Understanding Leadership Styles

8/14/2021 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Northouse.6443.20.1?sections=navpoint-30,navpoint-32,navpoint-33,navpoint-34,navpoint-35,navpoint-36,navpoint-37,navpoint-38… 1/24

Introduction What is your style of leadership? Are you an in-charge type of leader who closely monitors followers? Or are you a laid- back type of leader who gives followers a lot of rein? Whether you are one or the other or somewhere in between, it is important to recognize your personal style of leadership. This style affects how others respond to you, how they respond to their work, and, in the end, how effective you are as a leader.

In this chapter, we will discuss how a person’s view of people, work, and human nature forms a personal philosophy and style of leadership. In addition, this chapter will examine how that philosophy is demonstrated in three of the most commonly observed styles of personal leadership: the authoritarian, democratic, and laissez-faire styles. We will discuss the nature of these styles and the implications each has for effective leadership performance. The information in the chapter will be useful in helping you determine and develop your own leadership style.

Chapter Three Understanding Leadership Styles

8/14/2021 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Northouse.6443.20.1?sections=navpoint-30,navpoint-32,navpoint-33,navpoint-34,navpoint-35,navpoint-36,navpoint-37,navpoint-38… 2/24

3.1 Leadership Philosophy Explained Each of us approaches leadership with a unique set of beliefs and attitudes about the nature of people and the nature of work. This is the basis for our philosophy of leadership (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Northouse.6443.20.1/sections/navpoint-78#s9781544351636.i5228) . For example, some think people are basically good and will happily work if given the chance. Others think people are prone to be a bit lazy and need to be nudged to complete their work. These beliefs about people and work have a significant impact on an individual’s leadership style and probably come into play in every aspect of a person’s leadership.

Do you think people like work, or do you think people find work unpleasant? This was one of the central questions addressed by Douglas McGregor in his famous book The Human Side of Enterprise (1960). McGregor believed that managers need to understand their core assumptions about human nature and assess how these assumptions relate to their managerial practice.

In particular, McGregor was interested in how managers view the motivations of workers and their attitudes toward work. He believed that understanding these motivations was central to knowing how to become an effective manager. To explain the ways that managers approach workers, McGregor proposed two general theories—Theory X and Theory Y. McGregor believed that by exploring the major assumptions of each of these theories people could develop a better understanding of their own viewpoints on human behavior and the relationship of these viewpoints to their leadership style. The following is a description of both theories. As you read, ask yourself if the assumptions of the theory are consistent or inconsistent with your own attitudes about leadership.

Theory X

Theory X (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Northouse.6443.20.1/sections/navpoint-78#s9781544351636.i5267) is made up of three assumptions about human nature and human behavior (see Table 3.1 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Northouse.6443.20.1/sections/navpoint-32#s9781544351636.i1200) ). Taken together, these assumptions represent a philosophy of leadership that many leaders exhibit to one degree or another.

Assumption 1: The average person dislikes work and will avoid it if possible. This assumption argues that people do not like work; they view it as unpleasant, distasteful, or simply a necessary evil. According to this assumption, if given the chance, people would choose not to work. An example of this assumption is the worker who says, “I only go to work to be P-A-I-D. If I didn’t need to pay my bills, I would never work.” People with this perspective would avoid work if they could.

Assumption 2: People need to be directed and controlled. This assumption is derived directly from the first assumption. Since people naturally do not like work, management needs to set up a system of incentives and rewards regarding work that needs to be accomplished because workers are often unwilling or unable to motivate themselves. This assumption says that without external direction and incentives people would be unmotivated to work. An example of this is the high school teacher who persuades students to hand in homework assignments by threatening them with bad grades. The teacher forces students to perform because the teacher thinks that the students are unwilling to do it or incapable of doing it without that force being applied. From the perspective of Theory X, leaders play a significant role in encouraging others to accomplish their work.

Assumption 3: People want security, not responsibility. The picture this assumption paints is of workers who want their leaders to take care of them, protect them, and make them feel safe. Because it is too difficult to set their own goals, workers want management to do it for them. This can only happen when managers establish the guidelines for workers. An example of this assumption can be observed on a sorting

8/14/2021 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Northouse.6443.20.1?sections=navpoint-30,navpoint-32,navpoint-33,navpoint-34,navpoint-35,navpoint-36,navpoint-37,navpoint-38… 3/24

line for an orchard, where the employees only have to focus on completing the specific tasks set before them (e.g., picking out bad fruit, filling boxes with fruit) and are not required to take initiative for decisions on their own. In general, because of the pace and repetitiveness of the work, the sorters are not required to accept many challenging responsibilities. Instead, they are told what to do, and how and when to do it. Consistent with this assumption, this example highlights how some workers are not ambitious but want job security above everything else.

So what does it mean if a person’s personal leadership philosophy is similar to Theory X? It means these leaders have a tendency to view workers as lazy and uninterested in work because they do not value work. As a result, Theory X leaders tend to be directive and controlling. They supervise followers closely and are quick to both praise and criticize them as they see fit. At times, these leaders remind workers of their goal (e.g., to be P-A-I-D) or threaten them with punishment to persuade them to accomplish tasks. As the person in charge, a Theory X leader sees his or her leadership role as instrumental in getting the job done. Theory X leaders also believe it is their role to motivate followers because these workers have little self-motivation. Because of this belief, these leaders take on the responsibility for their followers’ actions. From the Theory X perspective, it is clear that followers have a need for leadership.

Theory Y

Like Theory X, Theory Y (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Northouse.6443.20.1/sections/navpoint-78#s9781544351636.i5268) is based on several specific assumptions about human nature and behavior (see Table 3.2 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Northouse.6443.20.1/sections/navpoint-32#s9781544351636.i1205) ). Taken together, the assumptions of Theory Y present a distinctly different perspective from the ideas set forth in Theory X. It is a perspective that can be observed to a degree in many leaders today.

Assumption 1: The average person does not inherently dislike work. Doing work is as natural as play. Rather than viewing work as a burden or bad, this assumption suggests people see work as satisfying and not as a punishment. It is a natural activity for them. In fact, given the chance, people are happy to work. An example of this can be seen in what former president Jimmy Carter has done in his retirement. He has devoted much of his time and energy to constructing homes throughout the United States and around the world with Habitat for Humanity. Certainly, the former president does not need to work: He does so because work is natural for him. All his life, Carter has been used to making a contribution to the well-being of others. Working with Habitat for Humanity is another opportunity for him to contribute. Some people view work as a natural part of their lives.

Assumption 2: People will show responsibility and self-control toward goals to which they are committed.

8/14/2021 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Northouse.6443.20.1?sections=navpoint-30,navpoint-32,navpoint-33,navpoint-34,navpoint-35,navpoint-36,navpoint-37,navpoint-38… 4/24

As opposed to Theory X, which suggests that people need to be supervised and controlled, Theory Y suggests that people can and will make a conscious choice to work on their own.

People can be committed to the objectives of their work. Consider some examples from the sports world. Successful athletes are often highly committed to their goals and usually do not need to be controlled or supervised closely. Coaches design training plans for these athletes, but the athletes do the work themselves. A successful long-distance runner does not need to be pushed to run 60 training miles a week in preparation for a marathon because the runner is already motivated to run long distances. Similarly, an Olympic swimmer does not need to be forced to do daily 3-mile pool workouts at 5:00 a.m. because the swimmer chooses to do this independently of any coach’s urging. These athletes are self-directed because they are committed to their goals. This is the point of Theory Y. When people can find commitment in their work, they will work without needing leaders to motivate or cajole them. Put another way, when people have a passion for their work, they will do it even without outside direction.

Assumption 3: In the proper environment, the average person learns to accept and seek responsibility. While Theory X argues that people lack ambition, prefer to be directed, and want security, Theory Y assumes that the average person is inherently resourceful and, if given the chance, will seek to take responsibility. If given the chance, people have the capacity to engage in a wide range of goal-setting and creative problem-solving activities. Theory Y argues that, given the opportunity, people will act independently and be productive.

For example, two university students working in the main stacks section of the library were required to complete a checklist whenever they worked to be sure that they correctly carried out various sorting and shelving activities. The checklist was long, cumbersome, and repetitious, however. Frustrated by the checklist, the students took it upon themselves to design an entirely new, streamlined checklist. The new checklist for sorting and shelving was very clear and concise, and was playful in appearance. After reviewing the checklist and giving it a short trial period, management at the library adopted the new checklist and required that it be implemented throughout the entire library. In this example, library management provided an environment where students felt comfortable suggesting a rather major change in how their work was to be completed. In addition, management was willing to accept and adopt a student-initiated work change. It is not unrealistic to imagine that these students will be more confident initiating ideas or taking on new challenges in other work settings in the future.

So if a leader’s philosophy of leadership is similar to Theory Y, what does it mean? It means that the leader views people as capable and interested in working. Even though Theory Y leaders may define work requirements, they do not try to control workers. To these leaders, followers are not lazy; on the contrary, they naturally want to work. In addition, these leaders do not think they need to try to motivate followers or make them work since workers are capable of motivating themselves. Using coercion or external reinforcement schemes is not a part of their leadership repertoire. Theory Y leaders are very attuned to helping followers find their passion for what they want to do. These leaders know that when followers are committed to their work, they are more motivated to do the job. Allowing followers to seek and accept responsibilities on their own comes easily for Theory Y leaders. In short, Theory Y leadership means supporting followers without the need to direct or control them.

In the late 1970s and 1980s, a new leadership theory tangentially related to Theory X and Theory Y was developed by William Ouchi (1981). Ouchi contrasted the collectivistic culture of Japanese companies—which had begun to dominate markets, especially in automobiles and electronics—with the individualism stressed in American organizations and developed an approach that was a hybrid of the two called Theory Z (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Northouse.6443.20.1/sections/navpoint-78#s9781544351636.i5269) . A Theory Z organization is one that emphasizes common cultural values, beliefs, and objectives among its members with a focus on communication, collaboration, and consensual decision making. At the same time, some of the individualistic values of American organizations are also incorporated. Theory Z organizations still maintain formal authority structures and an emphasis on individual contributions and recognizing individual achievements. However, the individual decision making of the leader that is found in both Theory X and Theory Y is not a characteristic of a Theory Z organization.

8/14/2021 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Northouse.6443.20.1?sections=navpoint-30,navpoint-32,navpoint-33,navpoint-34,navpoint-35,navpoint-36,navpoint-37,navpoint-38… 5/24

In summary, all of us maintain certain basic beliefs and assumptions about human nature and work that form our leadership philosophy. The next section discusses how that philosophy impacts your behaviors as a leader, or your leadership style. Whether a person’s philosophy is similar to Theory X or similar to Theory Y, it affects his or her style of leadership. The challenge is to understand the philosophical underpinnings of your own leadership style.

8/14/2021 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Northouse.6443.20.1?sections=navpoint-30,navpoint-32,navpoint-33,navpoint-34,navpoint-35,navpoint-36,navpoint-37,navpoint-38… 6/24

3.2 Leadership Styles Explained What behaviors do you exhibit as a leader? Do you like to be in control and keep up on the activities of your followers? Or do you believe in a more hands-off approach in leading others, letting them make decisions on their own?

Whatever your behaviors are as a leader, they are indicative of your leadership style. Leadership style (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Northouse.6443.20.1/sections/navpoint-78#s9781544351636.i5212) is defined as the behaviors of leaders, focusing on what leaders do and how they act. This includes leaders’ actions toward followers in a variety of contexts. As noted in the previous section, your leadership style is driven by your personal leadership philosophy. In the following section, we discuss the most commonly observed leadership styles associated with Theory X and Theory Y: authoritarian, democratic, and laissez-faire. While none of these styles emerges directly from Theory X or Theory Y, the authoritarian and democratic styles closely mirror the ideas set forth in these theories, respectively.

The primary work on styles of leadership was by Lewin, Lippitt, and White (1939), who analyzed the impact of various leadership styles on small group behavior. Using groups of 10-year-old boys who met after school to engage in hobby activities, the researchers analyzed what happened when their adult leaders used one of three styles: authoritarian, democratic, or laissez-faire. The groups of boys experienced each of the three styles of leadership for a six-week period.

The outcome of the study by Lewin and colleagues was a detailed description of the nature of the leadership behaviors used for each of the three styles (White & Lippitt, 1968). They also described the impact each of these three styles had on group members.

The following sections describe and elaborate on their findings and the implications of using each of these leadership styles. Be aware that these styles are not distinct entities (e.g., like personality traits). They overlap each other. That is, a leader can demonstrate more than one style in any given situation. For example, a leader may be authoritarian about some issues and democratic about others, or a leader may be authoritarian at some points during a project and democratic at others. As leaders, we may display aspects of all of these styles.

Authoritarian Leadership Style

In many ways, the authoritarian leadership style (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Northouse.6443.20.1/sections/navpoint- 78#s9781544351636.i5151) is very similar to Theory X. For example, authoritarian leaders perceive followers as needing direction. The authoritarian leader needs to control followers and what they do. Authoritarian leaders emphasize that they are in charge, exerting influence and control over group members. They determine tasks and procedures for group members but may remain aloof from participating in group discussions. Authoritarian leaders do not encourage communication among group members; instead, they prefer that communication be directed to them. In evaluating others, authoritarian leaders give praise and criticism freely, but it is given based on their own personal standards rather than based on objective criticism.

Recent research on authoritarian leadership distinguishes between autocratic leadership, where authority and power are concentrated in the leader; authoritarian leadership, which uses a domineering style that generally has negative outcomes (House, 1996); and authoritarian followership, which is the psychological mindset of people who seek powerful leaders (Harms, Wood, Landay, Lester, & Vogelsang Lester, 2018). There is also evidence that situational and personality factors can make authoritarian leadership more likely, including uncertain or negative circumstances where strong leadership is perceived to be a solution to problems, such as when a group is performing poorly, under time pressure, or facing an external threat (Harms et al., 2018).

Some have argued that authoritarian leadership represents a rather pessimistic, negative, and discouraging view of others. For example, an authoritarian leader might say something like “Because my workers are lazy, I need to tell them what to do.” Or, “My job is to motivate the workers because they tend to lose interest in their tasks.”

Others would argue that authoritarian leadership is a much-needed form of leadership—it serves a positive purpose, particularly for people who seek security above responsibility. In many contexts, authoritarian leadership is used to give

8/14/2021 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Northouse.6443.20.1?sections=navpoint-30,navpoint-32,navpoint-33,navpoint-34,navpoint-35,navpoint-36,navpoint-37,navpoint-38… 7/24

direction, set goals, and structure work. For example, when employees are just learning a new job, authoritarian leadership lets them know the rules and standards for what they are supposed to do. Authoritarian leaders are very efficient and successful in motivating others to accomplish work. In these contexts, authoritarian leadership is very useful.

What are the outcomes of authoritarian leadership? Authoritarian leadership has both pluses and minuses. On the positive side, it is efficient and productive. Authoritarian leaders give direction and clarity to people’s work and accomplish more in a shorter period. Furthermore, authoritarian leadership is useful in establishing goals and work standards. On the negative side, it fosters dependence, submissiveness, and a loss of individuality. The creativity and personal growth of followers may be hindered. It is possible that, over time, followers will lose interest in what they are doing and become dissatisfied with their work. If that occurs, authoritarian leadership can create discontent, hostility, and even aggression.

In addition, authoritarian leadership can become abusive leadership, where these leaders use their influence, power, and control for their personal interests or to coerce followers to engage in unethical or immoral activities. For example, a coach who withholds playing time from athletes who openly disagree with his play calls or a boss who requires salaried employees to work up to 20 hours of overtime each week or “be replaced with someone who will” are both examples of the dark side of authoritarian leadership. Historically, we have seen how authoritarian leaders such as Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler took advantage of susceptible followers by projecting power, conviction, and control during unstable political times and getting people to go along with their violent schemes.

While the negative aspects of authoritarian leadership appear to outweigh the positive, it is not difficult to imagine contexts where authoritarian leadership would be the preferred style of leadership. For example, in a busy hospital emergency room, it may be very appropriate for the leader in charge of triaging patients to be authoritarian with various types of emergencies. The same could be true in other contexts, such as the chaperone of a middle school canoe trip, who for the sake of student safety needs to establish and enforce clear rules for conduct.

In the 2004 film Miracle, based on the 1980 U.S. men’s Olympic hockey team’s experience, coach Herb Brooks uses an authoritarian style of leadership to prepare his college-age athletes to face the heavily favored Soviet team. Brooks is aggressive and demanding, pushing his players to become more fit and do extra workouts and benching them when they don’t give their best. At first, they don’t like Brooks or his coaching method, but under his direction, the team develops confidence and a sense of unity that enables the players to perform at their peak and win the gold medal.

Despite the negatives of authoritarian leadership, this form of leadership is common and necessary in many situations.

Democratic Leadership Style

The democratic leadership style (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Northouse.6443.20.1/sections/navpoint- 78#s9781544351636.i5180) strongly resembles the assumptions of Theory Y. Democratic leaders treat followers as fully capable of doing work on their own. Rather than controlling followers, democratic leaders work with followers, trying hard to treat everyone fairly without putting themselves above followers. In essence, they see themselves as guides rather than as directors. They give suggestions to others, but never with any intention of changing them. Helping each follower reach personal goals is important to a democratic leader. Democratic leaders do not use “top-down” communication; instead, they speak on the same level as their followers. Making sure everyone is heard is a priority. They listen to followers in supportive ways and assist them in becoming self-directed. In addition, they promote communication between group members and in certain situations are careful to draw out the less-articulate members of the group. Democratic leaders provide information, guidance, and suggestions, but do so without giving orders and without applying pressure. In their evaluations of followers, democratic leaders give objective praise and criticism.

The outcomes of democratic leadership are mostly positive. First, democratic leadership results in greater group member satisfaction, commitment, and cohesiveness. Second, under democratic leadership there is more friendliness, mutual praise, and group mindedness. Followers tend to get along with each other and willingly participate in matters of the group, making more “we” statements and fewer “I” statements. Third, democratic leadership results in stronger worker motivation and greater creativity. People are motivated to pursue their own talents under the supportive structure of democratic leadership. Finally, under a democratic leader group members participate more and are more committed to group decisions.

8/14/2021 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Northouse.6443.20.1?sections=navpoint-30,navpoint-32,navpoint-33,navpoint-34,navpoint-35,navpoint-36,navpoint-37,navpoint-38… 8/24

A democratic leadership style is effective for U.S. presidents who appoint highly qualified individuals to their cabinet, each of whom has great responsibility for running their respective government departments. While the president has the final responsibility for making decisions, in cabinet meetings the members can share the newest information, debate policy, brainstorm different scenarios, and make better recommendations together. Abraham Lincoln was a U.S. president known for actively listening to his cabinet members and inviting different viewpoints. At the same time, however, he exhibited autocratic leadership in some decision making while leading the country through the Civil War.

The downside of democratic leadership is that it takes more time and commitment from the leader. Work is accomplished, but not as efficiently as if the leader were authoritarian. For example, running staff meetings has sometimes been likened to “herding cats,” because people aren’t always controllable; they have their own ideas and opinions and want to voice them, and consensus isn’t guaranteed.

Laissez-Faire Leadership Style

The laissez-faire leadership style (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Northouse.6443.20.1/sections/navpoint- 78#s9781544351636.i5209) is dissimilar to both Theory X and Theory Y. Laissez-faire leaders do not try to control followers as Theory X leaders do, and they do not try to nurture and guide followers as Theory Y leaders do. Laissez-faire stands alone as a style of leadership; some have labeled it nonleadership. The laissez-faire leader is a nominal leader who engages in minimal influence. As the French phrase implies, laissez-faire leadership means the leader takes a “hands-off, let it ride” attitude toward followers. These leaders recognize followers but are very laid back and make no attempt to influence their activities. Under laissez-faire leadership, followers have freedom to do pretty much what they want to do whenever they want to do it. Laissez-faire leaders make no attempt to appraise or regulate the progress of followers, which may be due to various reasons, including disinterest, reluctance to take a stand, or limited positional authority. For example, an interim coach, church pastor, or college president may be hired to occupy a short-term role until a full-time replacement is found. The interim may not be expected or empowered to initiate changes or restructure the organization and mainly functions as a stabilizing presence and a “placeholder” for the eventual organizational leader.

Given that laissez-faire leadership involves nominal influence, what are the effects of laissez-faire leadership? Laissez-faire leadership tends to produce primarily negative outcomes. The major effect is that very little is accomplished under a laissez-faire leader. Because people are directionless and at a loss to know what to do, they tend to do nothing. In the earlier example, if an interim leader is in a position too long and takes no action on important issues facing an organization, followers may get frustrated. Without a sense of purpose and direction, group members have difficulty finding meaning in their work; they become unmotivated and disheartened.

Giving complete freedom can also result in an atmosphere that most followers find chaotic. Followers prefer some direction; left completely on their own, they become frustrated. As a result, productivity goes down.

Sometimes, however, the lack of leadership from above can result in frustration that spurs followers to act and create positive outcomes. An example of this would be the student survivors of the shootings at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, in 2018, who organized a protest movement against gun violence: “March for Our Lives.” They were motivated in part by the perception that incumbent politicians weren’t doing enough to curb gun violence and keep students safe. On their website, they issued the call that “[n]ow is the time for the youth vote to stand up to the gun lobby when no one else will” (March for Our Lives, 2019a). The group’s mission statement explains, “As a nation, we continue to witness tragedy after tragedy, yet our politicians remain complacent. The Parkland students, along with young leaders of all backgrounds from across the country, refuse to accept this passivity and demand direct action to combat this epidemic” (Book Report Network, 2019). The group has galvanized youth and others across the country to work to facilitate change through efforts aimed at encouraging voter registration, calling on local leaders around the country to commit to change, and advocating for gun violence prevention through new policies (March for Our Lives, 2019b).

In addition, people who are self-starters, who excel at individualized tasks and don’t require ongoing feedback, may prefer working under laissez-faire leaders. It gives them the freedom to be themselves.

8/14/2021 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Northouse.6443.20.1?sections=navpoint-30,navpoint-32,navpoint-33,navpoint-34,navpoint-35,navpoint-36,navpoint-37,navpoint-38… 9/24

For example, Angela is the president of a website development company who uses independent contractors from across the globe. In certain respects, you could describe her leadership style as laissez-faire. The programmers who develop the websites’ code are in Poland, the designer is in India, the content writer is in the United Kingdom, and Angela is in the United States. When developing a site, Angela maps out and communicates the basic framework for the website and then relies on all of the individual contractors to determine the tasks they need to do for the site’s development. Because their tasks can be dependent on another’s—for example, the designer needs the programmers to write the code to make the page display graphics and images in a certain way—they do communicate with one another, but because of time zone differences, this is mostly done by email. As their leader, Angela is kept apprised of issues and developments through an electronic project management system they share, but because all of the contractors are experts at what they do and trust the other team members to do what they do best, she lets them problem-solve issues and concerns with one another and rarely gets involved.

While there are a few situations where laissez-faire leadership is effective, in a majority of situations, it proves to be unsuccessful and unproductive.

8/14/2021 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Northouse.6443.20.1?sections=navpoint-30,navpoint-32,navpoint-33,navpoint-34,navpoint-35,navpoint-36,navpoint-37,navpoint-3… 10/24

© Bloomberg/Contributor/ Bloomberg/Getty Images

3.3 Leadership Snapshot: Victoria Ransom, Chief Executive, Wildfire “I don’t believe in hierarchy or creating hierarchy. I believe in earning respect.”

That comes from Victoria Ransom, cofounder of social media software company Wildfire Interactive, which grew from an idea to a company with 400 employees and 21,000 clients. The company, which Ransom cofounded with Alain Chuard in 2008, helps companies reach customers over social networks, and was acquired in 2012 by Google for $350 million.

Wildfire’s success is largely due to the leadership style and philosophy of Ransom, who served as the company’s chief executive. Ransom grew up in Scotts Ferry, a rural village in New Zealand where her father was an asparagus farmer and her mother was an office manager for a farming equipment company. Ransom worked in the fields, and it was there that she learned the values of hard work, leading by example, and humility that she brought to Wildfire.

Wildfire was actually an afterthought, created to solve a problem that Ransom and Chuard had encountered in running the first company they had formed, Access Trips. Access Trips was an adventure travel company that took small groups of travelers, ages 20–45, to remote destinations, and Ransom and Chuard were looking for a way to promote Access Trips online by giving away a trip on Facebook. They discovered, however, that no software existed to do what they wanted, so they developed their own software to design sweepstakes, contests, or other promotions that could run on Facebook.

The software, and Wildfire, was profitable within a year. Clients soon ranged from two-person catering businesses to Sony and Unilever (Coster, 2012).

The company grew very quickly, which put Ransom’s values-based culture to the test.

“I’ve learned as the company grows, you’re only as good as the leaders you have underneath you,” she says. “You might think that because you’re projecting our values, then the rest of the company is experiencing the values. . . . [D]irect supervisors become the most important influence on people in the company. Therefore, a big part of leading becomes your ability to pick and guide the right people” (Bryant, 2013).

In order to find those right people, it was critical that Wildfire spell out its values and company culture to employees from the outset. To do so, Ransom and Chuard identified what they valued in the people at Wildfire and then met with all the employees in small groups to get their feedback on these values. What resulted was a list of values that the company instilled and demonstrated: passion, team player, humility, and integrity. Also on the list were having the courage to speak up and curiosity.

“We really encourage people to constantly question, to stay on top of what’s happening in our industry, to learn what other people in the company are doing. The hope was to break down these walls of ‘them versus us,’” Ransom says (Bryant, 2013).

Ransom says a final value they identified was to “do good, and do right by each other” (Bryant, 2013).

The values a company purports to have, however, are not so readily maintained. Values and culture have to be universally embraced, or they will crumble.

“I think the best way to undermine a company’s values is to put people in leadership positions who are not adhering to the values,” Ransom says, noting that others begin to lose faith in the values “until you take action and move those people out, and then everyone gets faith in the values again” (Bryant, 2013).

Ransom says one way the company showed its values was when it would let employees go who didn’t live up to the values. Making these hard decisions about people, even if they were good performers, showed employees that “yeah, this company actually puts its money where its mouth is” (Bryant, 2013).

8/14/2021 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Northouse.6443.20.1?sections=navpoint-30,navpoint-32,navpoint-33,navpoint-34,navpoint-35,navpoint-36,navpoint-37,navpoint-3… 11/24

3.4 Leadership Styles in Practice Each leader has a unique style of leadership. Some are very demanding and assertive while others are more open and participative. Similarly, some leaders could be called micromanagers, while others could be labeled nondirective leaders. Whatever the case, it is useful and instructive to characterize your leadership regarding the degree to which you are authoritarian, democratic, or laissez-faire.

It is important to note that these styles of leadership are not distinct entities; it is best to think of them as occurring along a continuum, from high leader influence to low leader influence (see Figure 3.1 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Northouse.6443.20.1/sections/navpoint-35#s9781544351636.i1242) ). Leaders who exhibit higher amounts of influence are more authoritarian. Leaders who show a moderate amount of influence are democratic. Those who exhibit little to no influence are laissez-faire. Although we tend to exhibit primarily one style over the others, our personal leadership styles are not fixed and may vary depending on the circumstances.

Description (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Northouse.6443.20.1/sections/navpoint- 39#s9781544351636-fig-3-1-longdesc) Figure 3.1 Styles of Leadership

Consider what your results of the Leadership Styles Questionnaire on pages 73–75 tell you about your leadership style. What is your main style? Are you most comfortable with authoritarian, democratic, or laissez-faire leadership? If you are the kind of leader who likes to structure work, likes to lay out the ground rules for others, likes to closely supervise your followers, thinks it is your responsibility to make sure followers do their work, wants to be “in charge” or to know what others are doing, and believes strongly that rewarding and punishing followers is necessary, then you are authoritarian. If you are the kind of leader who seldom gives orders or ultimatums to followers, instead trying to work with followers and help them figure out how they want to approach a task or complete their work, then you are primarily democratic. Helping each follower reach his or her own personal goals is important to a democratic leader.

In some rare circumstances, you may find you are showing laissez-faire leadership. Although not a preferred style, it is important to be aware when one is being laissez-faire. Laissez-faire leaders take a very low profile to leadership. What followers accomplish is up to them. If you believe that your followers will thrive on complete freedom, then the laissez- faire style may be the right style for you. However, in most situations, laissez-faire leadership hinders success and productivity.

8/14/2021 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Northouse.6443.20.1?sections=navpoint-30,navpoint-32,navpoint-33,navpoint-34,navpoint-35,navpoint-36,navpoint-37,navpoint-3… 12/24

Summary All of us have a philosophy of leadership that is based on our beliefs about human nature and work. Some leaders have a philosophy that resembles Theory X: They view workers as unmotivated and needing direction and control. Others have a philosophy similar to Theory Y: They approach workers as self-motivated and capable of working independently without strong direct influence from a leader.

Our philosophy of leadership is played out in our style of leadership. There are three commonly observed styles of leadership: authoritarian, democratic, and laissez-faire. Similar to Theory X, authoritarian leaders perceive followers as needing direction, so they exert strong influence and control. Resembling Theory Y, democratic leaders view followers as capable of self-direction, so they provide counsel and support. Laissez-faire leaders leave followers to function on their own, providing nominal influence and direction.

Effective leadership demands that we understand our philosophy of leadership and how it forms the foundations for our style of leadership. This understanding is the first step to becoming a more informed and competent leader.

Glossary Terms

authoritarian leadership style (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Northouse.6443.20.1/sections/navpoint- 78#s9781544351636.i5151) 62

democratic leadership style (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Northouse.6443.20.1/sections/navpoint- 78#s9781544351636.i5180) 63

laissez-faire leadership style (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Northouse.6443.20.1/sections/navpoint- 78#s9781544351636.i5209) 64

leadership style (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Northouse.6443.20.1/sections/navpoint-78#s9781544351636.i5212) 61

philosophy of leadership (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Northouse.6443.20.1/sections/navpoint- 78#s9781544351636.i5228) 57

Theory X (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Northouse.6443.20.1/sections/navpoint-78#s9781544351636.i5267) 58

Theory Y (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Northouse.6443.20.1/sections/navpoint-78#s9781544351636.i5268) 59

Theory Z (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Northouse.6443.20.1/sections/navpoint-78#s9781544351636.i5269) 61

8/14/2021 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Northouse.6443.20.1?sections=navpoint-30,navpoint-32,navpoint-33,navpoint-34,navpoint-35,navpoint-36,navpoint-37,navpoint-3… 13/24

Application

3.1 Case Study—Several Different Styles

Vanessa Mills was recently hired to work at a branch of Lakeshore Bank as a personal banker. The branch is very busy and has a large staff, including three on-site managers. As a new employee, Vanessa is trying to figure out how to succeed as a personal banker while meeting the expectations of her three very different managers.

Vanessa is paid a salary, but also receives a commission for activities including opening new accounts and selling new services to customers such as credit cards, lines of credit, loans, and stock accounts. Personal bankers are expected to open a certain number of accounts each month and build relationships with customers by exploring their various banking needs and offering services to meet those needs.

Marion Woods is one of the managers at Vanessa’s branch. She has worked for Lakeshore Bank for 10 years and prides herself on the success of the branch. Marion openly talks about employees’ progress in terms of the number of accounts opened or relationships established, and then commends or scolds people depending on their productivity. Marion stresses to Vanessa the importance of following procedures and using the scripts that Marion provides to successfully convince customers to open new accounts or accept new services with the bank.

As a new banker, Vanessa has not opened many accounts and feels very uncertain about her competence. She is intimidated by Marion, believing that this manager is continually watching and evaluating her. Several times Marion has publically criticized Vanessa, commenting on her shortcomings as a personal banker. Vanessa tries hard to get her sales numbers up so she can keep Marion off her back.

Bruce Dexter, another manager at Vanessa’s branch, has been with Lakeshore Bank for 14 years. Bruce started out as a teller and worked his way up to branch manager. As a manager, Bruce is responsible for holding the bank staff’s Monday morning meetings. At these staff meetings, Bruce relays the current numbers for new accounts as well as the target number for new accounts. He also lists the number of new relationships the personal bankers have established. After the meetings, Bruce retreats back into his office where he sits hidden behind his computer monitor. He rarely interacts with others. Vanessa likes when Bruce retreats into his office because she does not have to worry about having her performance scrutinized. However, sometimes when Vanessa is trying to help customers with a problem that falls outside of her banking knowledge, she is stressed because Bruce does not provide her with any managerial support.

The third manager at the branch is Heather Atwood. Heather just started at Lakeshore Bank within the last year, but worked for nine years at another bank. Vanessa finds Heather to be very helpful. She often pops in when Vanessa is with a customer to introduce herself and make sure everything is going well. Heather also allows Vanessa to listen in when she calls disgruntled customers or customers with complicated requests, so Vanessa can learn how to manage these types of interactions. Heather trusts her staff and enjoys seeing them grow, encouraging them by organizing games to see who can open the most accounts and offering helpful feedback when customer interactions do not go as planned. Vanessa is grateful for the advice and support she receives from Heather, and looks up to her because she is competent and kind.

Vanessa is coming up on her three-month review and is very nervous that she might get fired based on her low sales record and the negative feedback she has received from Bruce and Marion regarding her performance. Vanessa decides to talk to Heather about her upcoming review and what to expect. Heather assures Vanessa that she is doing fine and shows promise even if her numbers have not reached that of a seasoned banker. Still, Vanessa is concerned about Bruce and Marion. She has hardly had more than two conversations with Bruce and feels intimidated by Marion who, she perceives, manages by running around barking numbers at people.

Questions

1. Based on the assumptions of Theory X and Theory Y, how would you describe each manager’s philosophy and style of leadership? In what way do the managers’ attitudes about Vanessa affect their leadership?

8/14/2021 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Northouse.6443.20.1?sections=navpoint-30,navpoint-32,navpoint-33,navpoint-34,navpoint-35,navpoint-36,navpoint-37,navpoint-3… 14/24

2. In this type of customer service setting, which leadership style would be most effective for the bank to meet its goals? From the bank’s perspective, which (if any) manager exhibits the most appropriate leadership? Discuss.

3. What advice would you give to each of the managers to enhance his or her leadership skills within the bank?

4. What do you think Vanessa can do to prepare herself for her three-month review?

3.2 Case Study—Leading the Robotics Team

Anders Dahlgren is the mentor for a high school robotics team that has spent the past three months designing, building, and programming a robot for competition. The team is composed of 14 boys and one girl, and the students range from freshmen to seniors. With the first competition in three weeks, Anders needs to designate a team captain so the team can get used to working under a new leader. During the competition, the team captain is often called on to make crucial team decisions.

The robotics team is divided into groups: Mechanical, whose members design and build the robot, and Programming, whose members develop the computer code that tells the robot how to complete its tasks. During competition, the team captain will have to work with both groups to tweak the robot’s design and programming on the fly to improve the robot’s performance. It can be a high-pressure job for any teenager, and with emotions and stress levels of other team members running on high, the captain will not only need an understanding of both the mechanical and programming aspects, but must also be able to keep 14 other personalities and egos working toward a common goal.

There are three members of the robotics team that Anders is considering for captain:

Pria is a junior and the only girl on the team. This is her second year on the team, and she is in the Programming group. Anders describes her as being very serious and a whiz at coding, and she has offered some great design ideas. Pria is very organized—after the team’s first meeting of the year, she developed a schedule with tasks and deadlines and wrote it on the large whiteboard in the workshop so team members could follow it. Pria doesn’t have a lot of patience with teenage boy shenanigans and will admonish her group members to “focus, please” whenever she thinks they’ve gotten off task, such as when they start talking about YouTube videos or music. Pria is very rule-bound and will point out when team members try to cut corners or haven’t adequately followed instructions or the schedule. Anders has noticed that when the other programming group members have a problem or obstacle, they defer to Pria for a solution. He suspects it’s partly because they respect her opinion and partly because they know she’ll tell them how to fix it regardless. Once, though, when Pria was home sick, Anders overheard several of the boys from both groups call Pria “bossy” and say she “stressed them out” with her deadlines and rigidity.

Justin, a senior, is also in his second year on the team. An upbeat, congenial kid, Justin is a member of the Mechanical group. He isn’t much for planning, however; he has a tendency to pick up a power tool and use it before he has actually thought out what he is going to do with it. The other Mechanical group members call him “MacGyver” because he is great working with his hands and often comes up with fixes to mechanical problems by just fiddling around with different pieces and parts for an hour or so. The group members are also pretty forgiving when Justin makes a mistake because his sense of humor keeps them all laughing and he always finds a way to fix it. Anders notices that the Mechanical group is the most creative when Justin is at the helm, but that work sessions can devolve into chaos pretty quickly if Anders doesn’t step in and set parameters and establish goals.

Jerome, also a member of the Mechanical group, is quiet, respectful, and polite. He is a senior and has been on the robotics team since his freshman year. He is a veteran of robotics competitions, and what he has learned over the years has informed a lot of the team’s efforts this year. He is most happy working on the computer-aided designs for the robot and helping those building it to understand and follow the plans and schematics. When group members question elements of his design, however, he will ask, “How do you think we should do it?” He listens to their ideas, and if the other group members agree, they will implement an idea even when Jerome personally doesn’t think it’ll work. Jerome’s method of allowing for trial and error often slows down progress; when the group realizes an idea won’t work, the team members will have to take apart what was built and start over. Anders asked Jerome why he isn’t more assertive in defending his plans, and Jerome answered, “That’s just not my style.

8/14/2021 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Northouse.6443.20.1?sections=navpoint-30,navpoint-32,navpoint-33,navpoint-34,navpoint-35,navpoint-36,navpoint-37,navpoint-3… 15/24

How do I know I have all the right answers? We are all supposed to be learning, right? And if I insist they do it my way all the time, how will we learn anything?”

Questions

1. How would you describe the individual leadership styles of Pria, Justin, and Jerome?

2. Based on the assumptions of Theory X and Theory Y, how would you describe Pria, Justin, and Jerome’s individual philosophies of leadership?

3. The robotics team will be asked to compete in a situation that sounds like it will be intense and stressful. Do you think a democratic leader would be as effective as an authoritarian leader in this situation?

3.3 Leadership Styles Questionnaire

Purpose

1. To identify your style of leadership

2. To examine how your leadership style relates to other styles of leadership

Directions

1. For each of the following statements, circle the number that indicates the degree to which you agree or disagree.

2. Give your immediate impressions. There are no right or wrong answers.

8/14/2021 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Northouse.6443.20.1?sections=navpoint-30,navpoint-32,navpoint-33,navpoint-34,navpoint-35,navpoint-36,navpoint-37,navpoint-3… 16/24

Scoring

1. Sum the responses on items 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, and 16 (authoritarian leadership).

2. Sum the responses on items 2, 5, 8, 11, 14, and 17 (democratic leadership).

3. Sum the responses on items 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, and 18 (laissez-faire leadership).

Total Scores

Authoritarian Leadership ________

Democratic Leadership _________

8/14/2021 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Northouse.6443.20.1?sections=navpoint-30,navpoint-32,navpoint-33,navpoint-34,navpoint-35,navpoint-36,navpoint-37,navpoint-3… 17/24

Laissez-Faire Leadership ________

Scoring Interpretation This questionnaire is designed to measure three common styles of leadership: authoritarian, democratic, and laissez-faire. By comparing your scores, you can determine which styles are most dominant and least dominant in your own style of leadership.

If your score is 26–30, you are in the very high range.

If your score is 21–25, you are in the high range.

If your score is 16–20, you are in the moderate range.

If your score is 11–15, you are in the low range.

If your score is 6–10, you are in the very low range.

3.4 Observational Exercise

Leadership Styles

Purpose

1. To become aware of authoritarian, democratic, and laissez-faire styles of leadership

2. To compare and contrast these three styles

Directions

1. From all of the coaches, teachers, music directors, or managers you have had in the past 10 years, select one who was authoritarian, one who was democratic, and one who was laissez-faire.

Authoritarian leader (name) ______________________________________________

Democratic leader (name) ________________________________________________

Laissez-faire leader (name) _______________________________________________

2. On another sheet of paper, briefly describe the unique characteristics of each of these leaders.

Questions

1. What differences did you observe in how each leader tried to influence you?

2. How did the leaders differ in their use of rewards and punishments?

3. What did you observe about how others reacted to each leader?

4. Under which leader were you most productive? Why?

3.5 Reflection and Action Worksheet

Leadership Styles

8/14/2021 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Northouse.6443.20.1?sections=navpoint-30,navpoint-32,navpoint-33,navpoint-34,navpoint-35,navpoint-36,navpoint-37,navpoint-3… 18/24

Reflection

1. As you reflect on the assumptions of Theory X and Theory Y, how would you describe your own philosophy of leadership?

2. Of the three styles of leadership (authoritarian, democratic, and laissez-faire), what style comes easiest for you? Describe how people respond to you when you use this style.

3. One of the aspects of democratic leadership is to help followers take responsibility for themselves. How do you assess your own ability to help others help themselves?

Action

1. If you were to try to strengthen your philosophy of leadership, what kinds of changes would you have to make in your assumptions about human nature and work?

2. As you look at your results on the Leadership Styles Questionnaire, what scores would you like to change? What would you have to do to make those changes?

3. List three specific activities you could use to improve your leadership style.

4. If you make these changes, what impact will this have on others?

8/14/2021 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Northouse.6443.20.1?sections=navpoint-30,navpoint-32,navpoint-33,navpoint-34,navpoint-35,navpoint-36,navpoint-37,navpoint-3… 19/24

Adolf Hitler was perhaps the world's most infamous destructive leader. He had an authoritarian style and used his military victories and charismatic appeal to win over followers.

Media and Resources

The following infographic summarizes the seven leadership styles and characteristics discussed in this book.

The Dark Side of Authoritarian Leadership

8/14/2021 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Northouse.6443.20.1?sections=navpoint-30,navpoint-32,navpoint-33,navpoint-34,navpoint-35,navpoint-36,navpoint-37,navpoint-3… 20/24

Angela Merkel, first female chancellor of Germany, introduced colleagues to a new leadership style rooted in her patience, direct communication, and humility.

Angela Merkel's Leadership Style

Introduction: Dark Charisma of Hitler: Part 3 From Title:

The Dark Charisma of Adolf Hitler: Part 3 (https://fod.infobase.com/PortalPlaylists.aspx? wID=100753&xtid=55143)

© I f b All Ri ht R d L th 02 36

  0:000:00 / 2:36 / 2:36 1x1x

8/14/2021 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Northouse.6443.20.1?sections=navpoint-30,navpoint-32,navpoint-33,navpoint-34,navpoint-35,navpoint-36,navpoint-37,navpoint-3… 21/24

Harish Manwani, chief operating officer of Unilever, discusses his leadership style, emphasizing the importance of authenticity.

Harish Manwani's Leadership Style

First Female Chancellor From Title:

The Making of Merkel (https://fod.infobase.com/PortalPlaylists.aspx?wID=100753&xtid=95138)

© Infobase. All Rights Reserved. Length: 03:01   

  0:000:00 / 3:01 / 3:01 1x1x

8/14/2021 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Northouse.6443.20.1?sections=navpoint-30,navpoint-32,navpoint-33,navpoint-34,navpoint-35,navpoint-36,navpoint-37,navpoint-3… 22/24

Use this interactive version of the Leadership Styles Questionnaire to identify your style of leadership and examine how your leadership style relates to other styles of leadership.

Leader Authenticity From Title:

Unilever—Asia Business (https://fod.infobase.com/PortalPlaylists.aspx?wID=100753&xtid=183925)

© Infobase. All Rights Reserved. Length: 01:40   

  0:000:00 / 1:40 / 1:40 1x1x

8/14/2021 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Northouse.6443.20.1?sections=navpoint-30,navpoint-32,navpoint-33,navpoint-34,navpoint-35,navpoint-36,navpoint-37,navpoint-3… 23/24

8/14/2021 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Northouse.6443.20.1?sections=navpoint-30,navpoint-32,navpoint-33,navpoint-34,navpoint-35,navpoint-36,navpoint-37,navpoint-3… 24/24

References Book Report Network. (2019). Biography: The March for Our Lives founders. 20SomethingReads. Retrieved from

https://www.20somethingreads.com/authors/the-march-for-our-lives-founders (https://www.20somethingreads.com/authors/the-march-for-our-lives-founders)

Bryant, A. (2013, January 26). If supervisors respect the values, so will everyone else. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/ (http://www.nytimes.com/)

Coster, H. (2012, October 19). Victoria Ransom’s wild ride. Fortune. Retrieved from https://fortune.com/ (https://fortune.com/)

Harms, P. D., Wood, D., Landay, K., Lester, P. B., & Vogelsang Lester, G. (2018). Autocratic leaders and authoritarian followers revisited: A review and agenda for the future. The Leadership Quarterly, 29, 105–122.

House, R. (1996). Path-goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy, and a reformulated theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 7, 323–352.

Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., & White, R. K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created “social climates.” Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 271–299.

March for Our Lives. (2019a). Retrieved from https://marchforourlives.com (https://marchforourlives.com)

March for Our Lives. (2019b). Mission & story. Retrieved from https://marchforourlives.com/mission-story/ (https://marchforourlives.com/mission-story/)

McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Ouchi, W. G. (1981). Theory Z: How American business can meet the Japanese challenge. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

White, R., & Lippitt, R. (1968). Leader behavior and member reaction in three “social climates.” In D. Cartwright & A. Zander (Eds.), Group dynamics (pp. 318–335). New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Descriptions of Images and Figures

Back to Figure (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Northouse.6443.20.1/sections/navpoint-35#s9781544351636.i1242) A single line is divided at 3 equal points, creating a range for Leader Influence. The left endpoint is labeled High, the centerpoint is labeled Moderate and the right endpoint is labeled Low.

The Styles of Leadership are listed above the line as follows:

* High Leader Influence: Authoritarian Leadership.

* Moderate Leader Influence: Democratic Leadership.

* Low Leader Influence: Laissez-Faire Leadership.