Dual CourtEssay Preview: Dual CourtReport this essayR. White and R. Lippitt (1968) describe the “styles approach” to leadership. They discuss the three leadership styles as Authoritarian, Democratic, Laissez-faire. Steven A. Beebe (2010) describes the Authoritarian style as, “influence by giving orders or seeking to control others”, the Democratic style as “consult with others before issuing edicts”, and the Laissez-faire as, “takes a hands-off, laid-back approach to influencing others”.
The Authoritarian leader is highly structured and demands control, and generally is not effective in most type of business or work relationships. It has more application in the military arena when specific unquestioned direction is needed to accomplish a task. This leadership style has also proven effective in the sports arena. In his first executive committee meeting in Green Bay, Vince Lombardi (2005) stated, “I want it understood that Im in complete command. I expect full cooperation from you people, and you will get full cooperation from me in return”. He understood the need to have the authority to make the changes required to turn around a then struggling football franchise. Another area where it is appropriate to use this approach are in times of disaster, F. Fiedler, M. Chemers, and L. Mahar in their work, Improving Leadership Effectiveness (1976), describe a similar approach called task-orienting leadership. They suggests this approach would be appropriate in a circumstance such as the one that occurred at the World Trade Centers on 9/11.
The Democratic leader works with the group as opposed to specifically dictating to the group. Encarta Dictionary (2007) defines it as “characterized by free and equal participation in government or in the decision-making processes of an organization or group”. Democratic leaders are influential but only after judging the groups thoughts on a matter. This type of leader is the most responsive to the mood of a group, and they are willing to adapt their own responses based on the thoughts and feelings of the group. They have the humility to focus on the needs of the group rather than their own personal agenda. This is becoming the most common approach to leadership in the workplace. It recognizes the need of people to participate in decisions and recognizes that contributions from many people is the most effective way to achieve a successful outcome. They are committed to what is right
Democratic leaders are determined to have an open and open dialogue with the group and people. Some may insist on making decisions in their own favor, but they also believe that we should make the decision within our own will without the interference of the group or power and without the need to conform or seek other opinions. Democratic leaders are often willing to put their own politics on hold as they try to win votes without making those decisions. As an example, when two Democratic members of Congress decided at a caucus meeting to remove a member of the minority leadership, they refused to hold any of them at all and voted for a person of the same party which didn’t want to vote for someone who wasn’t of the party. The group chose not to support a person of the Democratic party and did not like it. But the DNC is willing to work with the group, who are willing to help the group accomplish some of its goals, a very important difference the decision makers believe. They are willing to get out there and to help the group achieve many of its goals, and the group may want to work with them or even with the Democratic leadership to get things done. An important point, however, is that the most effective way to achieve goals is with the full support of everybody involved in the organization. The Democratic decision makers and decision makers at large who work for the organization have an ethical code, and they should be free to seek out everyone that they can to help them get things accomplished. As opposed to dictating a person’s decisions, the party leadership needs to consider and act in a positive way, making the best decisions that will allow them to do their job. -[quote=Mr_Paul_D]A party with many people with varied perspectives is a community that is better off together. A Party with many people is an environment that is less competitive than one with several people. In other words, it’s a community where everyone is in a good mood and some is not. The leadership is also focused on their people and not on competing with each other, even when it comes to power relations. When people are frustrated or annoyed about something they perceive that they have not done enough to do, the leaders may try to get the next leader to come to them and do something that will help. And when the decision for power is made by a member of the majority to make an unfavorable decision, there are many times there are situations where the leaders have their way. When these situations happen, that is because even if the decisions are made by a majority, there will still be a minority and the decisions are still made by those of the minority. When a minority takes the leadership and decides that they would like to use leadership that has been chosen by a majority more or less randomly, that will hurt the party. Because that minority is unwilling to take responsibility for their own actions, the party leaders cannot use the leadership to win elections or even achieve any significant victory. Democratic leaders want to play their part in politics to make sure that is the case. They do this very differently if they believe that the people who will determine their decisions will come from a different party than members of the minority caucus who have just a different opinion of the policy. [quote=TJ_RabbitBucket]For example, the two leaders from the Democratic caucus who voted for Richard H. Pryor in Arkansas are Democrats who voted for Pryor, and they don’t want those people to see President Clinton as the candidate they have now. As a candidate, you are going to have to prove that you are not a threat to the American people.
Democratic leaders are determined to have an open and open dialogue with the group and people. Some may insist on making decisions in their own favor, but they also believe that we should make the decision within our own will without the interference of the group or power and without the need to conform or seek other opinions. Democratic leaders are often willing to put their own politics on hold as they try to win votes without making those decisions. As an example, when two Democratic members of Congress decided at a caucus meeting to remove a member of the minority leadership, they refused to hold any of them at all and voted for a person of the same party which didn’t want to vote for someone who wasn’t of the party. The group chose not to support a person of the Democratic party and did not like it. But the DNC is willing to work with the group, who are willing to help the group accomplish some of its goals, a very important difference the decision makers believe. They are willing to get out there and to help the group achieve many of its goals, and the group may want to work with them or even with the Democratic leadership to get things done. An important point, however, is that the most effective way to achieve goals is with the full support of everybody involved in the organization. The Democratic decision makers and decision makers at large who work for the organization have an ethical code, and they should be free to seek out everyone that they can to help them get things accomplished. As opposed to dictating a person’s decisions, the party leadership needs to consider and act in a positive way, making the best decisions that will allow them to do their job. -[quote=Mr_Paul_D]A party with many people with varied perspectives is a community that is better off together. A Party with many people is an environment that is less competitive than one with several people. In other words, it’s a community where everyone is in a good mood and some is not. The leadership is also focused on their people and not on competing with each other, even when it comes to power relations. When people are frustrated or annoyed about something they perceive that they have not done enough to do, the leaders may try to get the next leader to come to them and do something that will help. And when the decision for power is made by a member of the majority to make an unfavorable decision, there are many times there are situations where the leaders have their way. When these situations happen, that is because even if the decisions are made by a majority, there will still be a minority and the decisions are still made by those of the minority. When a minority takes the leadership and decides that they would like to use leadership that has been chosen by a majority more or less randomly, that will hurt the party. Because that minority is unwilling to take responsibility for their own actions, the party leaders cannot use the leadership to win elections or even achieve any significant victory. Democratic leaders want to play their part in politics to make sure that is the case. They do this very differently if they believe that the people who will determine their decisions will come from a different party than members of the minority caucus who have just a different opinion of the policy. [quote=TJ_RabbitBucket]For example, the two leaders from the Democratic caucus who voted for Richard H. Pryor in Arkansas are Democrats who voted for Pryor, and they don’t want those people to see President Clinton as the candidate they have now. As a candidate, you are going to have to prove that you are not a threat to the American people.
Democratic leaders are determined to have an open and open dialogue with the group and people. Some may insist on making decisions in their own favor, but they also believe that we should make the decision within our own will without the interference of the group or power and without the need to conform or seek other opinions. Democratic leaders are often willing to put their own politics on hold as they try to win votes without making those decisions. As an example, when two Democratic members of Congress decided at a caucus meeting to remove a member of the minority leadership, they refused to hold any of them at all and voted for a person of the same party which didn’t want to vote for someone who wasn’t of the party. The group chose not to support a person of the Democratic party and did not like it. But the DNC is willing to work with the group, who are willing to help the group accomplish some of its goals, a very important difference the decision makers believe. They are willing to get out there and to help the group achieve many of its goals, and the group may want to work with them or even with the Democratic leadership to get things done. An important point, however, is that the most effective way to achieve goals is with the full support of everybody involved in the organization. The Democratic decision makers and decision makers at large who work for the organization have an ethical code, and they should be free to seek out everyone that they can to help them get things accomplished. As opposed to dictating a person’s decisions, the party leadership needs to consider and act in a positive way, making the best decisions that will allow them to do their job. -[quote=Mr_Paul_D]A party with many people with varied perspectives is a community that is better off together. A Party with many people is an environment that is less competitive than one with several people. In other words, it’s a community where everyone is in a good mood and some is not. The leadership is also focused on their people and not on competing with each other, even when it comes to power relations. When people are frustrated or annoyed about something they perceive that they have not done enough to do, the leaders may try to get the next leader to come to them and do something that will help. And when the decision for power is made by a member of the majority to make an unfavorable decision, there are many times there are situations where the leaders have their way. When these situations happen, that is because even if the decisions are made by a majority, there will still be a minority and the decisions are still made by those of the minority. When a minority takes the leadership and decides that they would like to use leadership that has been chosen by a majority more or less randomly, that will hurt the party. Because that minority is unwilling to take responsibility for their own actions, the party leaders cannot use the leadership to win elections or even achieve any significant victory. Democratic leaders want to play their part in politics to make sure that is the case. They do this very differently if they believe that the people who will determine their decisions will come from a different party than members of the minority caucus who have just a different opinion of the policy. [quote=TJ_RabbitBucket]For example, the two leaders from the Democratic caucus who voted for Richard H. Pryor in Arkansas are Democrats who voted for Pryor, and they don’t want those people to see President Clinton as the candidate they have now. As a candidate, you are going to have to prove that you are not a threat to the American people.