Authoritarian Leadership

VS.
Participative Leadership
In organizations

In Beyond the horizon of tempus projects: theory and practice of project

management, pp. 447-454.Società Editrice «Il Ponte Vecchio», Alma Mater
Studiorum Università di Bologna, Dipartimento di Sci, ISBN 9788865414071, 11 /
2014.

KUJTIM ZYLFIJAJ, Departamenti Ekonomik; Universiteti Dardania

Adresa Rr. "Nazim Gafurri" nr.17 Prishtinë; KOSOVE
Email-i [email protected]

LURA REXHEPI, Universiteti i Prishtinës; Fakulteti Ekonomik

Rr. "Agim Ramadani" p.n.; KOSOVE
[email protected]

ARTA KOKA GRUBI, Departamenti Ekonomik; Universiteti Dardania

Adresa Rr. "Nazim Gafurri" nr.17 Prishtinë; KOSOVE
[email protected]
Participative vs. Authoritative

Table of Contents:

Introduction of Leadership Styles in Organizations..................................................................3

Description of Authoritarian Leadership...................................................................................4

Description of Participative Leadership.....................................................................................6

Women and Men and their Leadership Styles...........................................................................8

Charismatic Leaders and their Participation Style....................................................................9

Examples of Authoritarian Leadership in Organizations.......................................................10

Examples of Participative Leadership in Organizations.........................................................11

Conclusion...................................................................................................................................12

References:..................................................................................................................................13

Page 2 of 10
Participative vs. Authoritative

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to analyze two different types of leadership in organizations,
authoritative and participative. Based on secondary data analysis-literature review our intention is
to explore the different authors opinion as well as examples of leadership styles in different
organizations in order to find out conclusions of how these two leadership styles would influence
the decision making and performance in organizations.
As leadership style is considered a crucial of importance for every organization, we would like to
find results and give recommendation of which type of leadership style is more appropriate to
implement in organization. However, an organization may sometimes use two types of
leadership, thus we are going to explore which type is more adequate in different kind of
situations.

Keywords: Organization, authoritative leadership, participative leadership, effective

decision, performance

Page 3 of 10
Participative vs. Authoritative

Introduction of Leadership Styles in Organizations

Leadership style has a crucial impact to the efficiency of the human and capital resources
used in organization. Based in the literature, there are different kinds of leadership styles in
organization having impact on business values, productivity and performance. According to the
Daniel Goleman six leadership styles exist in the organization such as: coercive, authoritative,
affiliative, participative, pacesetting and coaching. Coercive leadership means that followers are
obliged to do whatever the leader asks them about. Authoritarian leadership means that followers
are directed by leaders who give instructions to perform a certain task. Affiliative leadership tries
to create a friendly relationship between leader and its followers. Participative leadership means
allowing followers to take part on decisions of the organization, which leads to higher
commitment. Pacesetting leadership is focused on high expectations based on different examples
happened before. Finally, coaching leadership is about the development of followers (Goleman,
2000).
In order to achieve high performance, organizations should adopt different styles of
leadership on different situations. Effective leaders motivate their followers and encourage them
to perform well, while ineffective leaders do not want to waste time creating a friendly
atmosphere which would bring higher productivity. As a result, when there is an ineffective
leader, many employees leave their job. If there is greater communication between leader and
followers, the followers would express their ideas easily, without thinking that their thoughts are
worthless (Goleman, 2000).
We have chosen to research the role of authoritarian and participative leadership styles in the
organizations; therefore in order to find out which of these leadership styles is more adequate,
further review has been done in their description, their differences, and examples in
organizations.

Description of Authoritarian Leadership

The authoritarian leadership style means that a leader communicates to his followers what
tasks should be performed in order to achieve a goal. This type of leader does not need to
motivate followers, as it is predicted that they are motivated to get the job done. In this type of
leadership, which is similar to directive leadership, followers are motivated, but they do not know
the job, so they are willing to get instructions and learn how to do the job efficiently (Northouse,
Ch7, 2012). These leaders are considered to be controllers. Followers have to do the tasks in the
way that the leader has specified. Leaders have clear expectations on how and when the job
needs to be done. Usually, the decision making of authoritarian leader is not very creative. This
type of leadership reduces follower’s dedication toward a task (Lazar, 2006).
Followers are not allowed to participate in the process of decision-making. They have to
carry out the instructions from the leader to get the job done. These followers have little
opportunity to develop their creativity. Sometimes they fear to be fired and that is why they
perform certain tasks. Authoritarian leadership style is present in many organizations. Followers

Page 4 of 10
Participative vs. Authoritative

know only a small amount of information depending on how much trust the leader has created
with them, and leader is the one who knows everything. Leaders tend to strictly supervise their
followers. Authoritarian leadership is considered useful mainly in the military and prisons, as
people must follow the rules in very strict manner. Therefore, authoritarian leaders do not create
channels of communication. This leadership is strict, where leaders want from followers to obey
to rules without argumentation. It has centralized control, where only the leader makes the
decision (Mind Tools Ltd, 2012).
Their formal position allows authoritarian leaders to use legitimate, reward and coercive power
over followers (Northouse, Ch1, 2012). They maintain their position by limiting the participation
of followers in the decisions of the organization. All these leaders want to hear is yes-man; they
want to have followers that are not competent, and cannot have better ideas than them. That is
why many followers tend to leave these organizations, as they go there only of extrinsic
satisfaction, which is money (Masebo, 2008). Also, authoritarian leadership tends to be effective
only when the leader watches followers closely, so they can perform efficiently. (Antonakis,
Cianciolo, & Sternberg, 2004).
Authoritarian leadership is considered to be similar to transactional leadership. This means
that followers obey the influential leader in order to get compensated. In this way, followers are
limited to enhance their knowledge in the organizations, as they only perform the tasks required.
These tasks are usually in short terms and there is no need for deep analysis and creativity.
Passive management, which by exception is a factor in transactional leadership, is linked to
authoritarian style. (Northouse, Ch9, 2012).

Description of Participative Leadership

Participative leadership involves in organizations a democratic process to encourage the

followers to be dedicated on tasks and come up with creative ideas. Leaders listen to follower’s
ideas and consider their valuable inputs in order to make an effective decision. According to
Chynoweth, 2008. "Many brains are better than one". These leaders are focused on followers by
getting their opinions and creating a friendly atmosphere. A great participative leader is the one
that has strong communication skills, and is focused on follower’s concerns. For example, Lord
Coe used participative leadership in his chairmanship of the London Olympic bid and he
strengthened the commitment of the team by allowing them to be involved in decisions.
Obviously it is important for all participants in an organization to feel that they have some saying,
because this motivates them to work harder. The leader and followers are kind of equal as they
have shared power in decision making (Chynoweth, 2008).
Participative leaders communicate priorities to followers and involve them in realistic goals.
Participative leaders support developing follower’s talent and provide them with necessary
resources. In a way, they build team cohesion, it is important to select the right followers who are
proactive in the process of decision making. The process of decision-making should be high
quality in the way that participants should be satisfied and improve their skills (Mind Tools Ltd.,
2008). Participative leadership is a component of the path goal theory, which is useful when
there is a need for greater clarity to achieve goals, and usually an ambiguous task is present.

Page 5 of 10
Participative vs. Authoritative

With communication, followers come up with effective decisions and leaders usually offer great
efforts to encourage participation of followers (Northouse, Ch7, 2012).
It is important that leaders build trust with their followers, so they will feel secured to express
themselves and bring creative ideas. Participative leadership results in higher productivity as
followers are more motivated, and committed to achieve a goal. This leadership encourages
bottom up taking decisions, and creates harmony in organizations. Followers need clarity of
tasks, whenever the tasks are complex and not structured. The leader, who cultivates professional
competence, makes the final decision after he has received different views of followers
(www.ctb.ku.edu, 2012).
This leadership means that followers are involved in the decision making process in order to
solve complex problems, and creative thinking is involved as there are different views. Perhaps
leaders could save time when they decide by themselves; however, they usually have a lack of
creative ideas. On the other hand, participative leaders believe in the work of followers. Many
followers are skilled employees, who need to give their inputs in order to feel more valued. Not
only in the organizations, but also in real life, when someone asks for advice, people usually feel
valuable by expressing their thoughts. When people are involved in the decision making process
they feel part of that organization much more than if they will go there to do a routine job.
People develop their thinking by making suggestions about a new product, or improvement
existing ones. Getting input from followers may take time, and the decisions in organizations
might be reached slowly, but chances to take right decisions would be high. Followers increase
their morale and commitment to the tasks. Usually, people who know that they are allowed to
express their thoughts are those that solve problems more creatively and overcome easier any
difficulty in their lives (McCrimmon, 2007).

Women and Men and their Leadership Styles

In some circumstances, participative style is better, and under other circumstances,

authoritarian style is more useful. Women leaders usually have the ability to use more
participatory styles compared to men. Their participatory style is linked to transformational
leadership, where women use more rewards to followers. However, men leaders fail to use
participatory leadership. Men are better leaders than women when having situations with passive
management by exception and laissez faire leadership
(Antonakis, Cianciolo, & Sternberg, Ch12). Transformational leadership has five factors, such as
idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individualized
consideration. Idealized influence involves leader qualities associated with moral and ethical
conduct, which is a model for followers to behave in similar way. Inspirational motivation is
about communicating high expectations to the followers, in a way that increases their self
efficacy. Intellectual stimulation is about encouraging followers to find new ways on solving
problems. Finally, individualized consideration is how the leaders listen to the followers
concerns, and help them to improve by different challenges. These factors were associated with
participative style, and as mentioned above, women perform better these factors. On the other
hand, passive management by exception and laissez faire leadership are associated with men.

Page 6 of 10
Participative vs. Authoritative

Passive management by exception means when leaders do not intervene until the problems
becomes critical. Laissez faire leadership is when there is no leadership involved, and usually
managers delay meeting and do not give efforts to understand follower’s needs (Northouse, Ch9).
However, leaders that use either authoritarian or participatory styles have a common vision,
which is to make the decision effective and make the company successful.

Charismatic Leaders and their Participation Style

Considering examples find out in the literature, I think that charismatic leaders use
participative style, where women are more effective. Self-efficacy is one of the roles that these
leaders transform to their followers. This means that they have the capability to organize and
execute tasks in order to produce expected outcomes. Charismatic leaders are self confident
people, who have the desire to influence. This self-confidence becomes an enduring part of their
self-image, even when they get dispirited or are facing the likelihood of failure (Tucker 1968;
Schlenker, Weigold, & Hallam 1990; Barrick & Mount, 1993). This self-confidence comes from
high self-esteem and helps the leader maintain the confidence of the follower (Hill, 1976). They
have their own mission, vision and values that lead their lives, and they encourage their followers
to do so. Also, charismatic leaders have their beliefs and inspire followers to have their own
beliefs as well. In this way, they gain full respect, as they have the capacity to listen to followers
for any discussion and give them advise no matter of many duties that they have to fulfill.
Leaders always have high expectations from followers, which encourage them to work hard and
perform beyond expectations, as they feel more confident to do the right thing after
communicating with leader. Followers are not stressed when they perform any task, as they have
the support of the leader since he/she has encouraged them to be able to deal with issues in the
most unique and challenging ways (Christine & Jane, 1999).

Examples of Authoritarian Leadership in Organizations

Some researchers have found that authoritarian leadership style can bring success in
organizations. The authoritarian leader is considered a person who is not a dictator, rather listens
to the follower’s opinions, and then after some analysis makes the decision. This is efficient
leadership, as this leader does not want to create strong relationship with followers only to get
resulting decision, rather he/she wants to work harder and get precise results (Hasemann, 2004).
In many organizations, authoritarian leaders give orders, and followers have to follow them
because they fear of the consequences. The armed forces organizations use authoritarian
leadership mainly because this style is useful in emergency cases. Nevertheless, enterprises that
use this style face various difficulties. When orders are passed down, there might be different
interpretations leading to unnecessary mistakes. That is why low level employees are blamed
without having fault, and this causes conflict. Also, this lowers their efforts toward a job, and
high staff turnover takes place. Decision making is centralized and is made quickly, but it does

Page 7 of 10
Participative vs. Authoritative

not give employees a chance to express themselves. Also, in large organizations, because of the
internal conflict, teamwork does not exist (Davidmann, 2006).
There are other examples of authoritarian leadership in organizations. One of them is when
the leader, using aggressive behavior, tells to the follower to perform a task in a specific manner.
There is a new paramedic who has problems with intubation. The field training paramedic takes
away the airway equipment from new paramedic and does the work alone. He/she also points out
to the new paramedic that this issue will be discussed later (Murphy, 2007). Another example of
this leadership would be when a leader tells its followers to do the work without getting advice,
as there is time pressure. The superintendent has a meeting in Indianapolis and that is why he/she
wants circulation statistics by noon. In this case, the media clerk prepares the reports as guided
(Lamb & Johnson, 2007).

Examples of Participative Leadership in Organizations

Based on the research, organizations which are highly valuable employ participative
leadership styles, so employees have the opportunity to be part of decision-making process. It is
important for organizations to arrange meeting with employees and get their feedback before
coming to a conclusion. Employees have been proved to be influential, as it is more effective to
gather diverse thoughts. Decision will be of high quality when employees with a mutual goal,
have opposing views about an issue, and give different arguments. For example, recently in
China, employees have started to open discussion and want to have many agreements in order to
reach effective conclusion (Chen & Tjosvold, 2006). In many organizations, participative
leadership is useful. Employees try their best to bring quality in their tasks they perform. Leader
tries to avoid obstacles by encouraging cooperation. Usually, these employees are satisfied of
what they do, and communicate their concerns without fear (Davidmann, 2006).
Another example of this leadership is when participation of followers is involved in decision-
making, as the leader does not have all the answers. There is an operations manager who has to
do the upgrading of the cardiac monitors. He forms a team as he has to do this in 25 ambulances.
The team did the tasks and after the evaluation of different cardiac monitors, they decided the “C”
model. As the manager accepts their proposal to buy the “C” model, the team felt valuable to be
integrated in decision making process (Murphy, 2007). An example of participative leadership
can be the Institute for Molecules and Materials (IMM). In the IMM, constituents collaborate
with each other, and communicate their ideas by participating in decision-making. Therefore,
constituents have created trust to the governing body of IMM (Lamb & Johnson, 2007).
There are other examples of participative leadership which has proved to be successful. There
is a case in Unilever in Brazil, where employees have been exposed to participation style, and
they think that every employee is able to contribute and make a difference. Unilever employees
have enhanced their participation and not only contributed to their company, but they also express
themselves easier in the society. Peaceful society is developed through these individuals who
were able to participate in decision-making (Spreitzer).

Page 8 of 10
Participative vs. Authoritative

Conclusion

Organizations differ between each other based on the behavior of the owner and the workers,
and based on their beliefs of which leadership style is more effective. Based on the research, we
found out that authoritarian style can be useful in organizations. A leader direct followers on task
accomplishment and followers feel that they contributed in the goals of company. However,
sometimes being directed by the leader makes followers sad and not valuable, as they do not have
opportunity to develop their knowledge at a higher degree. On the other hand, when the followers
have greater education and work experience, the participative leadership is useful. Leader can
leave the work in follower’s hand, and know that they will perform tasks efficiently. Employees,
who work in organizations with participatory style, have higher responsibility and commitment
toward the job. This enhances their creativity. It is useful when the leader needs direction, and
fresh ideas from followers are needed.
Indeed, even though people usually want democracy, and prefer to have participation
leadership in the organization they work, it does not mean that it always lead to higher
productivity. In fact, none of the leadership styles can be considered the best, as there is nothing
absolute comprehensive. Today, organizations are shifting to more participatory leadership. In
this way, followers get motivated to change and work hard to fully commit in their duties.
Leaders support them by using communication and this increases their self-efficacy. In order to
provide harmony in organizations, it is important to meet the needs of people. People prefer to
work in places where they can express their talent and are proud of their work they do. Most
people expect to enhance their knowledge by trying hard to make contribution to the company.
To be encouraged, employees need to be appreciated. Otherwise, employees perform poorly, and
go to work only to earn money. There is evidence that some leaders do not want to waste time to
meet the needs of the employees. They are not aware that they would not waste time by
communicating with them, as this will increase their motivation to work hard, which leads to
successful company.

References:

Antonakis, J., Cianciolo, A.T., & Sternberg, R.J. (2004). The Nature of Leadership. Thousand
Oaks, CA.: Sage Publications.
Chen, Y., & Tjosvold, D. (2006, December). Participative Leadership by American and Chinese
Managers in China: The Role of Relationships. Journal of Management Studies. Retrieved
May 14, 2008, from EbscoHost through Business Source Elite.
China Media Research. (2006). Compare Participative Leadership Theories in Three Cultures.
Chynoweth, C. (2008, February 7). Leaders who put onus on the led. The Times and Sunday
Times (London), pp.1-2.

Page 9 of 10
Participative vs. Authoritative

Christine, S. M. & Jane, M. H. (1999). Charismatic leadership and task feedback: A laboratory
study of their effects on self-efficacy and task performance
Davidmann, M. (2006). Style of Management and Leadership. Retrieved November 11, 2012
from http://www.solhaam.org/articles/clm2.html
Hasemann C. (2004). Can administrators' leadership style influence quality of care? Nursing
Homes: Long Term Care Management [serial online]. Retrieved November 10, 2012, from
EbscoHost through Business Source Elite.
Goleman Daniel (2000, March, 1). Leadership that gets results; Harvard Business Review.
Lamb, A, & Johnson, L. (2007). How do leadership styles impact school library programs?
Lazar, M. (2006, July 28). Why some workers lack creativity, leadership.
Masebo, M. (2008). When leadership styles determine organisational success.
McCrimmon, M. (2007, Jun 13). What is Participative Leadership?
(2008, January 10). Good bosses can turn on the style. The Times and Sunday Times (London),
pp.1-2. Retrieved November 10, 20012 from Lexis Nexis Academic.
Mind Tools Ltd. (2012). Leadership Styles. Retrieved October, 2012 from
http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newLDR_84.htm#transactional
Murphy, P. (2007, July 18). Leadership and Cadence: Leadership Styles. Retrieved november 12,
2012 from http://www.emsresponder.com/web/online/Management/Leadership-and-
Cadence--Leadership-Styles-/3$5759
Northouse, P.G. (2012, February). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications. (Sixth edition)
Sparks G.A.(March 2008). Charismatic Leadership: An exploratory investigation of the
techniques of influence; Capella University
Spreitzer, G. (n.d.) Giving Peace a Chance: Participative Organizational Leadership,
Empowerment, and Sustainable Peace.

Page 10 of 10