This is “Directing”, section 6.4 from the book An Introduction to Business (v. 1.0).
This book is licensed under a Creative Commons by-nc-sa 3.0 license. See the license for more details, but that basically means you can share this book as long as you credit the author (but see below), don't make money from it, and do make it available to everyone else under the same terms.
This content was accessible as of December 29, 2012, and it was downloaded then by Andy Schmitz in an effort to preserve the availability of this book.
Normally, the author and publisher would be credited here. However, the publisher has asked for the customary Creative Commons attribution to the original publisher, authors, title, and book URI to be removed. Additionally, per the publisher's request, their name has been removed in some passages. More information is available on this project's attribution page.
For more information on the source of this book, or why it is available for free, please see the project's home page. You can browse or download additional books there. You may also download a PDF copy of this book (13 MB) or just this chapter (886 KB), suitable for printing or most e-readers, or a .zip file containing this book's HTML files (for use in a web browser offline).
The third management function is directingManagement process that provides focus and direction to others and motivates them to achieve organizational goals.—providing focus and direction to others and motivating them to achieve organizational goals. As owner and president of Notes-4-You, you might think of yourself as an orchestra leader. You have given your musicians (employees) their sheet music (plans). You’ve placed them in sections (departments) and arranged the sections (organizational structure) so the music will sound as good as possible. Now your job is to tap your baton and lead the orchestra so that its members make beautiful music together.F. John Reh, “Management 101,” About Management, http://management.about.com/cs/generalmanagement/a/Management101.htm (accessed May 3, 2006).
Actually, it’s fairly easy to pick up a baton, cue each section, and strike up the band. But it doesn’t follow that the music will sound good. What if your cues are ignored or misinterpreted or ambiguous? Maybe your musicians don’t like your approach to making music and will just walk away. On top of everything else, you don’t simply want to make music: you want to inspire your musicians to make great music. How do you accomplish this goal? How do you become an effective leader? What style, or approach, should you use to motivate others to achieve organizational goals?
Unfortunately, there are no definitive answers to questions like these. Over time, every manager refines his or her own leadership styleParticular approach used by a manager to interact with and influence others., or way of interacting with and influencing others. Despite a vast range of personal differences, leadership styles tend to reflect one of the following approaches to directing and motivating people: the autocratic, the democratic, or the laissez-faire. Let’s see how managerial styles reflect each of them in a work situation.
At first glance, you’d probably not want to work for an autocratic leader. After all, you certainly don’t want to be told what to do without having any input. You probably like the idea of working for a democratic leader; it’s flattering to be asked for your input. Though working in a laissez-faire environment might seem a little unsettling at first, the opportunity to make your own decisions is appealing.
In general, your assessments of the three leadership styles would be accurate. Employees generally dislike working for autocratic leaders; they like working for democratic leaders, and they find working for laissez-faire leaders rewarding (as long as they feel they can handle the job). But there are situations when these generalities don’t hold.
To learn what these situations are, let’s turn things around and pretend you’re the leader. To make it applicable to your current life, we’ll say that you’re leading a group of fellow students in a team project for your class. Are there times when it would be best for you to use an autocratic leadership style? What if your team was newly formed, unfamiliar with what needs to be done, under a tight deadline, and looking to you for direction? In this situation, you might find it appropriate to follow an autocratic leadership style (on a temporary basis) and assign tasks to each member of the group.
Now let’s look at the leadership style you probably prefer—the democratic leadership style. Can you think of a situation where this style would not work for your team? What if the members of your team are unmotivated, don’t seem interested in providing input, and aren’t getting along? It might make sense to move away from a democratic style of leadership (temporarily) and delegate specific tasks to each member of the group that they can do on their own.
How about laissez-faire leadership? Will this always work with your group? Not always. It will work if your team members are willing and able to work independently and welcome the chance to make decisions. Otherwise, it could cause the team to miss deadlines or do poorly on the project.
The point being made here is that no one leadership style is effective all the time for all people. While the democratic style is viewed as the most appropriate (as is the laissez-faire style, to a lesser extent), there are times when following an autocratic style is better. Good leaders learn how to adjust their styles to fit both the situation and the individuals being directed.
Theories on what constitutes effective leadership evolve over time. One theory that has received a lot of attention in the last decade contrasts two leadership styles: transactional and transformational. So-called transactional leadersManagers who exercise authority based on their rank in the organization and focus their attention on identifying mistakes. exercise authority based on their rank in the organization. They let subordinates know what’s expected of them and what they will receive if they meet stated objectives. They focus their attention on identifying mistakes and disciplining employees for poor performance. By contrast, transformational leadersManagers who mentor and develop subordinates and stimulate them to look beyond personal interests to those of the group. mentor and develop subordinates, providing them with challenging opportunities, working one-on-one to help them meet their professional and personal needs, and encouraging people to approach problems from new perspectives. They stimulate employees to look beyond personal interests to those of the group.
Transformational leaders work one-on-one with subordinates to encourage and motivate them.
© 2010 Jupiterimages Corporation
So, which leadership style is more effective? You probably won’t be surprised by the opinion of most experts. In today’s organizations, in which team building and information sharing are important and projects are often collaborative in nature, transformational leadership has proven to be more effective. Modern organizations look for managers who can develop positive relationships with subordinates and motivate employees to focus on the interests of the organization.See Karen Collins, Accountants’ Management Styles and Effectiveness (American Woman’s Society of Certified Public Accountants, 1997).
Compare and contrast three forms of leadership—democratic, autocratic, and laissez-faire. Which style would you prefer to use yourself? Which would you prefer your boss to use? Explain your answers in both cases. Next, compare and contrast the transactional-leadership style with the transformational-leadership style? Which style would you adopt as a manager, and why?