The paper "Leadership and Follow-Ship Styles" is an engrossing example of coursework on management. Effective leadership requires effective follow-ship because, without followers, there are no leaders. Leaders are in charge of a group or a team and they have to ensure that their teams achieve the objectives that were the basis for the formation of the group. A team can be defined as a group of interdependent individuals with complementary skills who are committed to a common purpose and set performance outcomes. During this class, we were placed in several groups and the aim of each team was to come up with a hotel simulation business plan.
During this period, I experienced not only different leadership styles but also followership styles. In this paper, I reflect on four leadership styles and four follow-ship styles with the objective of providing an opinion on whether the leadership styles were effective and productive. Laissez Faire In my estimation, the first leadership I experienced in the HOTS business plan team was laissez-faire. Pride, Hughes, and Kapoor (2010, p. 178) define the laissez-faire style of leadership as a situation whereby the leader of a team gives authority to the team members.
In our group, we had a team leader who was in charge of the team’ s activities. With the laissez-faire leadership, the leader allowed us to work as we pleased with minimal interference. Moreover, the other thing I found interesting about this style of leadership was the commutation style used by the team; the communication was horizontal rather than vertical and each team member had access to the leader (Tarsik, Kassim, and Nasharudin, 2014). Moreover, I think that with this style of leadership, work was made easier as each team member could chip in and help in various sections of the business plan.
Through this leadership style, as a team, we were able to identify the strengths of each team member. For example, I handled the inputting data that was used to develop a business plan. Despite the benefits of this leadership style, I find that due to the minimal interruption, there was no specific way of achieving the objectives of the team (Bhatti et al. , 2012). Authoritative The other leadership style that thinks I experienced during my time with the HOTS team was that of authoritative leadership.
Team leaders, in this case, make decisions quickly and encourage the team members to follow them based on their vision (Rothwell, 2009; Daft and Lane, 2008). The primary goal of this leadership style is to mobilize people towards a vision. At the beginning of the work the team was allocated, we appointed a team leader and in the beginning, the leader was authoritative. The leader had a vision for the group and this was to achieve the result of coming up with the business plan in time.
I think that this was hard for some team members who valued some other type of leadership. In my estimation, I think this style of leadership is not effective because it changes people’ s minds in an unfavorable situation. Moreover, I think that by applying the primary characteristics of the leadership style, results can be achieved in the short-term calling into question what could happen in the long-term. The primary characteristics of this style of leadership are enthusiasm and vision rather than criticism and the use of negative tactics (Ahlstrom and Bruton, 2010).
Although the leader had a vision, I think that for this vision to be effective, it had to be shared by all team members to achieve results.
Ahlstrom, D. and Bruton, G. (2010). International management. Australia: South-Western Cengage Learning.
Bhatti, N., Maitlo, G., Shaikh, N., Hashmi, M. and Shaikh, F. (2012). The Impact of Autocratic and Democratic Leadership Style on Job Satisfaction. IBR, 5(2).
Bryman, A. (2011). The SAGE handbook of leadership. London: Sage.
Chaleff, I. (2009). The Courageous Follower: Standing Up to and for Our Leaders. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Choong, G. (2011). Counter-cultural paradigmatic leadership: Ethical Use of Power in Confucian Societies. Eugene, or: Wipf & Stock.
Daft, R. (2015). The leadership experience. Australia: Cengage Learning.
Daft, R. and Lane, P. (2008). The leadership experience. Mason, OH: Thomson/South-Western.
Fairholm, M. and Fairholm, G. (2009). Understanding leadership perspectives. New York: Springer.
Hickman, G. (2009). Leading organizations. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Leonard, E. and Trusty, K. (2015). Supervision: concepts and practices of management, manual. Boston MA: Cengage Learning.
McCleskey, J. (2014). Situational, Transformational, and Transactional Leadership and Leadership Development. Journal of Business Studies Quarterly, [online] 5(4), pp.117-118. Available at: http://jbsq.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/June_2014_9.pdf [Accessed 24 Sep. 2015].
Moynihan, D., Pandey, S. and Wright, B. (2011). Setting the Table: How Transformational Leadership Fosters Performance Information Use. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(1), pp.143-164.
Northouse, P. (2010). Leadership. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Pride, W., Hughes, R. and Kapoor, J. (2010). Business. Mason, Ohio: South-Western Cengage Learning.
Riggio, R., Chaleff, I. and Lipman-Blumen, J. (2008). The art of followership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Rothwell, J. (2009). In mixed company: Communicating in Small Groups and Teams. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
Schedlitzki, D. and Edwards, G. (2014). Studying Leadership: Traditional and Critical Approaches. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Tarsik, N., Kassim, N. and Nasharudin, N. (2014). Transformational, Transactional or Laissez-Faire: What Styles do University Librarians Practice? Journal of Organizational Management Studies, pp.1-10.