Different kind of
leadership styles

Leadership
The process of directing the behavior of
others toward the accomplishment of
some common objectives.

Autocratic
Bureaucratic
Democratic
Laissez Faire

 He is an autocrat
 Does not consult his subordinates.
 He takes all the decisions by himself.
 He also takes full responsibility for his decisions
 The subordinate must obey him without asking any
question. No one challenges the decisions of
autocratic leaders

When to use?
When not to
use?
New ,untrained
staff
Limited time to
make decision
A manager’s power
challenged by
staff.
Staff become
tense, fearful, or
resentful
Staff expect their
opinions heard
Low staff morale,
high turnover and
absenteeism
stopage

Bureaucratic leader
Manages by the “book”
This type of leadership has no space to explore new ways to solve problems
Universities, hospitals, banks and government usually require this type of
leader to ensure quality, increase security and decrease corruption.
 Manager following such style follows rules and
formalities of the organization.
 He does not believe in new ideas.
 He wants his subordinates to follow all his orders.
 This leadership style results in red tapism and
unwanted paper work.

When to use? Where not to be used?
Routine tasks
are performed
over & over
Staff need to
understand
certain
standards or
procedures
Staff performing
tasks that
requires
handling cash
Jobs where
innovation is
required
Environment is
dynamic

•KIRAN BEDI
•SWAT persons

Democratic Leadership is the leadership
style that promotes the sharing of responsibility,
the exercise of delegation and continual
consultation.
1. Manager seeks consultation on all major issues and
decisions.
2. Manager effectively delegate tasks to subordinates
and give them full control and responsibility for those
tasks.
3. Manager welcomes feedback on the results of
initiatives and the work environment.
4. Manager encourages others to become leaders and be
involved in leadership development.
Let's work together to solve this. . .

When to use? When not to use?
Staff is to be
kept informed
about the matter
that effects
them
More inputs are
required to solve
the problem
Want to
encourage team
building and
participation
Not enough time
to get
everyone’s input
Can’t afford
mistakes
Easier and most
cost effective
for manager to
take decisions

 President and CEO of
Renault, France
 President and CEO
Nissan ,Japan.
 He believed that
change in organization
should come from
bottom level not to be
forced on top
management

This French phrase means
“leave it be” and is used to
describe a leader who leaves
his/her colleagues to get on
with their work. The style is
largely a "hands off" view that
tends to minimize the amount
of direction and face time
required.

 Laissez-faire style of leader is passive.
 He only act a s a contact man, i.e. he provides
information and resources to his subordinates.
 He believes that the subordinate will work best if
they are left alone.
 He provides them complete freedom to take their
own decisions.
 He allows them to set their own goals and to solve
problems on their own.
 The laissez-faire style produces no leadership or
supervision efforts from managers, which can lead
to poor production, lack of control and increasing
costs.
You
two
take
care
of
the
probl
em
while
I go.
. .

When to use? When not to use?
Staff is highly
skilled
experienced and
educated
Outside experts,
such as staff
specialists or
consultant used
Staff
trustworthy and
experienced
Manager cannot
provide
feedback to
staff on how
well they are
doing
Manager left his
responsibilities
with his staff
Manager is
unable to give
feedback to its
employees

Our president mr.
Manmohan singh as
he lets his team to
take major actions.

 Situational style of leader uses different style in
different situations.
 He changes his style according to the situation.
 Sometimes he will be autocratic, or consultative, or
participative, etc.
 Now a days , most managers use this style of
leadership.

Barack obama

Each one of us serve as a leader. And one leader
creates another and another, ad infinitum, just
as one candle’s flame light another and another,
until the once-impenetrable darkness has turned