Today we had a first day for module week. In the morning we played a game, when new leaders were chosen and each of them was supposed to play a particular leadership style. Yet we did not know what is a role. What I observed immediately after our leader introduced an objective, is that she doesn't listen much to others' opinion. I realized it authoritarian role she is playing.
This leadership style is very popular among majority of organizations worldwide. And I suppose 90% of the organizations in my country have experience this style. I can say that managers use their power and authority to make decisions. Employees in this case are not allowed to show their creativity, and as they feel that nobody needs their suggestions, they do nothing but following like sheep. It kills both motivation and creativity. I can say that from my todays experience, because when I realized that whatever I say is percieved as unvalued, I stopped giving any solutions.
However, as the outcomes of the game showed, authoritarian style was the most effective one in terms of objective initially pursued. Adversely, as I think, managers which are relaxed and not involved in the process, rarely can be effective. Because there are always people who need to feel that they have a leader. If they can do everything by themselves, why do they need him? Sooner or later, the level of motivation will fall and people can lose the sense of direction. And I hardly believe that such a team can be successful in reaching its objectives. If the members of team with such leader still wants to reach the target, then naturally there will be someone who will take a lead and direct the whole team towards the goal achievement, even though this person had not been assigned as a team leader initially.
Overal, I think that there should be a balance between authoritarian and laissez-faire styles, because both of them have its benefits, but when applied individually cannot be always effective.