Leadership and management theories
Leadership has generally been defined as “an interaction between two or more members of a group that often involves a structuring or restructuring of the situation and the perceptions and ex-perceptions of the members… Leaderships occur when one group member modified the motivation of competencies of others in the group. Any member of the group can exhibit some amount of leadership…”[1].
A leadership style refers to the leader’s characteristic behaviour in relation to motivating, guiding and managing groups.
Kurt Lewis conducted some of the most important early studies of leadership and leadership styles[2]. His studies showed that there were three main different styles; an autocratic, democratic and laissez-faire. I have chosen to assess these three different leadership styles, as they are the foundation from which all leadership styles have developed.
The main difference between the leadership styles lies in the amount of control the individuals have over the decision-making process[3]. The amount of employee influence in relation to each leadership style can be seen in the figure below[4]. On the left, the boss-centred leadership (or autocratic leadership) is located, where the manager makes all decisions. On the other end of the spectrum is the subordinate-centred leadership (Laissez-Faire), where the subordinates make the decisions. The democratic leadership will be somewhere in the middle of the figure.
Autocratic leadership
Autocratic leadership is also known as authoritarian leadership. This leadership style is characterised by a dominating leader[5], who takes control over all decisions with little or no input from employees. The leader will exercise an absolute power and demands strict compliance and conformity.[6]
The autocratic leadership style can have some advantages; decision-making will become easier, as it is not necessary to take everyone’s ideas and thoughts into consideration. The leadership will prove itself to be very efficient and tasks will be completed quickly.[7] The leadership style can also become relevant in stressful situations, where the individual employees might prefer to have the leader make the hard decisions; and it also lets the individual focus more on his specific tasks. The style will most often be used in a “highly structured, hierarchical chain-of-command environment such as the military or very bureaucratic organizations”[8]
The main problem with this leadership style is the lack of trust in the employees. This in itself can become demotivating for the individual, which results in a minimum on innovation and creativity, and it can also result in less commitment to stay as an employee in the group. Autocratic leadership can therefore cause less stability and more hostility in the group[9].
This leadership style can be relevant in relation to live event management. Especially in crises and other situations, where effeciency is crucial. This could for example be during the execution of the event itself, where the decision-making has to be quick in order to avoid accidents, confusions and other problems. Autocratic leadership will particulary be usefull in relation to the staff, who has not been a part of the previous planning of the event, as they will need to have more direct and strict commands, since they do not have the deep knowledge about the event itself.
Democratic leadership
Kurt Lewin and his colleagues formatted the classic definition of democratic leadership. They argued that democratic leadership relied on group decision-making, active member involvement, honest praise and criticism and a degree of companionship. The style is created on basic democratic ideas such as “self-determination, inclusiveness, equal participation and deliberation”[10]. The democratic leader (or participative) delegates power to others while encouraging participation from the employees.[11] The leader will be able to exploit the individual’s knowledge and skills. Opposed to the autocratic leadership, democratic leadership establishes a loyalty bond between the employer and the employees, as the employee often can feel more appreciated and involved in the process. Because they are a part of the decision-making, then the employees often get more committed to the project and more ambitious about the result[12].
The democratic leadership style is often seen as the most effective; it leads to higher productivity, better contributions from employees and higher group morale. Downsides to this theory can be that the leadership is not as effective; as it has to take into account all the ideas and suggestions made by the employees. The style will also not be appropriate if the employees do not possess the necessary skills to fulfil their tasks[13].
Democratic leadership will be useful during the event planning process, where it will be relevant to get input from all employees to ensure that the best possible decisions will be made, and it will often be possible to take the extra time to make the descions in this part of the event process.
References
[1] B. Bass, Bass & Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research & Managerial Applications (New York: The Free Press, 1990), 19-20.
[2] K. Lewin, R. Lippit and R.K. White, `Patterns of Aggressive Behavior in Experimentally Created Social Climates´, Journal of Social Psychology, 10 (1939), 271-301.
[3] M. Van Vugt et al., `Autocratic Leadership in Social Dilemma: A Threat to Group Stability´, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40 (2004) 11.
[4] Robert Tannenbaum and Warren H. Schmidt, `How to Choose a Leadership Pattern´, Harvard Business Review, May Issue (1973), 4.
[5] John Gastil, `A Definition and Illustration of Democratic Leadership´, Human Relations, 47/8 (1994), 955.
[6] Ronald Goodnight: `Laissez-Fair Leadership´ in Encyclopaedia of Leadership (SAGE Publications, 2004) 821.
[7] K. Blanchard and P. Hersey, `A New Paradigm of Leadership´ 1997.
[8] Ronald, Goodnight: `Laissez-Fair Leadership´ in Encyclopaedia of Leadership (SAGE Publications, 2004) 821.
[9] M. Van Vugt et al., `Autocratic Leadership in Social Dilemma: A Threat to Group Stability´, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40 (2004), 3.
[10] John Gastil, `A Definition and Illustration of Democratic Leadership´, Human Relations, 47/8 (1994), 956.
[11] Richard Daft, The Leadership Experience, /Cengage Learning, 2011) 44.
[12] Kendra Cherry, `What is Democratic Leadership?´, available at <http://psychology.about.com/od/leadership/f/democratic-leadership.htm>, assessed 24th of April 2015.
[13] Kendra Cherry, `What is Democratic Leadership?´, available at <http://psychology.about.com/od/leadership/f/democratic-leadership.htm>, assessed 24th of April 2015.
[14] Ronald, Goodnight: `Laissez-Fair Leadership´ in Encyclopaedia of Leadership (SAGE Publications, 2004) 822.
[15] Ronald, Goodnight: `Laissez-Fair Leadership´ in Encyclopaedia of Leadership (SAGE Publications, 2004) 820.
[16] Ronald, Goodnight: `Laissez-Fair Leadership´ in Encyclopaedia of Leadership (SAGE Publications, 2004) 820.
[17] Dennis Coon and John O Mitterer, Psychology: A Journey, (Cengage Learning, 4. Edition) 367.
[18] Dennis Coon and John O Mitterer, Psychology: A Journey, (Cengage Learning, 4. Edition) 367.
[19] Ed Catmull, ´How Pixar Fosters Collective Creativity´, Harward Business Review September Issue (2008), available at <https://hbr.org/2008/09/how-pixar-fosters-collective-creativity>.
Laissez Faire
A Laissez-Faire leadership has a hands-off approach to leadership; where the employees have full freedom to make decisions and do what they want[14]. It can actually be argued that laissez-faire and leadership are direct opposites, since leadership is an “interactive process that provides much needed guidance and direction”[15] and laissez-faire leaders give neither of these. Laissez-Faire leadership can either prove itself to be the worst of best of the leadership styles; if the hands-off approach is to work, then it is necessary that the employees have received the required preparation.[16] This leadership style will only be effective if the employees are highly skilled, motivated and able to work on their own. So before using this leadership style these three requirements of the employees have to be assessed. If the employees do not have these skills, then this can have negative implications on the work.
The lack of involvement by the leader can either have a positive or negative effect on the employees. Some employees can see the lack of direction as freeing and it can make them feel more satisfied about their own influence on their work, as they can follow their own passion and motivation. People who are “intrinsic motivated” (motivated by internal rewards, such as the opportunity to explore, learn or actualise his own potential)[17] will often prefer a laissez-faire leadership. But “extrinsic motivated” people (motivated by external rewards such as money, fame, praise and grades)[18] will not work well under this leadership style as they can feel that their leaders do not care about the project and therefore they loose interest in the project.
Overall, laissez-faire leadership can have negative effects. But when the leader assesses that the employee has gained all the necessary skills and experience, a minimal leadership involvement can become workable.
Lasses-Faire will probably be the best leadership style to use in relation to the creative process of the event planning. During this process it has to ensured that the creativity does not get suffocated by the strict management. So the artists have to be given the maximum level of freedom in order to make the creativity blossom. This increasing of the creativity will happen, because the artists will see the freedom as a sign of trust and respect [19].
.