Posted at 10.13.2018
Keywords: evaluating management styles, management style evaluation, laissez faire management
Whether you are captaining your team, handling a little group at work or leading employees in a sizable company, your management style is essential to your success. There is no hesitation that the director deals with his / her employees with different strategies. Some are rigorous with their staff and prefer to control every thought and step of their workers, while others tend to be flexible and invite workers freedom to perform their own working styles. Whichever style is used, will be vital to the success or inability of the business business. Recent developments in general management have heightened the need for leadership styles. All together, there a wide range of management styles, and, through the history, both main categories of leadership styles are laissez faire and democratic styles. The aim of this paper is to compare democratic and laissez faire styles. In terms of decision-making, communication, skill requirements, and job priorities. In addition, it will assess how they (laissez faire and democratic styles) have an impact on employee drive in terms of decision-making, skill requirements, communication and problems priorities.
Firstly, Ciulla (2004:22) says that "A head is someone who has the ability to get other people to do what they do not wish to accomplish and enjoy it. Furthermore, he defines management style as "the management strategy that a person exhibits through verbal and non verbal communication which includes a team-oriented or specific employee approach". Relating Adam (1982:416), democratic means "sorted out in line with the concept that everyone deserves to be involved in making decisions". Finally, as Bass (2006) suggested that laissez faire is used to describe a leader who leaves her or his staff to get on with their work after figuring out the responsibilities required.
With respect to decision-making, delegation of responsibility is comparable in both democratic and laissez faire styles, Matching to Hannagan (2005), democratic professionals delegate authority to their personnel and build trust by giving them responsibility and promoting them to create ideas and make decision. Also, she or he encourages their employees to complete the duties using their own work methods. Furthermore, the democratic supervisor is hypersensitive to the impact he or she has on their employees and tries to change their style to achieve the best results. In the same way, the laissez faire director delegates the responsibility of decision-making to his or her staff and gives them complete freedom to complete the jobs as they see it fit. Actually, they completely trust that their employees may take the right decisions without the uncertainty. They, also, expect them to take the responsibility of achieving the jobs and the company aims with ideal approaches. On one hand, there are benefits for delegating the specialist and responsibility of earning decision to the employee which might develop her or his responsibility taking. In a report of Watson and Hassett (2003:47) found that writing inputs by the workers to the managers can lead to better decision-making and improve their motivation by giving them fair amount of responsibility and permitting them to challenge themselves which leads employees to be more enthused to work and enjoy what they do. Alternatively, both democratic and laissez faire styles are not extremely effective if the labor force is inexperienced, because employees need a good amount of experience to make the right decisions which is often a crucial have an effect on with respect to worker drive.
A second similarity between democratic and laissez faire styles is the nice two-way communication between your manager and his or her employees. Furthermore, the work of Fryer (2004) implies that both democratic and laissez faire styles allows open and revolving communication with their workers. It's important to indicate that democratic style requires a high two-way communication and usually requires a democratic talk group which may offer useful ideas and lead to distinguishing results. Many democratic managers seek to know the opinions of their employees and let their opinion be known. Furthermore, Fryer (2004:50) records that "the democratic director listens to their ideas and provides them encouragement". It must therefore be accepted that they welcome worker questions and reviews on the results of these decisions and ask for any suggestions for advantages of working environment. Similarly, laissez faire market leaders provide employee with the materials they need to accomplish their goals and they are always there for his or her employees who might face challenges or have questions by advising and helping them so they can solve their issues. The evidence seems to show that the nice two-way communication in both democratic and laissez faire styles could increase employees drive when workers believe that their opinion counts. Because of this, they may be more focused on attaining the goals and targets of the group.
In terms of the differences between laissez faire and democratic styles, the most significant the first is problem priorities for professionals and how this can affect employee desire. The work of Bass (2006) unveils that laissez faire market leaders set overall priority or instruction, then they avoid taking stand in issues. So, jobs can be remaining to perform on the staff own way and sometimes they cannot do it. Furthermore, laissez faire market leaders are disorganized in managing priorities, especially when they need to take one side in a dispute. In addition they as Bass (2006: 206) goes on to "divert attention from hard choices", and present a limited attention to employee's difficulties. In general, they give their workers the main tasks without outlining how they may reach them. Because of this, this might make the staff believe that the laissez faire manager will not take their job seriously and is not meet the responsibility of administrator. Furthermore, as Bass (2006) highlights, because the component of administrative guideline is removed which is the intervention of the manager, employees may feel overlook or dismissed. Democratic professionals, on the other hands, always focus on both completing tasks at the time and exactly how these tasks make a difference staff emotions and lives. This would make employees feel that the director understands them as they understand him or her not with power or fear but because of this of mutual understanding. Another important dissimilar to note is the fact democratic leaders concentrate on how can they enhance their employees by stimulating them to convey their recommendations and asking other employees to give their advice. It is clear therefore that professionals realize if the employee has a sense of comfort and that belong that could reveal in his / her performance in work. So, if she or he concentrates on the employee needs that may facilitate achieving the objectives of the company. Thus maybe it's figured democratic style can be more effective on worker motivation. Also, it might lead to a substantial rise alternatively than laissez faire style by assisting others to become leaders and be involved in management development.
Another manner in which democratic and laissez faire styles will vary is staff skill requirements. Laissez faire style needs highly professional staff with an innovative staff since the laissez faire administrator assigns the responsibilities and allows workers freedom to perform the tasks as they view it fit. Thus, if the employee do not has enough knowledge or self-confidence she or he might face inability or has thoughts of inferiority. Bass (2006:206) gives a good example of sales laissez faire managers who "regularly advised their sales team that these were working on strategies, however they provided little direction and were frequently absent from the office. The sales personnel took it after themselves to build up strategies and make decision". The evidence seems to be strong that the team must have specialist skills and Self-confident to complete the duties without manager's teaching or guidance. In addition, employees might feel lost or frustrated which weakens his or her motivation and reduces their curiosity about working. On the other hand, democratic manager needs the duty for personnel development and, generally; she or he enhances continuing progression. This responsibility of the democratic administrator can raise staff motivation step-by-step and daily. However, laissez faire style could raise the employee drive if the employee has a creative sense and many experience for the laissez faire administrator who can recognize any useful ideas for the company. On this basis it could inferred that this would make the employee feels liked and belonging. Thus maybe it's concluded that there are several benefits and drawbacks for both democratic and laissez faire styles. It must therefore be recognized that the successful supervisor must use both styles as the task environment requires each day.
In summary, this essay has shown similarities and distinctions between democratic and laissez faire styles and has showed how it is affect employee motivation in conditions of decision-making, communication, supervisor priorities and skill requirements. Furthermore, it shows that democratic and laissez faire styles are similar in conditions of delegating the authority and how this can increase the staff motivation by allowing them to challenge themselves. Because of this, this can lead employees to become more committed, enthused to work and enjoy what they do. However, democratic style in general increases the staff motivation because the democratic manager takes responsibility of learn and learning. There is, therefore, the need to use different styles in several situations to obtain equal development for both director and employees because every style is complementary to some other and the leader can never dispense the other methods of management if she or he aims for success in their company.