Blog Topic 12: Groups and leadership

The leadership style or position within these different groups is different. For this blog, I think it would be best to align them to Kurt Lewin's three main styles: (from the web)

The authoritarian makes all decisions, independent of member's input. The authority figure dictates direction, leaving members in the dark about future plans. The authority figure selects which members will work collaboratively and determines solely the work tasks for the teams. This leader type is very personal in his praise and criticisms of each member, but does not actively participate with the group, unless demonstrating to the group. The authority figure is friendly and/or impersonal, but not openly hostile.

The democratic leader welcomes team input and facilitates group discussion and decision making. This leader type shares plans with the group and offers multiple options for group consideration. Encourages members to work freely with each other and leaves division of tasks to the group. This leader is objective in praise and criticism, and joins group activities without over-participating.

The laissez-faire leader allows the group complete freedom for decision-making, without participating himself. This leader type provides materials and offers to assist only by request. The laissez-faire leader does not participate in work discussions or group tasks. This leader does not offer commentary on members' performance unless asked directly, and does not participate or intervene in activities.

My leadership style definitely changes within the groups of friends, work, family, and even classmates that I am around. For example, I would say that with regards to family, I am more "laissez faire" and only lead when either delegated upon or if there are no senior or elders present. I think that our family culture is mainly this type, we do not try enforce things on each other.

At work, since it is a small business, and employees are always asking for direction, I tend to be more of the "democratic" type. Many times employees have better idea's than I may, since they are the ones in that position and have a deeper knowledge of the weaknesses of our current processes. Also, from the perspective of motivation, people tend to be excited and engaged if they are the originator of a good idea. Sometimes at work, I think I can fall under the more "authoritarian" type of leader if a situation is serious and action is need quickly to address an urgent problem.

Within my group of friends, I definitely go back to the "laissez faire" model. I obviously try and influence them in a positive way, as with the family, but do not dictate or direct how they choose to live their lives.

I definitely do not fall into the same role, it is nice to switch between models. They all have their advantages under different scenarios. With regard to family, I think my role is changing, as my parents, aunts, and uncles get older they tend to influence less. After finishing school and setting an example for all my younger cousins and brothers, I think because I am inherently the oldest of the new generation, I sense that many of the younger people in my family could possibly look for family leadership from a group of us.

I think the best thing that they do that is effective, is layout a simple ideology that says: "opportunities are endless, resources are available to accomplish goals and dreams, the family will support you in your endeavors, but nobody will chase, dictate, or push you to do anything, it must come from within."