More handpicked essays just for you.
Compare two leadership styles
Comparison and contrast of leadership styles
Big five personality traits of great leaders
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Each different branch of leadership has a multitude of criteria and reasons that are beneficial to follow each. For the purpose of this examination focusing on the three main styles of leadership will be beneficial on top of focusing its use of them by professional leaders. Each style has their own pros and cons allowing one to understand how they can be beneficial or hurtful to any company. Professional leaders are able to represent the use of these styles and how they can alter the progress of a business or team.
The first leadership style that I would like to address is called the Laissez-Faire Leadership Style. This type of leadership style is properly defined as a style that allows actions to run its course without interfering
…show more content…
and minimal direction. Just as its meaning from French origins, laissez-faire directly translates into “let it be” or also “leave it alone”. This type of leadership style requires many different things to be successful. The first major aspect that is required when being successful in this is having a team of individuals underneath that are well trained and proficient in their work. These people are needed to become the middleman between you and your employees. Such delegations of activities are handed down to the followers but although the decisions are being made by them, the faults and mistakes will still end up on the accountability of the leader. With little guidance and help from the leader it becomes a difficult task to understand and complete tasks correctly, although with the right team of critical thinkers even the toughest decisions can be solved effectively. Just like with any type of leadership style there becomes pros and cons to how the style pans out and is delegated. The benefits are generally self-explanatory I believe. This type of leadership style can be beneficial when you have a group of individuals who are self-motivated and work well with others along with working on their own. As a result of members being experts on their own, it gives them the ability to work alone with minimal guidance directly in relation to their knowledge on the work and skills each possesses. Alongside being experts of their own in particulars skills and subject matter it allows those to feel power and control by demonstrating their expertise. Lastly, the idea of being able to work alone and manage your own work can be a feeling of freedom for some group members. It essentially will allow them to be more satisfied with the work that they have done. With the benefits of this leadership style there also comes several downsides and negativity when dealing with a Laissez-Faire Leadership. This type of style is not suggested when members of the group do not have the knowledge or experience needed to complete the tasks and make important decisions. Also, if you have a team that is unable to set their own deadlines, manage projects effectively, or even solve problems without guidance from a higher level manager this style with not work. When trying to use this leadership style and not having the proper team, projects can easily become delayed with deadlines missed continually. This then creates a chain reaction and the effectiveness of the work within the company or team begins to decline and ultimately fails to be successful. Also since team members are not given the guidance to determine what their responsibilities are in each group there becomes a grey area of who should be completing what tasks. There is also a lot of animosity between the leaders and group members. They are seen frequently as uninvolved in the work that is being done and shown to care less about what is happening. The feeling of their leader not wanting to be involved in the issues and work that is occurring can translate into negative feelings of group members changing the overall feeling they have for their work. Lastly, having this type of leadership style can often lead to leaders straying away from taking the blame for things that go wrong. Putting the fault of group members will make them not want to be a part of your team and as a result will create negativity within the workforce. Two leaders that we felt best used this leadership style was Herbert Hoover and Warren Buffett.
These two leaders were able to use a much laid back approach when it came to them leading others. First we will take a look at Herbert Hoover, as many of you know; he was the 31st President of the United States of America. On August 10, 1874 Herbert Hoover was born in a town called West Branch, Iowa. He was raised in a Quaker family, which means that they were a group of religious Christians. Before he became President, Hoover actually worked under the two previous Presidents. He worked under the two previous presidents with the title Secretary of Commerce. The presidents whom he worked under were Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge. After working under Harding and Coolidge Hoover then became the 31st President. By previously working under these two presidents it had a direct effect on how he decided to lead others and run the …show more content…
country. Also, before Hoover became President, he was actually a Mining Engineer, mostly in Western Australia, for a company that was based out of London.
The company that he worked for was Bewick, Moreing and Company. A major goal of Hoover’s was to try and provide humanitarian relief around the world. One example of his humanitarian efforts was at the beginning of World War I. Hoover was a part in helping the return of over 100,000 Americans from Europe. He was very big into helping other people at his own expense. He believed that helping others was the way that people should live their lives. Hoover was able to get the tasks at hand done by being able to rely heavily on the people that were considered to be his followers. He would still be the person in charge, and be the leader that people looked up to but was not an overbearing leader who took too much pride in his control. He was able to become a viable option to be President of the United States after working under some previous Presidents before him. His work as a follower to other presidents allowed him to become an effective President and lead a country. When Hoover finally became President it was obvious that his approach too k a very “laid back” appearance to his leading. He believed in his workers, and their capabilities. Hoover was able to rely on those below him and their knowledge. He felt his followers were capable of handling the issues handed to them by themselves and did not want to interfere causing
disruptions to their work. Another aspect of this was that since did not have the experience of working in an office he decided to use his experience as an engineer in Western Australia to help him lead. The next Laissez-Faire leader that I would like us to take a look at is Warren Buffett. He is considered to be one of “the world’s greatest businessmen” by various sources. Buffett was born in Omaha, Nebraska on August 30, 1930. He graduated from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, where he achieved a degree in Business Administration, and then proceeded to earn his masters in Economics from Columbia University in 1951. Buffett has become very successful in his lifetime. His company, Berkshire Hathaway has become one of the most lucrative in the world. With Buffett at the helm Berkshire Hathaway has been able to not only be its only company, but wholly own many other major companies. The companies that he owned were: GEICO, Dairy Queen, and Fruit of the Loom, Helzberg Diamonds, and Net Jets. Buffett has become one of the wealthiest men in the world because of his business ventures, and a lot of that has to do with the way he leads his company. He is very lenient with the people under him, in the way that he leads them. Buffet just as Hoover took a hands-off approach to his management style. He made sure his surrounding people had the abilities to perform their jobs sufficiently without his guidance. Buffet decides to only get involved with his followers when bad circumstances occur. Along with the leadership that he shows within his own company, he has tried his hand at bringing that leadership to the real world. He encourages other members of the wealthier class like himself to donate most of their wealth and money to philanthropic efforts. Even with this he does not force people to donate money but he encourages it. He does this in a laid-back fashion, just like the Laissez-Faire leadership style that he uses with Berkshire Hathaway. Moving away from the Laissez-Faire Leadership style the next style I found to be important is mentioned as the Autocratic Leadership Style. A far variation from the previous leadership style here the leader takes control over decisions that are made with little advice accepted from followers. The understanding behind such a stimulating leadership style is feeling that teams work better without a forceful presence of their boss but there are still some who need that type of guidance all the time. The leader has ultimate control of all the team efforts, tracking them minute by minute for sure completion the majority of the time under strict analysis. There are times that this leadership style will be effective and others when it will be detrimental to a working group. Majorly this will be highly effective when working with a group of people on a specific task where high control is necessary. High control could be necessary when working on a tedious task that allows for little to no error, for example when perfection is necessary. Another situation appropriate for the use of Autocratic leadership style would be in situations where the working conditions or job to be done is highly dangerous, strict rules can
President Herbert Hoover was the conservative Republican president of America when the Great Depression occurred, and was given the burden of rebuilding the economy. He believed the federal government should not intervene, and instead believed that helping the needy was the obligation of private organizations and donors, whom he pressured. In addition, Hoover granted loans to big businesses, hoping that the money would “trickle down” and that more employees would be hired.
Herbert Hoover, elected as president in 1928, was a president who was not actively involved with the lives of the people in his country. His
Because of the plague known as the Great Depression, Herbert Hoover is often seen as one of the worst presidents in American history. He enacted policies such as the Hawley-Smoot Tariff that flushed America deeper into the depression. Hoover didn't understand that to solve a crisis such as a depression, he needed to interact directly with the people by using programs such as social security and welfare. Instead, Hoover had the idea that if he were to let the depression run its course, it would eventually end. There are three things that can be used to define Hoover's presidency during the depression, his actions, his mentality toward fixing things, and the fact that he helped pave the way for the “New Deal”
He quickly moves from the panic of 1929 to the ‘30’s and how many of the popular governmental sentiments during the election were no longer so. Hoover quickly moved from a position of public acceptance and admiration to that of a scapegoat. That the Depression was his fault is not entirely true, though. Hoover did not have much of the information needed to foretell the economic situation. In the laissez-faire form of government he prescribed, there was no place for a department that would document these things for the use of the president’s office.
As Document A suggests, Hoover did not want to be considered completely laissez-faire. He seemed less determined to preserve the extremely capitalistic society of the 1920's which was run, often corruptly, by political machines, such as Tweed. However, the success of the American economy under the private interest beliefs of Harding and Coolidge required him to ensure that the lack of intervention ... ... middle of paper ... ...ca afloat as shown in Document D. Roosevelt immediately gained the public's favor with his liberal ideas.
Hoover shared with the nation after the First World War, and he promised to bring continued peace and prosperity. He declared, “I have an abiding faith in their capacity, integrity and high purpose. “…we find some causes for concern. We have emerged from the losses of the Great War and the reconstruction following it with increased virility and strength.” In this regard, he also pushed the nation to take the blame and the initiative to be responsible to make that change needed.
Historians claim that Hoovers term during the depression was filled with false promises and accuse the president of doing nothing while the depression worsened. Along with worsening the debt and a fairly aggressive use of government it is clear his approach towards the situation was not the best. FDR’s approach would prove during his administration to suffice in the augmentation of the crisis. Although it seemed like a completely opposite presidency, many ideas came from his predecessor. Roosevelt’s team of advisors understood that much of what they produced and fashioned into the New Deal owed its origins to Hoover’s policies.
Hoover kept the government from intervening in the economy because of the success of the big businesses, the public's fear of revolution, and the public being content with the politics. In addition, the invention of the production line, which instigated the Second Industrial Revolution, allowed businessmen to prosper, and automobiles and electrical appliances become available to the public and ease the public's life.... ... middle of paper ... ...
Because the economy was doing so well during the “Roaring 20s”, there wasn’t much of a dispute over this type of leadership. While President Hoover kept that same mindset in his approach to economic recovery, his successor President Franklin Delano Roosevelt took a completely different and pragmatic approach, willing to think outside of what was accepted at the time. President Hoover continually reminded Americans that things would get better if they kept working hard and pushed through. “Franklin D. Roosevelt introduced programs between 1933 and 1938, designed to help America pull out of the Great Depression by addressing high rates of unemployment and poverty. An array of services, regulations, and subsidies were introduced by FDR and Congress, including widespread work creation programs.
Herbert Hoover, President 1929 -1932. was a straight laced, prohibition supporting President who favoured. the Laissez Faire approach to governing the country. He took up office at a time when America was complacent over it’s economics. future, and did not regard economic policy as of major importance in the election of the president. He did have a humanitarian side, having been President.
When looking at how he met Neustadt’s three criteria, one could classify Hoover as a weaker president then others. Because of his non-political background, Hoover was not a very persuasive man and lacked the skills needed to succeed in Washington. Although he was one of the smartest men ever elected president and the only engineer, his programs often failed to stimulate consumption and production needed to get America out of the depression. As a result, many blame the severity of the depression on Hoover’s lack of government involvement in trying to stimulate the economy. Hoover refused to have the federal government fix prices, control businesses, manipulate currency values etc. Because Hoover had always...
During the Great Depression the task of being president of the United States became even greater, because of the suffering economy. Herbert Hoover was one of the president’s who was faced with this challenge. In fact, he was President during the time of the stock market crash. During his time as president there were many controversies that surrounded him. Many people felt that he wjhnot reaching his full potential as president through some of the things he helped organize in order to help the struggling economy. In actuality, he was doing more than others before him for the economy, but unfortunately it was not enough and what little help he did provide came too late. Part of the reason he acted too late was, because of his opinions and thoughts on the Depression and how the government should go about remedying it. President Hoover’s thoughts and views greatly affected the economy and the ways it was dealt with during his presidency.
Herbert Hoover was the 31st president of the United States of America. He served during the Great Depression and tried to resolve America's economy downfall. He was president from 1929 to 1933 and only served one term. He is known for making the Hoover Dam, which to this day is a national monument and a way to promote his taking into reelection. The three most important things about Herbert Hoover is his childhood, presidency, and his involvement in the Empire State Building.
Herbert wanted to make something great out of himself but he made himself out to be a disappointment to the people. Hoover didn't take consideration of what the people and government had to say, he thought he was doing what he thought was best, he did what was best for himself. Herbert made promises to so many different people from all over the world that he would make everything better. Hoover could not hold up to those so said “promises” that he made, Herbert doesn't quite understand what the people need and want. Hoover isn't going to make this place better because it's what he wants. Herbert has a so called “perfect plan” for us, well that plan could be the death of us all.
This paper describes about my leadership strengths and areas for growth/future study. It also included how these qualities are used in my daily work routine, self-assessment results and a brief explanation on Individual style in leadership.