How we lead, how we follow

In a chapter of their book "Leadership: A Communication Perspective" focusing on leadership and followership communication styles, Michael Hackman and Craig Johnson outline and describe three different leadership styles: authoritarian, democratic, and laissez-faire. The basic description of each of these can be summed up in how a leader sets and achieves goals. Authoritarian leaders set goals individually; democratic involve their followers; laissez-faire contributes only when asked.

I gravitate toward a democratic style leadership for various reasons - one being, obviously, I am an American. I was raised in a country that loves and strives toward (or at least says it does) democracy. It does so for good reason. A democratic perspective and leadership style acknowledges our finitude. There is a place and a time for authoritarian style leadership. Sometimes a quick decision is called for. There is also a place and a time for laissez-faire. Perhaps a project may involve a group of people that need facilitation more than they need a decision maker. In most instances, though, a greater diversity of opinion along with minds open to reasonable consideration - though it may take longer and more energy than authoritarian decisions - will yield, if not a significantly greater result, a more satisfied community. Oftentimes, the importance of a satisfied community is demeaned. What is money or efficiency with broken relationships or a disjointed team?

Hackman and Johnson also outlined followership styles: exemplary, alienated, conformist, pragmatist, and passive. I found this portion of the chapter to be of greater interest because it explores reactions to leadership. As I reflected on my experience, and the reactions to leadership I have had in the past I realized I can be an exemplary follower, but only under a mostly democratic leadership style. I realized that, as a follower, I need a significant amount of encouragement and constructive criticism to contribute in a significant way, to contribute to my full potential. When I am under authoritarian leaders, my creative energy shuts down, my desire to interject my opinion dwindles. My only objective becomes finishing the project as quickly as possible. In a laissez-faire leader-follower setting, I find (in most circumstances) I am too afraid to act because I am unsure if I am moving in the right direction. The project, rather than energizing me with ideas, plans, and future perspectives, tends to frustrate me.

I would like to be able to display more exemplary follower qualities in a larger sphere of situations. I will experience leaders who are authoritarian in nature in my future - I can almost be sure of it; likewise, it is not far-fetched to say I will experience laissez-faire leaders in my future. I think, in simply being aware of these styles, and being aware of my natural reactions to these styles, I can acknowledge the situation I am in and adjust my natural reaction as much as possible. Adjustment may look like submitting myself to an authoritarian leader, and understanding, that I might advocate their way of doing things. Or it may look like asking more questions in laissez-faire situations in order to understand the goals of the project, and prevent frustration.

100%