Four of the Most Basic Leadership Styles Are

8/4/2019 Four of the Most Basic Leadership Styles Are

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/four-of-the-most-basic-leadership-styles-are 1/8

Four of the most basic leadership styles are:

--Autocratic

--Bureaucratic

--Laissez-faire

--Democratic

This article will briefly define each style and describe the situations in which each one might be used.

Autocratic Leadership Style

This is often considered the classical approach. It is one in which the manager retains as much power and

decision-making authority as possible. The manager does not consult employees, nor are they allowed to give

any input. Employees are expected to obey orders without receiving any explanations. The motivation

environment is produced by creating a structured set of rewards and punishments.

This leadership style has been greatly criticized during the past 30 years. Some studies say that organizations

with many autocratic leaders have higher turnover and absenteeism than other organizations. Certainly Gen X

employees have proven to be highly resistant to this management style. These studies say that autocratic

leaders:

--Rely on threats and punishment to influence employees

--Do not trust employees

--Do not allow for employee input

Yet, autocratic leadership is not all bad. Sometimes it is the most effective style to use. These situations can

include:

--New, untrained employees who do not know which tasks to perform or which procedures to follow

--Effective supervision can be provided only through detailed orders and instructions

--Employees do not respond to any other leadership style

--There are high-volume production needs on a daily basis

--There is limited time in which to make a decision

--A manager's power is challenged by an employee

--The area was poorly managed

--Work needs to be coordinated with another department or organization

The autocratic leadership style should not be used when:



--Employees become tense, fearful, or resentful

--Employees expect to have their opinions heard

--Employees begin depending on their manager to make all their decisions

--There is low employee morale, high turnover and absenteeism and work stoppage

Bureaucratic Leadership Style

Bureaucratic leadership is where the manager manages "by the book¨ Everything must be done according to

procedure or policy. If it isn't covered by the book, the manager refers to the next level above him or her. This

manager is really more of a police officer than a leader. He or she enforces the rules.

This style can be effective when:

--Employees are performing routine tasks over and over.

--Employees need to understand certain standards or procedures.

--Employees are working with dangerous or delicate equipment that requires a definite set of procedures to

operate.

--Safety or security training is being conducted.

--Employees are performing tasks that require handling cash.

This style is ineffective when:

--Work habits form that are hard to break, especially if they are no longer useful.

--Employees lose their interest in their jobs and in their fellow workers.

--Employees do only what is expected of them and no more.

Democratic Leadership Style

The democratic leadership style is also called the participative style as it encourages employees to be a part of

the decision making. The democratic manager keeps his or her employees informed about everything that

affects their work and shares decision making and problem solving responsibilities. This style requires the

leader to be a coach who has the final say, but gathers information from staff members before making a

decision.

Democratic leadership can produce high quality and high quantity work for long periods of time. Many

employees like the trust they receive and respond with cooperation, team spirit, and high morale. Typically the

democratic leader:

--Develops plans to help employees evaluate their own performance

--Allows employees to establish goals



--Encourages employees to grow on the job and be promoted

--Recognizes and encourages achievement.

Like the other styles, the democratic style is not always appropriate. It is most successful when used with

highly skilled or experienced employees or when implementing operational changes or resolving individual or

group problems.

The democratic leadership style is most effective when:

--The leader wants to keep employees informed about matters that affect them.

--The leader wants employees to share in decision-making and problem-solving duties.

--The leader wants to provide opportunities for employees to develop a high sense of personal growth and job

satisfaction.

--There is a large or complex problem that requires lots of input to solve.

--Changes must be made or problems solved that affect employees or groups of employees.

--You want to encourage team building and participation.

Democratic leadership should not be used when:

--There is not enough time to get everyone's input.

--It's easier and more cost-effective for the manager to make the decision.

--The business can't afford mistakes.

--The manager feels threatened by this type of leadership.

--Employee safety is a critical concern.

Laissez-Faire Leadership Style

The laissez-faire leadership style is also known as the "hands-off¨ style. It is one in which the manager

provides little or no direction and gives employees as much freedom as possible. All authority or power is

given to the employees and they must determine goals, make decisions, and resolve problems on their own.

This is an effective style to use when:

--Employees are highly skilled, experienced, and educated.

--Employees have pride in their work and the drive to do it successfully on their own.



--Outside experts, such as staff specialists or consultants are being used

--Employees are trustworthy and experienced.

This style should not be used when:

--It makes employees feel insecure at the unavailability of a manager.

--The manager cannot provide regular feedback to let employees know how well they are doing.

--Managers are unable to thank employees for their good work.

--The manager doesn't understand his or her responsibilities and is hoping the employees can cover for him or

her.

Varying Leadership Style

While the proper leadership style depends on the situation, there are three other factors that also influence

which leadership style to use.

1. The manager's personal background. What personality, knowledge, values, ethics, and experiences does the

manager have. What does he or she think will work?

2. The employees being supervised. Employees are individuals with different personalities and backgrounds.

The leadership style managers use will vary depending upon the individual employee and what he or she will

respond best to.

3. The company. The traditions, values, philosophy, and concerns of the company will influence how a

manager acts.

Presidency

A veteran member of the Liberal Party founded by Roxas, Marcos sought the party nomination for

president in 1961, but gave way to Diosdado Macapagal as Liberal Party presidential candidate on the

agreement that Macapagal will support his candidacy in 1965. He served as Macapagal's campaign

manager and was elected president of the Liberal Party. In April 1964, he broke with the Liberal Party and

turned to Nacionalista by Jose B. Laurel Jr. after incumbent Philippine president and party chairman

Macapagal refused to honor their agreement and decided to run for reelection. He then ran as the

Nationalist Party candidate and won the presidency in 1965. In 1969 he was reelected, the first Philippinepresident to serve a second term. Concentrating on agriculture, industry, and education, the country's

economy grew during his first term. However, his administration was troubled by increasing student

demonstrations and violent urban-guerrilla activities perpetrated by the growing communist movement.

First Term (1966-1969)



In November 1965, Ferdinand Marcos was elected 10th President of the Republic of the Philippines.

During his inauguration on December 30, 1965, he vowed to fulfill the nation's "mandate for greatness"

and to be a "leader of the people." In his first State of the Nation Address (SONA) in January 1966, he

revealed his plans for economic development and good government. He wanted the immediate

construction of roads, bridges and public works which includes 16,000 kilometers of feeder roads, some

30,000 lineal meters of permanent bridges, a generator with an electric power capacity of one million

kilowatts (1,000,000 kW), water services to eight regions and 38 localities.

To fulfill his inaugural vow "to make this nation great again," he mobilized the manpower and resources of

the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) to complement civilian agencies in such activities such as

infrastructure construction; economic planning and program execution; regional and industrial site

planning and development; and barrio programs for community development. He hired technocrats and

highly educated persons to form part of his Cabinet and staff. His Cabinet included: Carlos P. Romulo

(Education); Rafael Salas, Executive Secretary; Jose Yulo (Justice); Marcelo Balatbat (Commerce);

Cesar Virata (Finance); Jose Aspiras (Press Secretary); Paulino Garcia (Health); Narciso Ramos (Foreign

Affairs); Claudio Teehankee, Undersecretary of Justice; Onofre Corpuz , Usec (later, Secretary) of

Education; Juan Ponce Enrile, Usec of Finance (later Secretary of National Defense); Fernando Campos,

Usec of Commerce; Romeo Edu, Commissioner on Land Transportation; Teotino Aguilar, Usec of

General Services; Benjamin del Rosario, General Manager of the GSIS; Blas Ople, Social Security

Commissioner (later, Secretary of Labor and Employment); Col. Salvador Villa, Chairman of PNR; former

Press Secretary Jose Nabu, Presidential Assistant on Housing; and Jose Zulueta, Presidential Consultant

on Local Government. He also formed a high level economic and development council.

His first term in office showed a lot of promise, building on the relatively robust economy by developing

the country's infrastructure, education, and agriculture. It was during his first term that rice production was

at its peak. Greater production of rice by promoting the cultivation of IR-8 hybrid rice. In 1968 the

Philippines became self-sufficient in rice, the first time in history since the American period. In addition,

the Philippines exported rice worth US$7 million. In foreign relations, he hosted the Manila Summit

Conference with the heads of member nations of the Southeast Asia Treaty

Organization (SEATO),President Marcos initiated, together with the heads of State in Southeast Asia

(Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and Singapore), the formation of a regional organization to combat the

communist threat in the region ± the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). He secured

increased economic and financial assistance from the United States, shortened the military bases

agreement from 99 years to 25 years, and hosted a seven-nation summit conference on the crisis in

South Vietnam. In October 1966, the Philippines hosted the summit of seven heads of state (United

States, South Vietnam, South Korea, Thailand, Australia, New Zealand and the Philippines) to discuss

the worsening problem in Vietnam and the containment of communism in the region. It was also during



his first term that the North Diversion Road was constructed with the help of the AFP engineering

construction battalion. The North Diversion Road, now known as North Luzon Expressway, initially went

from Balintawak to Tabang, Guiguinto, Bulacan.

Second Term (1969-1981)

In 1969, President Marcos was re-elected President of the Philippines for another 4 year term by

defeating Sergio Osmena, Jr., making him the only Philippine President to be re-elected in Philippine

history. The second term proved to be an overwhelming challenge to the re-elected President: an

economic crisis brought by external and internal forces. In 1969, the Philippines experienced higher

inflation rate and devaluation of the Philippine peso. Furthermore, the oil-producing Arab countries

decided to cut back oil production, in response to Western military aid to Israel in the Arab-Israeli conflict,

resulting in higher fuel prices worldwide. In addition, the frequent visits of natural calamities brought

havoc to infrastructures and agricultural crops and livestock, and the combined external and internal

economic forces led to uncontrolled increase in the prices of prime commodities. A restive and radicalized

student activists demanding reforms in the educational system and opposition to several government

policies; On January 30, 1970, demonstrators numbering about 50,000 students and laborers stormed

the Malacañang Palace, and crashing a fire truck through Gate 4 that had been forcibly commandeered

by the students and laborers. The Metropolitan Command (MetroCom) of thePhilippine Constabulary (PC)

pushed them back to Mendiola Bridge. The event was dubbed as the "First Quarter Storm. In October

1970, a series of violence occurred in numerous campuses in the Greater Manila Area. The University of

the Philippines was not spared when 18,000 students boycotted their classes to demand academic and

non-academic reforms in the State University resulting in the 'occupation' of the office of the President of

the University by student leaders. Other schools which were scenes of violent student demonstrations

were: Philippine College of Commerce (now Polytechnic University of the Philippines (PUP)) San

Sebastian College, University of the East, Letran College, Mapua Institute of Technology, University of

Sto. Tomas and FEATI University. Student demonstrators even succeeded in occupying the Office of the

Secretary of Justice Vicente Abad Santos for at least seven hours. The President described the

brief communization of theUniversity of the Philippines and the violent demonstrations of the Left-leaning

students as an "act of insurrection." There were incidents of killings, bombings, breakdown of law and

order, and warlordism in different parts of the country; the rise of left-leaning groups and Communist

insurgents. In 1969, the New People's Army had conducted raids, resorted to kidnappings and taken part

in other violent incidents numbering 230, in which it inflicted 404 casualties, and in turn, suffered 243

loses. In 1970, its record of violent incidents was about the same, but the NPA casualties more than

doubled. In the early 70's, violent land disputes and other social tensions eventually gave way to the

formation of vigilante groups that acted like private armies of politicians, or rich Christians/Muslims land

owners. The communal violence in Mindanao resulted in 100,000 refugees, burning of hundred of homes,



and the death of hundreds of Christians and Muslims in Cotabato and Lanao. The violence garnered

international attention and sympathy from the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) as well as other

Muslim countries like Libya--which provided military training and logistics to Moro Rebels. Muslim

secessionism was one of the reasons for declaring Martial Law.

On August 21, 1971, following the bombing of the Liberal Party proclamation rally in Plaza Miranda,

President Marcos issued Proclamation No.889 suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. The

Supreme Court affirmed the basis for the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in 1971

(Lansang vs. Garcia, 42 SCRA 449. The ponencia was penned by Chief Justice Roberto Concepcion and

concurred by Justices J.B.L. Reyes, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Teehankee, Barredo, Villamor and Makasiar.

Justices Castro and Barredo concurred fully in a separate opinion). On January 7, 1972, he restored the

privilege of the writ of habeas corpus throughout the country. However, the country still faced continuous

subversive activities to overthrow the government. Bombings linked to the Radical left (the Communists)

intensified throughout the country. In 1970: A bomb exploded at the Joint US Military Advisory Group

Headquarters in Quezon City (January), two Catholic schools and two government buildings in Calbayog

City were blasted with dynamites (December). In 1971: Oil firms in Manila were bombed resulting indeaths and injuries. In 1972: a grenade was hurled at the ABS-CBN tower in January; the United States

Embassy was bombed in February; a pillbox explosives were hurled at the gate of the Malacañang

Palace and an explosion in the Greater Manila Terminal Food Market in March; the US Embassy was

again bombed in April; a time bomb exploded in the Court of Industrial Relations in June; the Philamlife

Building in Ermita, Manila was bombed in July. In September, bombs exploded in Carriedo Street

in Quiapo, the Manila City Hall, and at the Quezon City Hall which disrupted the plenary session of the

Constitutional Convention and proceedi YEAR AGO this week, on 30 June 2010, Benigno Simeon

Aquino III, known as ³Noynoy,´ was sworn in as president of the Philippines. He came to power with

a sense of destiny derived, above all, from his parents. His father, Benigno ³Ninoy´ Aquino, was

gunned down on the tarmac of the Manila airport when he returned to the Philippines in August

1983 to lead the opposition against dictator Ferdinand Marcos. His mother, Corazon Cojuangco Aquino, became the iconic leader of a Yellow Revolution that captivated the world. Thrust into the

presidency upon the downfall of Marcos in the People Power uprising of February 1986, she

remained a widely respected figure in Philippine politics until her death from cancer in August 2009.

This sense of destiny figured prominently in Noynoy¶s inaugural speech last June. ³I will not be able

to face my parents and you who have brought me here,´ he proclaimed, ³if I do not fulfil the promises

I made. My parents sought nothing less, died for nothing less, than democracy and peace. I am

blessed by this legacy. I shall carry the torch forward.´

As everyone in the crowd was aware, the torch of leadership wouldn¶t have been in Noynoy¶s hands if

not for the legacy of his parents. No one seriously considered him a presidential prospect until his

mother¶s death less than twelve months before the inauguration, when an outpouring of grief and

nostalgia propelled him into the race ± and eventually into the presidential palace, with the mostdecisive electoral margin of the post-Marcos years. When the father was assassinated at age fifty,

many speculated regretfully as to what more he might have accomplished had he lived on. When the

son assumed the presidency at age fifty, after a notably lacklustre record as a legislator, many

speculated hopefully that there were many important accomplishments to come.

One year on, opinion polls still register strong public approval and trust ratings for the president. He

continues to enjoy a strong mandate for change, generated partly by the record-breaking

unpopularity of his predecessor, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. While Arroyo came to be viewed as a



cynical manipulator intent on empowering and enriching herself at any cost, Noynoy is generally

seen as a man with good intentions trying to do right by the country as a whole.

But are good intentions enough? The record of Aquino¶s first year is decidedly mixed. A new style of

leadership has begun to engender new hopes in the capacity of the country to begin to resolve its

deeply entrenched problems. But there is also a strong sense that the achievements to date are

insufficient for the magnitude of the country¶s multiple challenges. Marites Vitug, a leadinginvestigative journalist, has perhaps captured it best in a recent column addressed directly to

Aquino: ³Overall, Mr President, you¶ve changed the tone of leadership. But that should only be the

beginning.´

ngs in a subversive case before the Court of First Instance.

Documents

Four of the Most Basic Leadership Styles Are