LEADERSHIP

STYLES
By Fatima, Manahyl and Aun
 Muczyk and Reimann’s (1987)
Four Styles of Leader Behaviour
 T h e re h av e b e e n m a ny att e m p t s to ex p l a i n d i ff e re nt st y l e s o f
l e a d e r b e h av i o u r a n d w e w i l l exa m i n e o n e o f t h e s e ex p l a n ati o n s
b y M u c zy k a n d Re i m a n n . Re s e a rc h p r i o r to t h i s ex p l a n ati o n h a d
Styles of fo c u s e d o n b e n efi t s o f t h e d e m o c ra ti c st y l e o f l e a d e rs h i p .

d e m o c ra ti c l e a d e rs h i p a b e h av i o u r st y l e i n w h i c h t h e l e a d e r

Leader s h a re s d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g w i t h g ro u p m e m b e rs

Yo u c a n c o m p a re t h i s to a u to c ra ti c st y l e o f l e a d e rs h i p .

behaviour a u to c ra ti c l e a d e rs h i p refe rs to a b e h av i o u r st y l e i n w h i c h t h e
l e a d e r c o nt ro l s a l l t h e d e c i s i o n s w i t h l i tt l e to n o i n p u t f ro m
g ro u p m e m b e rs
(Muczyk and
Reimann)
 M u c zy k a n d Re i m a n n ( 1 9 8 7 ) a rg u e t h at d e m o c rati c l e a d e rs h i p
m ay n o t a l way s b e t h e m o st eff e c ti v e a n d t h at i t m ay b e h a r m f u l
i n s o m e s i t u ati o n s . T h ey a rg u e t h at ' l e a d e r s h i p i s a t w o - w a y

What did st r e e t , s o a d e m o c r a ti c st y l e w i l l b e e ff e c ti v e o n l y i f fo l l o w e r s
a r e b o t h w i l l i n g a n d a b l e to p a r ti c i p a t e a c ti v e l y i n t h e d e c i s i o n -
m a k i n g p r o ce s s . I f t h ey a r e n o t , t h e l e a d e r ca n n o t b e
Muczyk and d e m o c r a ti c w i t h o u t a l s o b e i n g d i r e c ti v e ' a n d f o l l o w i n g u p v e r y
c l o s e l y to s e e t h a t d i r e c ti v e s a r e b e i n g ca r r i e d o u t p r o p e r l y ' .

Reimann I n t h i s q u o te , M u c zy k a n d R i e m a n n a re e m p h a s i z i n g t h e
d i ff e re n c e b e t w e e n ' p a r ti c i p a ti o n ' a n d ' d i re c ti o n ' . T h ey v i e w
d i re c ti o n a s a s e p a rate d i m e n s i o n o f l e a d e rs h i p a n d o n e t h at
argue? c o u l d w o r k a l o n g s i d e p a r ti c i p ati o n .
 T h i s m e a n s t h a t a s w e l l a s t h e d e m o c r a ti c / a u t o c r a ti c d i s ti n c ti o n , t h e r e
are two further leadership factors that need to be considered:

• P a r ti c i p a ti o n : T h i s r e f e r s t o e m p l o y e e i n p u t w i t h i n t h e d e c i s i o n
m a k i n g p r o c e s s . L o w p a r ti c i p a ti o n w o u l d b e a n a u t o c r a ti c l e a d e r a n d
h i g h p a r ti c i p a ti o n w o u l d b e a d e m o c ra ti c l e a d e r.

Now, what
• D i r e c ti o n : T h i s r e f e r s t o m a n a g e m e n t o r g u i d a n c e . L o w d i r e c ti o n

does this w o u l d b e p e r m i s s i v e w i t h l i tt l e o r o n l y g e n e r a l s u p e r v i s i o n . H i g h
d i r e c ti o n w o u l d b e d i r e c ti v e , w i t h c l o s e s u p e r v i s i o n a n d c o n s t a n t
fo l l o w- u p .

mean? •D i r e c ti v e : R e f e r s t o a b e h a v i o u r s t y l e w i t h a h i g h a m o u n t o f l e a d e r
d i r e c ti o n .

•P e r m i s s i v e : R e f e r s t o a b e h a v i o u r s t y l e w i t h a l o w a m o u n t o f l e a d e r
d i r e c ti o n .
This creates
four types in
total!
 The issues and debates we thought were
most relevant here were:

How would we • Individual vs. Situational

• Application to Everyday Life

evaluate? • Cultural Diff erences
 T h e m o st o b v i o u s e va l u ati o n i s s u e to b e g i n w i t h i s t h e
i n d i v i d u a l - s i t u ati o n a l d e b ate . M u c zy k a n d Re i m a n n ' s fo u r t y p e s
o f l e a d e r b e h av i o u r c o n s i d e r t h e re l ati o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e

Individual vs. i n d i v i d u a l ( l e a d e r ) a n d t h e s i t u ati o n d i re c t l y ( t h e t y p e a n d n e e d s

o f a n o rga n i s ati o n a n d e m p l o y e e s ) a n d m a ke s t h e p o i nt t h at
d i ff e re nt l e a d e rs h i p st y l e s w i l l b e eff e c ti v e i n d i ff e re nt
Situational s i t u ati o n s .
 T h e c o nt r i b u ti o n to t h e a re a o f l e a d e rs h i p st y l e s m a d e b y M u c zy k
a n d Re i m a n n h a s b e e n s i g n i fi c a nt . H i g h l i g hti n g t h e d i ff e re n c e
b e t w e e n m a k i n g a d e c i s i o n a n d e n s u r i n g t h at t h at d e c i s i o n i s
i m p l e m e nte d ( fo l l o w e d t h ro u g h to i t s c o m p l e ti o n ) i s ex t re m e l y

Application to va l u a b l e a n d w i l l a l l o w o rga n i zati o n s to re c o g n i ze t h at a s w i t h

l e a d e rs h i p i n g e n e ra l , t h e re a re m a ny st y l e s a n d t h e s e st y l e s s u i t
d i ff e re nt s i t u ati o n s a n d g ro u p s . E n s u r i n g t h at t h e r i g ht l e a d e r i s
Everyday Life i n c h a rg e w i l l e n s u re t h e s u c c e s s f u l c o m p l e ti o n o f t h e ta s k . T h i s
ex p l a n ati o n i s h i g h l y a p p l i c a b l e to re a l l i fe .
 T h e eff e c ti v e n e s s o f t h e l e a d e rs h i p st y l e s h i g h l i g hte d b y M u c zy k
a n d Re i m a n n a re l i ke l y to d i ff e r f ro m c u l t u re to c u l t u re . T h i s
w o u l d m e a n t h at c u l t u ra l b i a s e s s u c h a s i n d i v i d u a l i t y v s .
c o l l e c ti v i s m o r p o w e r d i sta n c e s a re l i ke l y to eff e c t t h e a p p ro a c h
b o t h l e a d e rs a n d e m p l o y e e s ta ke i n re ga rd s to t h e l e a d e rs h i p
st y l e i m p l e m e nte d . Fo r i n sta n c e , a d i re c ti v e a u to c rati c l e a d e rs h i p
Cultural st y l e m ay b e m o st eff e c ti v e w i t h i n a c u l t u ra l s e tti n g t h at h a s a
l a rg e r p o w e r d i ff e re n c e a s t h e a p p ro a c h to a u t h o r i t y w o u l d b e

Differences d i ff e re nt c o m p a re d to a c u l t u re w i t h a s m a l l e r p o w e r d i ff e re n c e .
L i ke w i s e , l e a d e rs f ro m c o l l e c ti v i st c u l t u re s m ay b e m o re i n c l i n e d
to i m p l e m e nt d e m o c rati c l e a d e rs h i p st y l e s a s t h ey p ro m o te
employee input.
Levels of Leadership
 For any style of leader, there are diff erent
levels of leadership that exist. As James
Scouller introduced it, there are 3 leadership

What does levels that explain how leadership presence

can be determined and developed within an

'Levels of organization. We refer to these 3 levels of

leadership as the '3P model'.

Leadership'
mean?
 These are the behaviours leaders will carry
out to infl uence groups of people at the
same time. They intend to infl uence the
opinions of others in an environment where
the individuals can interact upon a common

Public subject. This level of leadership relies upon

trust, group building and interaction between
members of the organization.
leadership
 these are behaviours involved in infl uencing
individuals separately. By this, it is meant
that a leader could discuss individual tasks,
goals and expectations one on one with
certain employees. This level of leadership
deals with coaching, managing, and feedback
Private as well. Develops a bond between leader and
employee.
Leadership
 These are the leadership qualities shown by the
individual in the leadership position. It talks about
the psychological and ethical development of a
leader, which as a result also influences his/her
technical abilities. It includes the individual skills

Personal and beliefs that the leader holds, comprising of their

subconcious behaviours. Scouller believed that
working on psychological self-mastery was an
Leadership important factor towards achieving leadership
presence along-side technical know-how. He
identified this last level as the most crucial aspect of
developing a leadership presence, since it directly
affects the other 2 levels.
HOW ARE THE
3 LEVELS
RELATED?
Cuadrado et al. (2008)

Key Study
 Women are generally under-represented in
positions of power within organisations, in contrast
with their male counterparts. One example is the
UK National Health Service (NHS), where women
constitute three- quarters of the workforce, yet
occupy relatively few senior leadership roles.
Current data indicate that only 37% of NHS trust
Context: directors are women (Taylor & Hartley, 2021).

Researchers have sought to understand the

reasons why women experience a 'glass ceiling
effect' in management, especially when they hold
equal qualifications and experience to men. The
glass ceiling is a metaphor for the invisible barrier
that prevents a certain group of people (in this
case, women) from progressing beyond a certain
level in a hierarchy.
 Wo men may f ace un d er-r ep r ese nt at i o n i n manager i al
r ol es d ue t o so ci et al st er eo typ e s. I f wo men ad o p t mal e-
Main Theories st er eo typ i cal l e ad e rsh i p b eh avi o r s, i t may b e p er cei ve d
as i n co ngr ue nt wi t h so ci e t al exp ect at i o n s o f co o p e rat i ve

and an d gen t l e f emal e b eh avi o r. Thi s i nco n gru en ce can act as

a b arr i er t o car ee r p r o gre ssi o n, as o r gan i zat i on s may b e
l e ss i n cl i ned t o p ro mo t e wo men t o p o si t i o ns of p o we r
Explanations: t hat d evi at e f r o m t rad i t i o nal e xp ect at i o n s o f f emal e
l e ad e rsh i p styl e s.

h e ge nd er d i ff er en ce i n l e ad e rsh i p styl e s cr eat es a

d i l emma f or wo men . I f t hey ad op t st er eo typ i cal l y mal e
styl es, t h ey may f ace p r ej ud i ce i n p r o mo t i on s. Th i s st u d y
exp l o r es t he i d e a t h at wo men u si n g aut o crat i c an d t ask-
o ri en t e d ap p r o ach es, d eemed st e re o typ i cal l y mal e,
r ece i ve l ess f avo rab l e eval u at i o ns i n t he i r wo rk .
 The study aimed to examine how stereotypical and non-stereotypical leadership
s t y l e s o f f e m a l e a n d m a l e l e a d e r s i n fl u e n c e w o r k e v a l u a t i o n s . A d d i t i o n a l l y, i t
e x p l o r e d w h e t h e r t h e e v a l u a t o r ' s g e n d e r a ff e c t s t h e e v a l u a t i o n o f f e m a l e a n d
male leaders. Cuadrado et al. tested four hypotheses in this context.

Hypothesis 1: Female leaders will receive less favourable evaluations than male
leaders when using stereotypically masculine leadership behaviours.

Aims
Hypothesis 2: Male leaders will not receive less favourable evaluations than
female leaders when they use stereotypically feminine leadership behaviours.

Hypothesis 3: Female leaders will receive less favourable evaluations from male
evaluators than from female evaluators.

Hypothesis 4: Male leaders will receive similar evaluations from both male and
female evaluators.
 The study involved 136 psychology students from the National
Open University of Spain, with 53% women (mean age 27 years)
and 47% men (mean age 29 years). Par ticipants were informed
they were part of a decision-making study and randomly assigned
to experimental conditions. The design was a laboratory
experiment using an independent groups approach.

Design The independent variables were the sex of the leader (female or male),
the sex of the evaluator (female or male) and leadership style (female-
stereotypical or male- stereotypical).

The dependent variables were adjective list, leadership capacity and

l e a d e r s h i p e f f i c a c y.
 Par ticipan ts evalu ated a su per visor (either male or
female, based on their experimental con dition ) in an
emergency medical ser vice. Th e su per visor was
described as being in a trial leadership position .
Par ticipan ts read about the super visor's behavior
an d anonymously completed a question naire to
assess th e super visor's work.
Procedure
The stu dy used fou r version s of a n arrative
describing a su per visor's beh avior, var yin g only in
th e leader's sex (male 'Carlos' or female 'Lu cia')
an d leadersh ip style (stereotypically
mascu line /autocratic or stereotypically
feminine /democratic).
 The questionnaires that were used to measure the dependent variables
a l l u s e d a s e v e n - p o i n t L i k e r t s c a l e ( 1 = n e v e r a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e l e a d e r,
7= always applicable to the leader) and were:

1 . P a r t i c i p a n t s r a t e d s e v e n p o s i t i v e ( e . g ., i n t e l l i g e n t , h o n e s t ,
c l e v e r ) a n d s e v e n n e g a t i v e ( e . g ., f o r g e t f u l , b o s s y, d i s c o u r a g i n g )
a d j e c t i v e s t o a s s e s s t h e i m a g e t h e y f o r m e d o f t h e l e a d e r.

2 . A m e a s u r e o f f o u r i t e m s o f l e a d e r s h i p c a p a c i t y, a g a i n w i t h a s e v e n -
Procedure point Likert scale of agreement. This included items such as 'X is a
competent supervisor".

3. A measure of leadership effectiveness with five items with a scale of

agreement. This included statements such as 'X does not perform
his/her works as a supervisor well enough'
 Results, findings, and conclusions
Contrary to expectations (Hypotheses 1 and 2), the results (Figure 9.9)
revealed that the stereotypically feminine, democratic leadership style was
preferred for both female and male leaders. Supervisors using this style
received higher scores across measures, including adjective lists, leadership
c a p a c i t y, a n d p e r f o r m a n c e e ffi c a c y, r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e e v a l u a t o r ' s g e n d e r.

There were no statistically significant differences between the sex of the evaluator
and the ratings, meaning that male and female evaluators were very similar overall.
The same was true of the sex of the leader; the evaluator's sex had no influence on
how they rated male or female supervisors (Hypotheses 3 and 4).

The study concluded that stereotypically masculine, autocratic leadership is

less favorably evaluated than stereotypically feminine, democratic
leadership, applicable to both female and male leaders. The researchers
a t t r i b u t e t h e s e fi n d i n g s t o t h e i n c r e a s i n g p o p u l a r i t y o f d e m o c r a t i c l e a d e r s h i p
styles in organizations in recent years.
 Th e stu dy u se d stu de n t vo lu n te e rs o f a similar age ,
po te n tially makin g th e sample u n re pre se n tative .
Re su lts migh t diff e r with a bro ade r ran ge o f age s an d
o c c u patio n s , as ste re o typic al be lie f s var y ac ro ss
po pu latio n s.

Evaluation Th e stu dy was a re liable an d valid labo rato r y

e xpe rime n t. S tan dardiz atio n was main tain e d by
ke e pin g th e de s criptive n arrative co n sis te n t ac ro ss
e xpe rime n tal co n ditio n s, man ipu latin g o n ly
le ade rs hip style an d su pe r vis o r's se x. Ran do mly
ass ign in g par tic ipan ts to c o n ditio n s provide d c o n tro l,
e n h an cin g co n fi de n c e in e s tablis h in g re latio n sh ips
be twe e n in de pe n de n t an d de pe n de n t variable s .