The different styles of leadership

Styles in Self-Insight and Professional Growth

What are the styles of a leader?

Leaders are autocratic, laissez-faire, and democratic. (Self-governing, independent) The first style is someone that must make all decisions; the second is someone that involves self in-group activities while encouraging others to take the lead. This person will give other people right away to make his or her own choices. The democratic is someone that allows things to take place and will only intervene when he or she does not have other options.

The first leader type often products crafts. This leader often drifts off when superior leaders are not present. The products that he or she designs are often substandard compared to the democratic leader’s designs. The democratic leader often finds a way to solve problems without using aggression or violence. In addition, this type will feel a greater sense of contentment. The Laissez-faire type rarely feels efficient or content. During studies, it showed that democratic leaders are both inspiring and competent. The Laissez-faire type has the capacity to be ecologically aware but not contented at the same time. The Laissez-Faire type is someone that is not the hands-on type, and someone that is unautocratic. They often are accommodating, lenient, nonjudgmental, and someone that is liberal.

Autocratic are often tyrannical. They repress and oppress others from taking the lead. These people can become overbearing, domineering, and unreasonable. This is the traits of a poor leader. Their dictatorial status makes them the high-hands in society that no one wants to meet or deal with, yet they are everywhere.

Democratic leaders are equal people that live under the self-rules of their own establishment. This type is likely to pursue professional growth by using his or her, own self-insight. Likely, this one will succeed. The autocratic on the other hand, despite of the many successes he may claim, in due time, this leader will fall flat on his or her face.

By considering the types of leaders, one can decide what type of leader he or she already is; and then move to expand on his or her qualities and skills. During I/O studies, i.e. Industrial/organizational, scientists of psychology ventured to explore the types of leaders. Upon completing several experiments that soon learned that 2-D, i.e. dimensions played into guidelines of defining a leader’s type. That is they considered the task and relationship point of reference.

Psychology basis its discoveries on measurement, divisions, contrast, logic, commonsense, and so on. These disjunctive divisions form as numbers, which the problems are then presented to attempt solving the most complex problems by considering the tasks. Along the lines of these tasks, each variant of the tasks are considered, which include: “Non-Eureka and Eureka.” What this means is that we respond to something positive by expressing triumph. We express joy when we discover something new, find answers to problems, or succeed at completing a task. On the other hand, we roll back the rug and claim, here it is when we feel the Eureka spirit, yet when we feel the non-Eureka feeling, and often we feel little if any satisfaction. Usually, when we discover something, we often deliberate to see if it is true. The relationship and point of reference perceptions is based on the way we understand words, and how one leader differentiates. It is the focus of competence based on how the leader views the feelings of his or her workers.

This takes us above the limits of leaderships types, taking us into the cross fires of cultural, bureau agencies, and unity. Trust me; you do not want to be caught up in this cross fire until you start to see how styles of leaderships factor into using self-insight for professional growth.
-----------
2007-2008 Timothy Watson