Which Leadership Type Do You Prefer?

[jcoppi29]

We've all encountered types of leaders at some point, either in the classroom, the household or later on, the workplace. If you're to pick between the combined traits of a leader, would you go for a skilled but harshly authoritative one or less efficient but more motivational/gentle one?

What are the stories of the examples of leaders in your life that defined your best and worse experience so far?

What type of leader do you want to be?

[Bjun]

If these are the only 2 choices, then I would go for someone who is skilled but harshly authoritative. I always wanted to learn from my superiors and to be challenged at work. I also don't have any problems with following a company's policies or any authority. Working under someone less efficient would be frustrating for me and I might end up doing their work or my work suffering from their inefficiency.

[jcoppi29]

@Bjun

It would depend if the said supervisor that makes mistakes is open to the conversation of improvements happening or not. I'd get frustrated if the supervisor is charismatic but defensive when it comes to improvement. I won't be as frustrated if they're willing to deal with their mistakes and work on better methods instead. I tend to be gray-leaning when it comes to these things so I keep some criteria on hand for various scenarios.

And I agree, empathy is hard to learn considering that the general human template that we inherited from apes is very tribalistic and prone to dehumanizing whoever isn't like us. It's why there's more divides these days than ever because people get carried away by tribalistic instincts more online -- than transcend the tendency and learn empathy instead.

[Bjun]

jcoppi29 So true. Some companies offer leadership training where communication and empathy is a big part of it. It's something I struggle with as well.

I guess I would be more accepting of a supervisor who seems to be less-skilled if they just started working in the company for a few months and they are willing to deal with their mistakes and work on better methods. But, if they've been in the company for years and make the same mistakes or refuse to accept changes, then motivation and empathy can only go a long way.

[jcoppi29]

@Bjun

I think there should be a leadership training with a secret assessment phase. I've seen a lot of people take leadership trainings and seminars but only for its badges and awards -- back in their comfort zone or their territory, they resume as usual most times -- or I'm really just traumatized by my BPO bosses lmao.

Also true, it's hard to modify one's work ethic if it has been nurtured in an environment by tenure. Enable them long enough, they stick to those patterns continuously.

[Skye]

I want a skilled but harshly authoritative one - if I am starting out a new role. But as I work best with minimum supervision when I already know what to do... I'd still choose the harshly authoritative boss. hahaha... It's work, not friendship. As long as the boss is not a micromanager, I am fine. And as long as that boss can also do his job well and takes responsibility for his/her actions, I am good.

[Bjun]

Hahahah.. I can relate to your statement about it being work, not friendship. It's nice when friendship develops but at the end of the day, you're there to work and learn and grow professionally. And, I think the best person who can help you do that is someone who is skilled and efficient.

[Gerhard]

Blunt / frank no nonsense get things done or get out kind of leadership is what the current generation of cry baby newbies need. Gone are the hardcore bosses who knew how to properly motivate employees to give it their all who are now replaced by those who are bound by too much HR policies of don'ts.

[Skye]

hahaha... kick 'em out? @Bjun?

I guess what Gerhard is saying is that the young ones feel entitled and are quite sensitive. HR policies have evolved. Bosses are now questioned whereas before, what they say is the law. Employees, across all ages, are more empowered.

Older employees have been bound by a different set of rules, some rules not even set by HR. Just rules set by society. So even if the way the workplace is run these days, the elders are still seeing a hug gap between what they did before and how it is now.

This empowerment of the newbies, on th eother hand, are magnified because they know the policies, they know how to work them from the very start. And because they are new, the seasoned employees frown upon this. Thinking that these children have not earned their stripes yet, therefore, they should not complain or whatever.

Just my two cents.

On a side note, I am happy that I am with a good leader who respects each person, regardless of generation.

[jcoppi29]

I think it's actually a much more complex topic because it includes a generational spectrum. On one extreme end would be the no nonsense, boomer leadership styles that had bullies, ruthless bosses without merit, also the same line that harassed people to suicide and all that while solely focusing on merit and hard work (which focuses on stripes earned as Skye said), on the other hand, would be the newbies that don't want to get merit, instead, would just scare the HR away, are entitled, or would play the victim card just to climb up the corporate ladder.

Thing is, facts or at least, studies, are better bases than opinions. It's a fact that punishment or punitive processes are counter-productive long-term if these are the only means to instill integrity, merit, and work ethic. Fear isn't an independent motivator -- if it is, it snaps too many people (and when I say snap, they either get suicidal or homicidal). This is why there's a sandwich method synthesis of the old ways and the newer ways.

Contrary to the newbie culture these days, however, it's also recommended to expose children and newbies to hardship, and let them earn their place. Not giving into their tantrums teaches them accountability and responsibility, spoiling them is just as bad as over-punishing them. I guess, there has to be a balance.

The older generations did go through "worse", but does that automatically mean, the future generations have to as well? Isn't the purpose of improvement to prevent dire circumstances from recurring? It's a very tricky topic.

I'm a millenial - millennials are pretty old now lmao -- between 25-35ish I think. The baby boomers never really understood my generation (or so thats how it was, now i get along with my parents), and a sign of aging for me is not understanding the next one, Gen Z. Then again, the universals have to focused on to find common ground, otherwise, it's just a pissing contest of who's had it worst, who is more entitled, who is more "worthy" and all that socially constructed, genetically triggered cycle pattern that has been going on since the dawn of humanity. It's just a cycle.

[mjmnl]

Totally in sync with this statement @jcoppi29: "The older generations did go through "worse", but does that automatically mean, the future generations have to as well? Isn't the purpose of improvement to prevent dire circumstances from recurring?". Our elders have always been telling us "that's not how we did it before", "you should do this to succeed", "been there done that". As much as we want to, it's hard to understand each generation especially with the differences in belief and environment. As a millennial, I also tend to think that gen Z is so entitled. But then, my mom also thinks millennials have it easy as well. So I guess life just gets better and easier for the newer generation and there's no problem with that.

[Lou]

For me, I'd go for someone who is highly-skilled but harshly authoritative. However, I despise those who pretend to be "perfectionists" who do not even know what the word really entails.

Of course, a little motivation goes a long way. As a leader, you should know how to balance motivation and authority. It's better to stay professional and stay within the company rules. Of course, there will always be exemptions. Having empathy and compassion towards your members will also help boost the camaraderie within the team. 😍😍😍

[Bjun]

I think a lot of people use the word "perfectionist" loosely these days. I thought I was a perfectionist but really, I just wanted things to be done my way and that people should follow how I do things. My way may be the best way for me but it doesn't mean it is the best/easiest way for others. I understand now that there is more than one way of doing things and I guess being a good leader means you allow your people to explore and do things their way (within the company policy, of course). There's no need to be too strict or be closed to any suggestions on changing how things are done.

[Kamille]

I'd choose the highly skilled authoritative one. You'll learn all the things you need to learn to master your job. Also, an authoritative leader will give a clear vision of what is expected of me, so I can set my goals that is inclined with the company's. No one likes a micro-manager, but if it promotes consistency then I'm not complaining. Although a motivational leader can boost morale, a highly skilled authoritarian leader who knows how to acknowledge effort and good work is more than enough for me.

[mjmnl]

That's really a traumatic work experience, jcoppi29. If I were to experience that, I wouldn't be able to stand it and immediately leave and find a better one. I value the work environment so much. Without the right work environment, I feel like I am forced to work just to make a living and all the learnings and experience will just go to waste in the future. I'm glad that I have never experienced an abusive type of leader. There are a lot of negative effects if we allow this in our workplace and this article summarizes it: https://yoursafehub.com/abuse-power-workplace/

It does affect the employee and the company. So, I hope you already found the leader that best fits your liking.

[jcoppi29]

I seriously still don't know how to tag people in my replies after months of being here lmao.

Anyways, yeah, I'm glad I'm out of it. Thing is, I realize I'm more motivated by leaders that don't rely on their power to lead tasks, rather their skill and charisma. Being pressured into productivity without addressing any morale issues or team dynamics is too militaristic for me, especially if the leader is all bark. I'd even perform better with a quiet one that packs a strong solid bite.

[Skye]

jcoppi29, I just type @+handle. No spaces. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't.

Kamille, I agree with your statement that "No one likes a micro-manager, but if it promotes consistency then I'm not complaining." At some point, at the beginning usually, I want a micromanager for me. Then once I have learned the ropes, leave me be. hahaha...

[Lou]

I agree that a lot of people hold on to their title as if it gives them the right to belittle those under them. I believe these types of people do not know the true meaning of leadership.

I found this article from forbes.com and according to this article, a good leader focuses on helping the team. By making sure that the team is on the right track and everyone is given the opportunity to grow. It is not really a question of who is in charge. Rather, itis about how you motivate your team to be the best version of themselves to be able to achieve your goals.

I believe belittling or talking down to your members is not a good way to motivate. You can always be frank but still, stay professional. It's still best to stay as calm as you can in situations where tension is arising. I also believe that how strong you are is not measured by how loud you can be but by how you are able to control your anger and stay calm in situations where you could have just snapped and lose all your cool.

[kdy]

I'd go for "less efficient but more motivational/gentle one", but not necessarily a "gentle one". Not all motivational leaders are really gentle. A lot are actually those who can burst your bubble very easily. I think, we just have this stereotype that the motivational ones are those who deliver an inspirational speech, or those who usually love long talks. On the contrary, they are often the ones, who don't talk much.

A team consists of different individuals with different personalities, learning curves and WIFMs. I would want a leader who can accommodate this diversity. I don't need the leader to do the work/tasks to reach the goal. I just need the leader to be able to identify a goal, plan with the team, delegate, and implement. I need someone who can ensure that the everything goes smoothly for the team, and someone who can push each member to work efficiently and effectively to hit the goal without depending on the use of sanctions.

We've seen in different arenas how efficiency and skills do not equate to being a good leader. I know a coach, who during his youth has never really won a tournament, but as a coach produced a lot of gold medalists.

Actually, if I were the hiring manager, and I have to choose between two prospective leaders, I would choose the motivational one, rather than the more skillful one . I think I would need the skillful one and his skills more in the workforce. Not that his efforts are taken for granted or disregarded. There are lots of other mediums where performance is rewarded

[JerryYan]

I prefer the skilled but harshly authoritative one for a leader. It would allow a bigger room for mentorship and growth since there are a lot more to explore and learn from the leaders' skills, experiences, management style, and work ethic that I, instead, could improved on. But I also agree that in terms of hiring, it would be good to have the motivational although less skilled because he/she would have more room for improvement in the team.

[Indelible_Mark]

I would suppose the effective leader is the one who can adapt styles depending on the need --just like motivation can vary from each member of the team not to mention the team as a whole...having just one specific 'style' is a handicap in itself.

Knowing when a specific style and the wisdom to apply unique approaches each time is the hallmark of an effective leader..the kind I would want to follow around and learn from.

[mjmnl]

There are 5 known leadership styles and the types that we prefer may vary in types of business we are working in and our personality. In my opinion, the best types are always the one that can make the employees satisfied with their job and their purpose. Those people whom employees can learn from without feeling like a failure if it takes time to nail the job. Role model bosses give a sense of fulfilment for some reason. So, if we can also include the different types of leadership styles together with the 2 types you mentioned, I choose Transformational Leadership Style. Their passion for work and commitment gives motivation to the employees to do more and be more.

Here are the other leadership styles that we may encounter: https://www.explorepsychology.com/le...%20items...%20

[Indelible_Mark]

Isn't satisfaction also 'intrinsic'..so much so that a good leader will 'draw out' this sense of satisfaction from an employee? or colleague? Then you mentioned motivation..also internal..and yet we turn to our ideal leadership style?

Shouldn't we be looking inwards and how I can be the leader that I would like?

Maybe THAT is the leadership style we each are trying to chase down...who we want to be 😜

[Kamille]

Interesting read! I was trying to decide which one I prefer but then I read the last paragraph at the bottom of the article.
Its true that there really isn't a formula for the 'best' or 'most effective' leader. Just like what the article mentioned, it will depend on a lot of factors e.i the challenges and situations, and sometimes even the kind of team he is leading. I think the most effective leader would be someone who has the skills to adapt his leadership style in various situations. Besides, the world is too dynamic and having just one style would never be enough.

[jcoppi29]

@Indelible_Mark

Satisfaction is internal and subjective yet it can also be externally triggered -- that thing called validation. Human beings are social, after all, so there's such a thing wherein one has a tendency to deny themselves the feeling, aka, invalidate it, and wait for someone else to validate it (extra effective if it comes from a person of power, heck, look at how fans respond to being acknowledged by their idols). It's kinda related to why social media is a huge trend -- hyper-validation.

Based on mjmnl's post then, when the leader draws out this sense of satisfaction, they validate it so the person invalidating it internally will welcome it and feel good. It can then stretch out to the idea that leaders bring out the best from their colleagues.

Motivation, to clarify, isn't only internal. If it was, human beings won't be social beings at all. The social aspect is a strong motivator and it's more external than internal. Most motivational sources have various mixes of internal-eternal mixes.

Turning to one's preferred leadership style may have something to do with one's internal leadership traits, or as a result of experience. It's like how parents teach kids two main things -- how to be a person, and how not to be one.

though im curious as to why you turn the table to the question "how can i be the leader i would like?". Generally, if the topic is asking the general populace the leader they'd like and they get greeted a table turn question, it's intent isn't to ask the question, rather, to prevent people serving under leaders from asking questions. It is interesting then who benefits and uses such rhetoric quite often.

[kdy]

A thought just occurred to me while reading the comments. Though I prefer a leader who is good in motivating his/her direct reports, I wouldn't really mind what leadership style my leader has. At the end of the day, each of these leadership styles would have its own pros and cons. Besides, my performance and career growth are my responsibility first, before my leader's. I guess I would appreciate ethics a lot more than the leadership style. When a leader displays unethical behaviors like sharing performance or personal information to others behind a direct report's back, then the leadership style becomes even more irrelevant.

[Skye]

What I am getting is that it is more about work ethics than the style of leadership that matters. If I may add, integrity matters a lot too, for me, in a leader. Doing the right thing even when others cannot see you. I guess it is part of work ethics too.

[jcoppi29]

Dont want to put US election topics here but it kinda relates to Skye's statement. When 2016 came, I was very much opposed to Trump being voted, but come 2020, even though I'm not denying his many blunders, it seems his policy decisions and implementation were actually more effective than expected, even if personality wise, there's really no argument.

[Lou]

This is so true. Come to think of it, it is not really the leadership style that matters but the work ethics of the leader. A leader who is not willing to be transparent, points fingers at his/her members to cover-up his/her own mistakes, does not want to acknowledge his/her mistakes, and keeps changing the narrative to make it look like he/she is the victim, can easily lead the team members to lose their trust. However, we still do our tasks to the best of our abilities. It's just that the work environment is not as friendly as it is expected to be. But, at the end of the day, we still perform our tasks and yes, the leadership style becomes irrelevant.

[Guest]

I prefer the autocrat hahahah! The only way some things get done in moments of turbulence

[mjmnl]

I believe autocrats only work if the leader is also knowledgeable on how to lead properly. Don't wanna get political here but the best example I could think of are some country leaders that are autocrats but end up putting their country in its worst state yet. Hopefully, in a corporate office setting, autocrats are really the skilled ones who could really bring out the best in their employees.