key stakeholders in the organization (Martin & Edwards, 2016). In summary, this style has a motivational impact on employees.

On the negative side, democratic leadership can turn out to be problematic in the event that members generate diverse views and cannot agree on the best way forward (Barman, 2009). In some instances, team members may lack expertise or knowledge for making quality contributions. When this happens, the process of making decisions is negatively affected. Engaging everyone and allowing all members to give their views could be counterproductive in terms of affecting quantity of output (Martin & Edwards, 2016). On a different note, team members may become demoralized when their opinions are not factored in. this is a valid concern given that much as democratic leaders engage employees in making decisions, the leader still has the final say (Martin & Edwards, 2016).

Based on the strengths of democratic leadership, employees and the organization as a whole could benefit immensely from this approach. For example, encouraging participation by all promotes creativity, which could help the organization to develop innovative solutions to the challenges it faces. As employees engage in sharing their views, they might discover new talents they never thought they had. At the same time, employees get to learn from each other as they share ideas and thoughts.

On the flip side, democratic leadership may cause unforeseen problems and challenges for the leader. For instance, since participation by all is the key principle in this approach, the leader may find himself or herself in a situation where he/she cannot move forward unless all team members are satisfied. Although the leader has the ultimate decision, he/she must allow all team members to make their suggestions. This can be problematic especially when arguments and disagreements arise among team members. In such a scenario, the leader may first have to solve the conflicts before he/she can give the final verdict on which way to go. When this happens, valuable time is wasted and the leader has to find ways of making up for the lost time.

Although democratic leadership has its downsides, I still think it is the best approach to leadership. I do not say this because it is the style that I am currently inclined to, but it upholds the fact that employees are an organization’s most valuable asset. For me, there is no better way of showing employees that they are valued than involving them in decision-making and granting them autonomy in their work. Apart from this, democratic leadership is the best because it provides a rich, diverse collection of ideas and views that help in accomplishing goals. I also think that democratic leadership is best in managing change in firms.

References

Barman, M. (2009). Leadership management: Achieving breaksthroughs.  Blobal India Publ.

Bosiok, D. (2013). Leadership styles and creativity. Online Journal of Applied Knowledge Management (OJAKM), 1(2), 64-77.

Gandolfi, F., & Stone, S. (2017). The emergence of leadership styles: A clarified categorization. Revista De Management Comparat International, 18(1), 18.

Martin, H. & Edwards, K. (2016). The interaction between leadership styles and management level, and their impact on project success. Proceedings of International Structural Engineering and Construction, 3(2), 1-6.

Roussel, L., Swansburg, R. J., & Swansburg, R. C. (2006). Management and leadership for nurse administrators. Jones and Bartlett.