Introduction
The mode and method of giving direction, plan implantation and human capital motivation best describes the leadership style and decision-making style at my place of work. My place of work is typically where the seniors tell the workers what they want accomplished as well as how they want it done without necessarily seeking the followers’ pieces of advice concerning the work. Basically, the leaders always believe that they have all the knowledge and information pertinent for solving a given problem and quite often feel that they are short of time while handling a given issue. Moreover, the leaders haul at the employees’ undignified language. It is always common for an employee to be issued with threats of either lay off or demotion. The leaders always give no room for employees’ participation in the organization’s decision making process.
Like many organizations and workplaces, the bank where I work, uses training as a tool to nurture the employee behavior. Seminars are normally organized for the leaders where they are coached on the necessary adjustments on their leadership styles to aid in achieving the objectives of the organization. Leaders also coach other employees in the respective departments on what the organization expects of them.
My leadership style is dictated by the forces that are involved between the situation at the place of work, followers and my leader. This implies that my leadership style and decision making style is to a greater extent influenced by the followers, my leaders as well as the work situation. My leadership is defined by four different leadership styles: participative style, delegative style as well as authoritarian style as dictated by circumstances (Northouse, 2009). This is investigated as below based on the questionnaires.
The questionnaire is about the different Path-Goal Leadership styles. Based on the given statements, the following key has been used to complete the questionnaire.
1 = Never; 2 = Hardly ever; 3 = Seldom; 4 = Occasionally; 5 = Often; 6 = Usually; 7 = Always
Statement
The styles investigated herein are Directive style, Supportive style, Participative style, and Achievement-oriented style. Based on the scores, my leadership style can be described as highly directive and least supportive. Besides, I’m averagely participative and highly achievement oriented.
Sample Items From the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ)
The questions herein are used in evaluating the leadership styles. The following key has been used to complete the questionnaire.
0 = Not at all; 1 = Once in a while; 2 = Sometimes; 3 = Fairly often; 4 = Frequently if not always.
Transformational Leadership Styles
Idealized influence (Attributes)
I go beyond self-interest for the good of the group
Idealized influence (Behaviors)
I consider the moral and ethical consequences of decisions
Inspirational motivation
I talk optimistically about the future
Intellectual stimulation
I reexamine critical assumptions to question whether they are appropriate
Individualized consideration
I help others to develop their strengths
Based on the transformational leadership style, I have idelized influence on both attributes and behavior, great inspirational motivation and individualized consideration. However, my interlectual stimulation is still low and needs improvement. Generally, I am a transformative leader.
Transactional leadership style
Contigent reward
I make clear what one can expect to receive when performance goals are achieved
Management by Exception: Active
I keep track of all mistakes
I also possess averagely the transactional leadership style, as depicted by the contigent reward and the active management by exception.
Passive/Avoidant Leadership Styles
Management by Exception: Passive
I wait for things to go wrong before taking action
Laissez-Faire
I void making decisions
The scores herein reflect that I do not possess the passive or avoidance leadership style.
Authentic Leadership Self-Assessmnet Questionnaire
In this questionnaire, there are different dimensions of authentic leadership. The response is given as: 1 = Stongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neutral; 4 = Agree; 5 = Strongly agree
Score
The responses of items 1, 5, 9, and 13 sums up to 18. This represents the self-awareness (Northouse, 2009).
The responses of items 2, 6, 10, and 14 sums up to 19. This represents the Internationalized moral respective (Northouse, 2009).
The responses of items 3, 7, 11, and 15 sums up to 10. This represents the balanced processing.
The responses of items 4, 8, 12, and 16 sums up to 15 representing the relational transparency (Northouse, 2009).
The responses of all the items sums up to 62 representing the authentic leadership (Northouse, 2009).
Interpretation
My authentic leadership score is strongly high at 62. My strongest component of the authentic leadership style is Internationalized moral respective, followed by self-awareness. My weakest component is the balanced processing while the relational transparency is average.
Personal assessment
Participative style
In essence, I believe in including the employees--one or more-- in the process of decision making. As asserted by Northouse, (2009), I value giving the employees an opportunity in deciding what to do as well as finding a way of how to do it better. Employees need to make these decisions but as their leader, I hold the final decision. It is nevertheless my authority that a decision is reached at. I believe in innovation and therefore sourcing of information from workers is quite essential. For employee teamwork, creativity and improved quality and superb customer service provision which perfectly describe my behaviour make me believe that my leadership style is more of participatory leadership style (Northouse, 2009).
I always perceive employees as well informed than I am and therefore should make the decisions themselves. Nonetheless, my authority is very vital as I should be responsible for each and every decision made within the work place (Northouse, 2009). As a leader I cannot do everything and therefore must delegate duties, but with set priorities, to workers who better understand a given job (Northouse, 2009). This best describes my leadership and decision making style i.e. delegative leadership style.
Supportive style
I often sustain friendly working relationships with the employees and often avoid uttering words or things that demoralizes the employees. I as well help employees overcome issues or problems that lower their performances. Supportive style of leadership and decision making helps me get along well with the subordinates.
Conclusion
Over the whole, my overall leadership style is that which encompasses all the four leadership styles, i.e. autocratic, participative, supportive and delegative styles. For instance, I will use authoritarian style in circumstance where a procedure is not working out as should be and therefore a new one must be put in place. In situations where new knowledge or idea is needed in new product development and the employee owns the information would however prompt me to use participative style. Lastly, I will employ delegative style in situations where implementation of new procedures is needful as it provides ample time to carry out research as a leader.
Choosing a working leadership style should however be dependent on the following forces. Before a leader embarks on which style, he/she should assess:
Nature of relationships, whether there is trusts and respect
Who owns the information, a leader, employer or both of them
The level of training employees have and how better a leader knows the task.
Levels of stress
The nature of task, whether structured, complicated or unstructured (Northouse, 2009).
Specific recommendations:
My authentic leadership score is strongly high at 62. My strongest component of the authentic leadership style is Internationalized moral respective, followed by self-awareness. This implies that my leadership style is generally authoritatrian style. I recommend that the leadership style should be more of participative style as consultation and listening to the ideas and information that employees or subordinates have is very essential both for company’s innovation and for sustained employee performance.
Northouse, P.G. (2009). Leadership: Theory and Practice. 5th edition. Sage Publications
