1

Leadership

Perception

Model

Negative

perception

Neutral

perception

Positive

perception

Non-Leadership

Perception

Styles

One-Man

perception

Leadership

Styles

Autocratic/

Authoritarian

(Audecratic)

Autocratic/ Democratic Combined

Combined Democratic/

Participative

Delegative /

Laissez-Faire

Motivation

Outcomes

Active/Passive

Transactional

Balance of

Perception

Influence

Positive

Transformational

Self-Motivated

T

r

a

n

s

f

o

r

m

a

t

i

o

n

a

l

T

h

e

o

r

y

Trust

Outcomes

Leader’s

Out-group

Skeptical of

Motives

Leader’s

In-group

One-Man

Group

L

M

X

T

h

e

o

r

y

Commitment

Outcomes

Contractual

Obligations

Reciprocal

Negotiation

Role

Expansion

Self-Interest

L

M

X

T

h

e

o

r

y

Employee Confidence Outcomes

Telling/

Directing

Participating/

Supporting or

Selling/Coaching

Delegating

Style

Individual

Confidence

S

i

t

u

a

t

i

o

n

a

l

T

h

e

o

r

y

Empowerment

Outcomes

Low-LPC

Task Oriented

Middle-LPC

Enabling with

Caution

High-LPC

Human Relations

Oriented

Self-

Empowerment

C

o

n

t

i

n

g

e

n

c

y

T

h

e

o

r

y

Job Satisfaction Outcomes

Subordinate Preference Employee

Pawns

Subordinate Preference Employee

Expectations

Subordinate Preference Employee Equality

Self-Sufficiency

P

a

t

h

G

o

a

l

T

h

e

o

r

y

Performance/Productivity

Outcomes

Negative Psychological

Capital

Developing

Work Ethic

Positive Psychological

Capital

Self-Employed

A

u

t

h

e

n

t

i

c

T

h

e

o

r

y

Creativity/ Innovative Outcomes

Low Intellectual Stimulation

Contingent

Reward Effort

Charismatic

Innovation

Consultant

Artist

T

r

a

n

s

f

o

r

m

a

t

i

o

n

a

l

T

h

e

o

r

y

Organizational Culture

Outcomes

Leader

Servant

Bias Servant

Subordinate

Servant

S

e

r

v

a

n

t

T

h

e

o

r

y

Self Servant

2

Multi-Dimensional Leadership Model for Multi-Dimensional Firms with Multi-Dimensional

Critical Follower Outcomes involving Four Leadership Styles with a Full Range of Possibilities

based on Individual Perceptions and Leadership Theories

Submitted for publishing by Jeff Taylor 2012

Leader-Follower

Relationship Effectiveness

Level

Leader-Follower

Satisfaction Level

Minimal

Debatable

Maximum

Non-existent

Limited

Confusing

Elevated

Incomplete

One-Sided

Government or Outside Influences

which means no control, no logic, or

no stability which is inserted

everywhere in the model to

symbolize forces that are

unpredictable and nothing will make

any sense like the government

bailouts for Wall Street that violated

economic law and were politically

motivated.

3

Overview

Managers are always asking which leadership style works best so I developed a

leadership model based on a range of critical follower outcomes according to the four leadership

styles. Each style has an individual perception associated with its principles and a leadership

theory that explains the range of outcomes for that theory style based on influential theory clarity

that is used as a reference for each range. The line of outcomes for each leadership style

ultimately leads to the leader/follower effectiveness level which leads to the leader/follower

satisfaction level as the end result. Each path will bring any leader to a designated end result

which can help him or her decide which path is right for them individually. In other words,

which sides of the leader/follower pendulum- swing will they be drawn too. I also included a

government or other outside influence variable which changes the total dimension of my

leadership model if it comes into play. The range of nine critical follower outcomes that I used

include: motivation, trust, commitment, employee confidence, empowerment, job satisfaction,

performance/productivity, creation/innovation, and organizational culture. The four leadership

styles I used are authoritarian/autocratic, audecratic (autocratic and democratic combined),

democratic/participative, and laissez faire respectively. The four perceptions I used include:

negative, neutral, positive, and one-man and each is attached to a specific leadership style. I

included all seven leadership theories that we studied as a reference to explain each range of four

possibilities for each critical follower outcome and these theories include: transformational,

LMX (Leader-Member Exchange), Situational, Contingency, Path-Goal, Authentic, and Servant.

Each leadership style leads to a leader/follower relationship effectiveness level that includes

minimal, debatable, maximum, and non-existent. The final end result involves a leader/follower

4

satisfaction range that includes: limited, confusing, elevated, and incomplete one-sided. It also

needs to be noted that I based my perceptions on the literature accepted majority conclusions

associated with each style of leadership. I also chose each leadership style based on influential

clarity that I believe is the most relevant theory reference for each range of possibilities for that

outcome. The model isn’t a perfect science and exceptions can exist as a possible reality. I

believe this leadership model is relevant because it offers a range of probable outcomes based on

default perceptions and it lets a manager what he or she is up against if one path is chosen over

the other three. Managers are reported to be the most frequent perpetrators of influential

leadership action from a target/employee point of view (Rayner, Hoel, and Cooper, 2002) (Hoel,

Glaso, Hetland, Cooper and Einarsen, 2010). It all depends on the relationship effectiveness

satisfaction level that he or she wants to have with individual workers. I’m not endorsing one

leadership style over another but I’m painting a humanistic reality that is likely to occur based on

sample testing and reviews that have a literature based backing. In other words, the results are

based on what we know and the decision is based on individual managerial preferences.

Leadership Model Path Explanation

Now let’s look at my leadership model more in depth. Before we get into the actual

critical follower outcome ranges, let’s begin by looking at the four leadership styles and the

perception associated with that style. The first leadership style that we will look at involves

autocratic/authoritarian leadership which carries a negative employee perception. Authoritarian

leadership is defined as a leadership style in which a leader dictates policies and procedures,

decides what goals are to be achieved, and directs/controls all activities without any meaningful

participation by the subordinates (Casal, 2002). An autocratic leader is one who is perceived to

be dictatorial in nature and has a “my way or the highway” approach to managing employees.

5

This style of management is practiced in a lot of third world countries where workers aren’t

educated as much in relation to western civilizations. This style establishes no meaningful

relationship with any subordinate because it’s one sided in nature. Authoritarianism is one of the

most reviled concepts in western management. No management textbook recommends it and

many employees who have worked with autocratic leaders only have nightmarish experiences.

What kind of masochist would want to work for a manager who is punitive, demanding,

dictatorial, and one who is not looking for a meaningful leader/subordinate relationship (Smither,

Nov 1991). Autocratic leaders have to be challenged and will put down anyone who challenges

their power scope. They prefer to have political influences (who you know) to advocate self-

serving projects and interests. Authoritarian leadership is intrinsically motivated, since

intrinsically motivated behavior is defined as the motivation to engage in work primarily for self

serving outcomes and self determination for the individual (Casal, April 2002). So why are

autocratic managers associated with this individual perception? Can it be assumed that a

leadership style can really be that bad? Authoritarians combine the worst elements of human

personality, being power hungry, unsupportive of equality, manipulative, amoral, social

dominators, while being dogmatic and religiously ethnocentric leaders/manager in general

(Altemeyer, Aug 2004). A recent example of an authoritarian leader was Mommar Quadafi in

Libya who used every trick to hold on power even as the capital was falling to rebel forces. He

used nepotism to get his own children in high ranking government positions based on his own

personal narcissism. That’s not saying that it doesn’t have a place but I think this style works

best for individuals who are military or criminal justice leaders whose employees require a

domineering presence. Now let’s look at another leadership style which is

democratic/participative leadership. This style of leadership is the exact opposite of

6

autocratic/authoritarian leadership because it promotes a positive meaningful relationship

between a leader and his or her followers. Democratic leadership is the performance of three

functions: a. Distributing responsibility among the membership, b. Empowering group members,

and c. Aiding the group’s decision making (Gastil, Aug 1994). This form of leadership is the

most popular and the most practiced in western management today because it promotes

accountability. This style also promotes individual interactions and lets each individual or team

member know that his or her opinion matters. In fact, this leadership style has spawned a

revolution in autocratic middle-eastern countries because absolute power has corrupted these

countries for many decades and people are fed up with a few individuals who make all the

decisions for them. The idea of joint participation comes from the participative aspect of this

leadership style which encourages positive dialog and multiple view points to achieve greater

efficiency levels. Participative decision making (PDM) has a variety of benefits which include:

increasing the quality of decision making (e.g., Sally, Kirkpatrick and Locke, 1995) to positively

contribute to an employee work quality (e.g., Stomech, 2002) and to increase an employees’s

work commitment, work motivation, job satisfaction (e.g., Locke and Latham, 1990)(e.g.

Armenakis,Harris, and Mossholder, 1993; Yammarino and Newton, 1992)(Smylie, Lasarus and

Brownlee-Conyers, 1996)(Somech, Dec 2003). Democratic leaders have a “checks and balances”

work environment which keeps them honest and accountable to their subordinates. Workers are

able to display their dissatisfaction if they believe they are ultimately being treated or have a

complaint concerning another worker. This style of leadership is associated with a positive

individual perception which promotes a feeling of teamwork. It needs to be noted that the

positive perception is mostly based on a western management standpoint which shows that it’s

not a global viewpoint. Someone in another country might have different viewpoints that could

7

arise from a number of variables. So why is democratic/participative leadership viewed through a

positive lens? It has to do more with a defined behavioral reaction than a position of power. A

participative leader let’s his or her actions do the talking. In other words, they walk the walk if

they talk the talk. Leadership is behavior, not position (Bass, 1990) and this is very true of

democratic leadership (Gastil, Aug 1994). All of these views are also based on many research

samples and real world reviews which prove that it enhances the mental well being of employees

(Soonhee, March/April 2002). So we can see that democratic leadership represents the other

extreme in relation to an autocratic style. Now let’s look at laissez-faire or (non-leadership)

approach. This method is originally part of transformational but for my model I have used it as

one of the main styles in this example. Laissez-faire leadership consists of several types of non-

leadership which includes: avoiding responsibility, not responding to problems, being absent

when needed, failing to show up, resisting expressing views, and delaying responses which

represent its core continuum (Hinkin, 2008). It seems like this would be associated with a

negative perception but this is not the case with everybody. Sometimes workers are self starters

and work better on their own so I’ve associated this leadership style with a “one man” perception

since it’s based on an individual’s preference. Laissez-faire may involve a little bit of leadership

but it remains minimal so this may not work well for employees who need constant attention to

complete their tasks. Unlike authoritarian/autocratic this leadership does not appear to be

motivated and intentional; it simply involves little or no contact with a leader’s subordinates

(Hinkin, 2008). This form of leadership is used in industries where situations of uncertainty

present themselves in a variety of ways. One logical example is in a hospital setting where

doctors and nurses have to make split second decisions because they don’t always have enough

time to debate the possible rewards and consequences for their decisions. The results show that

8

laissez-faire leadership is favorable in a hospital setting where physicians have to make quick

decisions (Xirasagar, 2008). In other words, the concept of self regulation can be very valuable

when you are dealing with life and death decisions where time is of the essence. Another area

where this leadership shines is in government where decisions have to be made for the masses.

There are so many opinions regarding government decisions and the president may have to

declare war or make tough decisions based on his or her personal beliefs. It’s clear that this

leadership isn’t reserved for the masses. To say, that this leadership is mostly associated with

unclear results is not giving this style the credit it deserves. For my model I’m using this style as

an opposite alternative to the other three for a different path to follow which allows a worker to

be more self-sufficient. It is also possible for a positive leadership style like passive to become

destructive if leaders fail to act in line with clear expectations that need to be carried out (Hoel,

Glaso, Hetland, Cooper, and Einarsen, 2010). The fourth style that I chose is a style that I

developed based on half autocratic and half democratic which I call audecratic. I developed this

style because in a perfect world there is hardly any leadership style that doesn’t have a mixture

or is totally 100% pure autocratic or democratic respectively. This style of leadership has a

neutral perspective associated with its foundations. My neutral assumption is based on the fact

that both styles could potentially even each other out if a decision becomes too far left or too far

right and a middle ground is desired. For this style, I’m pointing out that a work environment

will have a wide range of employee personalities and that one style may not be the best solution

for some firms or industries they operate in. Employee emotions were strongly associated with

the quality of leader follower relationship perceived (Hoel, Glaso, Hetland, Cooper and Einarsen,

2010). This leadership style allows leaders to have another option while allowing an integration

of two unique styles. We will assume that autocratic is still under a negative perception and

9

democratic is under a positive perception but it allows for leader flexibility when tough decisions

have to be made. This is only one of my own personal improvements to build a better mouse trap

through my leadership model. The other factor that I want to mention before talking about the

critical follower outcomes involves government or other outside influences that act as a wild card

outcome. My leadership model is based on certain variables and styles that follow a set amount

of characteristics and principles. However, we have seen in the last five or six years that

governments have gotten into certain economic affairs which has changed the logic and rules of

the game. If I were making this model before 2008, I probably wouldn’t include this situational

variable in my model but I think it’s relevant to mention given the outcomes that have occurred

over the last few years. When you look at any leadership model, we would be naïve to think that

everything would happen 100% according to our model and routes within it. That’s why I put

explosion signs throughout my model because it allows for outside influences to change the

actual result if model defaults are ignored for self serving agencies or bureaucracies like the

federal government. “People across the country are angry and frustrated, as they should, that this

economy, the United States of America, got into a position where enormous damage has been

done as a consequence of long period of excess risk taking without meaningful adult

supervision” (Poole, Nov/Dec 2009). The bailouts are a good example which affected many

different critical follower outcomes especially in the banking industry alone.

Leadership Model Heart Explained

10

Now let’s discuss the critical follower outcome ranges for each style. The first critical

follower outcome deals with motivation and we are using transformational theory as a reference

for clarity involving this range. The first outcome is active/passive transactional and this is

associated with an autocratic style. When you talk about autocratic leader, they aren’t very good

at people skills and both active/passive transactional deal with the negative side of

transformational leadership. Active transactional is correcting someone on the spot for not

following expected norms and passive transactional is correcting someone after the fact with

reviews which autocratic leaders are likely to do. This is very de-motivating for a leader’s

workers over all. The next outcome deals with audecratic leadership which is a balance of

perception influence. If you have both styles being used by the leader then the outcome will be

based on which style he or she uses more thoroughly over the long run. One of the many

challenges with theories on transformational leadership, is that they are strong on the

characteristics needed but not as clear on the actual skills needed to change and transform

organizations (Warrick, Dec 2011). The outcome associated with democratic is positive

transformational since it will motivate a worker at the highest level for significant improvement.

The laissez-faire outcome is self motivation since it deals with an individual’s desire to perform

or not perform. They may also assess the extent to which the external environment facilitates the

level of acceptance of transformational leadership (Beugre, William A., and William B., 2006).

The next critical follower outcome deals with trust and we are using LMX theory as our

reference point. The first outcome deals with autocratic and it is the out-group element. When

you think of an autocratic situation, you think of employees who have less than positive

experiences with their leaders because their interests are based on self-promotion. If an employee

tells them something in confidence, then they will most likely use it against them at some point.

11

Therefore, the trust level is one of a formal relationship and the employee is looking out for his

or her self interests. The workers in the out-group are most likely out of the trust circle which is

based on formality (Dae-Seok and Stewart, 2007). The outcome for the audecratic style is a

balance of perception influence. It mainly depends if the employee gets a majority of the in-

group tasks or the out-group tasks from the leader in charge. The outcome associated with

democratic style is the in-group phenomenon. Basically, it’s the opposite of the out-group where

trust levels are high and communications levels are minimal. Therefore, a high quality LMX

relationship will encourage employees to take on higher job tasks that they normally wouldn’t do

(Bernerth, Armenakis, Field, Giles and Walker, 2007). The laissez-faire outcome deals with a

one-man group since the group members involve me, myself, and I. The next critical follower

outcome deals with personal commitment and it uses LMX theory as its reference point too. The

first outcome is associated with an authoritarian leader which is contractual obligations.

Employees who work for an autocratic leader aren’t highly committed to him or her personally

because workers are a means to an end to move up the corporate leader. Therefore, it is logical to

assume that employees will do just enough to keep their jobs in order to avoid getting canned.

This is also an important variable in the leader-member exchange theory because it verifies the

relationship level that has been achieved and what needs to be done to improve it. The LMX

theory of leadership focuses on the degree of emotional support and the exchange level

achievement bar (Dae-Song and Stewart, 2007). The outcome associated with audecratic

leadership is reciprocal negotiation which is a positioning strategy to see how far a manager will

support his or her employees. As a result, the worker will give or reciprocate the same level that

is received. The outcome associated with passive involves role expansion. Supervisors assign

work roles based on the degree to which a relationship is either positive or negative. The laissez-

12

faire outcome involves self-interest commitment and this involves a one track mind result. A

fourth critical follower outcome has to do with employee confidence and uses situational

leadership as its reference point. Our first outcome is connected with autocratic leadership which

is the telling phase. The telling phase involves people who are given specific task directions and

people who are closely supervised (Hersey, Blanchard, and Natemeyer, Dec 1979). This is a high

task, low relationship style that includes low employee feedback and a direct authority approach

that leads to autocratic leadership which is known for low employee confidence levels. This

reality happens because autocratic ideology is one-sided and doesn’t involve constructive input

from either party. The outcome for audecratic leadership involves selling for the low end and

participating for the high end. On the lower end of audecratic there is still no delegation but there

is still some coaching going on which leads to the beginning of a confidence relationship that is

established. On the upper end of audecratic there is a participative action because the leader is

starting to loosen the reins and lets workers participate which boosts their confidence levels

further. The outcome for democratic leadership is a delegating action which allows group

members to take full responsibility for their actions and their confidence levels will be at their

highest. The key to situational leadership is to accurately access the maturity level of the

follower which has a correlation with leader confidence in each individual worker (Hersey,

Blanchard, and Natemeyer, Dec 1979). The laissez-faire outcome is individual confidence since

it is based on the individual’s ability level. Our next critical follower outcome has to do with

employee empowerment and it uses the contingency theory as a point of reference. The first

possibility that deals with autocratic leadership is Low LPC task oriented which signifies a low

level of personal empowerment. Employees are likely to rate an autocratic leader low on the LPC

scale because these leaders aren’t very people oriented. Autocratic leaders are more task-oriented

13

since they rate personal relationships low on their to-do list. The basic thesis is that the

relationship between the leader’s score on the LPC scale and group performance is contingent

upon the work environment situation involved (Rice, Jan 1978). Thus little empowerment is

received from the leader. The outcome for audecratic involves middle LPC enabling with caution

because these leaders are willing to empower certain employees but will do so with caution.

These leaders won’t judge until they’ve had a chance to evaluate their worker outputs and will

choose empowerment levels accordingly. Most research has simply identified two groups: high

and low LPC persons, but new datum suggest that middle LPC persons should be discussed in a

third separate group altogether (Rice, Jan 1978). The outcome for democratic is a high LPC

human relations oriented outcome. These leaders are high on personal relationships and are

willing to give total empowerment to workers who have earned it. The laissez-faire outcome has

to do with self- empowerment because the leader has little or no contact with the employee

regarding productivity outputs on any level. Our sixth critical follower outcome involves

employee job satisfaction and uses path-goal theory as its reference point. Our first outcome that

is associated with authoritarian leadership involves subordinate preference employee pawns. I

chose the subordinate preference component because it relates to how an employee will perceive

a particular leadership style. Employees will associate an autocratic leadership style as being

stressful and unsatisfying because it’s all about the leader’s needs and not their own. The

employees are pawns on a chest-board and will be sacrificed or over-worked to protect the

leader’s goal levels. The outcome for audecratic leadership involves subordinate preference

employee expectations which can be satisfying/unsatisfying or stressful/non-stressful depending

on the levels of worker inputs to outputs. In other words do the rewards equal the effort level

needed and are the workers expectations levels met by the leader. Although structure was

14

positively related to worker satisfaction, the real strength was seen through the paths of

intervening variables associated with these styles (Sims and Szilagyi, 1975). Our next outcome

deals with democratic and is subordinate preference employee equality. This is logical because

when employees are treated as equals by their leaders, then their job satisfaction levels will be at

their highest levels. Under conditions of high ambiguity, where roles are ill defined, leader

initiating structure is perceived to be instrumental toward role clarification which leads to higher

satisfaction levels (Sims and Szilagyi, 1975). The laissez-faire outcome is self sufficiency which

is true because employees have to rely on themselves individually. The next critical follower

outcome deals with performance/productivity and uses authentic leadership as a reference point.

The first outcome of negative psychological capital has a connection with autocratic leadership.

Authoritarian leaders want their workers to be productive but they do it through fear and

intimidation which leads to low psychological capital. This will definitely affect their

performance levels with varying degrees of negative reinforcement and that’s why an authentic

leadership environment is important for higher output levels through personal self improvement

and a leaders self awareness. Luthans and Avolio (2003) argued that self efficacy, hope

optimisms, and resilience (positive psychological capital) is important to a leaders individual self

awareness level through continued improvement (Harvey, Martinko, and Gardner, 2006). The

outcome associated with audecratic is developing work ethic because it depends on which side of

audecratic is being used more which will ultimately affect worker performance/productivity

levels. This will depend on how their work ethic is shaped through leadership elements displayed

in the relationship. The outcome associated with democratic is obviously positive psychological

capital because an employee’s confidence, optimism, hope and resilience levels have been

increased through heightened leader/follower interactions which increases overall

15

efficiency/performance levels. They assert that people with higher levels of positive

psychological capital are more likely to see themselves in a more favorable light (Harvey,

Martinko and Gardiner, 2006). The laissez-faire outcome of self-employed is logical because it

depends on an individual’s output level with no guidance from anyone. The next critical follower

outcome involves creativity/innovation and uses transformational leadership as a reference point.

The first possibility associated with autocratic leadership is low intellectual stimulation.

Intellectual stimulation involves leaders who encourage creativity and innovation by challenging

normal group views and beliefs but we know that autocratic leaders do neither. They are happy

with the status quo and want groups to stick to what’s expected which is creativity/innovation

based on fear and firing threats. They expect creativity instead of inspiring it and can come down

hard on anyone whose output is less than perfect. The outcome for audecratic is contingent

reward effort because there is just enough autocratic influence to push workers to be creative for

their own job survival but the rewards have to be there for them to put forth the necessary effort

to achieve a certain output expectation level which is more democratic in nature. This is an

autocratic/democratic element because the creativity level that is exerted will depend on their job

favorability and their interest in the reward offered . The higher transformational relationships

will increase creativity which will increase employee innovative levels for the greater good of

the firm. Nothing will transform an organization faster and better prepare it for the future than

successful skilled transformational teachers (Warrick, Dec 2011). The outcome associated with

democratic involves charismatic innovation which involves leadership that gets workers to

perform extraordinary things. This is ideal because participative styles allow for a greater

creative flexibility range which means nothing is off limits. Thus, workers and leaders can

participate in unusual and boisterous exchanges in order to reach the highest levels of creativity.

16

The charismatic leader may often engage in unconventional behavior such as flamboyant speech

or other behaviors that aren’t considered normal like shared leadership for creative teams

(Murphy and Ensher, 2008). The outcome for laissez-faire is consultant artist because these

employees will have to act like consultants since there are no leader/employee exchanges. The

final critical follower outcome is organizational culture and it uses servant leadership as a

reference point. The first outcome is leader servant which is a true follower/leader one sided pie

chart because an autocratic leader is only committed to him or herself with no regard for serving

anyone. The authoritarian leader is the server and the servee all in one package which represents

a pie chart of 100% culture submission. The outcome associated with audecratic involves a

biased servant which means the leader could serve himself or his workers depending on which

brings the most efficient results. In other words, which style will influence his situation and

thinking the most which can be influenced by other managers, the existing culture etc. The

behavior of servant leaders can not only influence their followers’ behavior, but other servant

leaders which could influence their leadership dispositions (Van Dierendorck, 2011). The

outcome associated with democratic is a subordinate servant because true servant leaders serve

this culture without authoritarian views which enhances a need to serve others. It’ important to

realize that according to Greenleaf, the server of leader subordinates practices “primus

interpares” (i.e. first among equals) which involves convincing/persuading rather than using

personal power to make people heed your command (Van Dierendorck, 2011). The outcome for

laissez-faire is self-servant because it’s like a fast food style where you help yourself. As we look

at each leadership style path, we see that each leads to a leader/follower relationship

effectiveness level which leads to an overall satisfaction level. Thus, we can conclude that if a

leader wants a positive relationship outcome then democratic is preferred. If the leader is unsure,

17

then audecratic is the path and if the leader doesn’t care about employee relationships then

autocratic is the choice. Finally if you have a leader that doesn’t care about anything then laissez-

faire is the answer.

Final Thoughts

I have developed a model that is simplistic in nature that offers a range of worker

outcomes that can be used as indicators for managerial preference decisions. I was careful to use

the literature research as a basis for my conclusions and observations while trying to eliminate

any personal biases that could enter the equation through personal experiences. My model was

developed under a “literature majority” as a basis for my conclusions which creates an ethical

and peer-reviewed backing for critical outcome support. The ultimate leadership decision lies in

the eye of the beholder. Some in the minority consider autocratic leadership a reliable leader/

follower combination which is why it is important to recognize their view point. Therefore, even

if seen as harsh by observers, punishment used by autocratic leaders may still be considered as

legitimate by those at the receiving end and their levels of predictability might make them easier

to deal or cope with in the long run (Hoel, Glaso, Hetland, Cooper and Einarsen, 2010). It was

clear to me when I made this model that I also wanted to include leadership variables that

weren’t discussed at length in our SOU’s and I was amazed at the connections between the

leadership theories and major managerial styles that connect like an inner spider web of

possibilities. I can say now that I truly understand why management is the most researched and

the least truly understood concept in business academics.

References

18

Acar, William, and William Braun. "Transformational Leadership in Organizations: An

Environment-Induced Model." International Journal of Manpower 27.1 (2006): 52-62.

ABI/INFORM Global. 22 Feb. 2012

Altemeyer, Bob. "Highly Dominating, Highly Authoritarian Personalities." The Journal of

social psychology 144.4 (2004): 421-47. ABI/INFORM Global; ProQuest Education

Journals. 22 Feb. 2012

Bernerth, Jeremy B., et al. "Is Personality Associated with Perceptions of LMX? an

Empirical Study." Leadership & Organization Development Journal 28.7 (2007): 613-31.

ABI/INFORM Global. 22 Feb. 2012

Casal, Teresa. Authoritarian Leadership Style and Intrinsic Motivation. Kean University,

2002 United States -- New JerseyABI/INFORM Global; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses

(PQDT). 22 Feb. 2012

Gastil, John. "A Definition and Illustration of Democratic Leadership." Human Relations

47.8 (1994): 953-. ABI/INFORM Global. 22 Feb. 2012

Harvey, Paul, Mark J. Martinko, and William L. Gardner. "Promoting Authentic Behavior in

Organizations: An Attributional Perspective." Journal of Leadership & Organizational

Studies 12.3 (2006): 1-11. ABI/INFORM Global; ProQuest Education Journals. 22 Feb. 2012

Hersey, Paul, Kenneth H. Blanchard, and WALTER E. NATEMEYER. "Situational

Leadership, Perception, and the Impact of Power." Group & Organization Studies (pre-1986)

4.4 (1979): 418. ABI/INFORM Global. 22 Feb. 2012

19

Hinkin T, Schriesheim C. An Examination of "Nonleadership": From Laissez-Faire

Leadership to Leader Reward Omission and Punishment Omission. Journal Of Applied

Psychology [serial online]. November 2008;93(6):1234-1248. Available from: Business

Source Complete, Ipswich, MA. Accessed February 22, 2012.

Hoel H, Glasø L, Hetland J, Cooper C, Einarsen S. Leadership Styles as Predictors of Self-

reported and Observed Workplace Bullying. British Journal Of Management [serial online].

June 2010;21(2):453-468. Available from: Business Source Complete, Ipswich, MA.

Accessed February 22, 2012.

Kim, Soonhee. "Participative Management and Job Satisfaction: Lessons for Management

Leadership." Public administration review 62.2 (2002): 231-41. ABI/INFORM Global;

ProQuest Education Journals. 22 Feb. 2012

Poole, William. "Moral Hazard: The Long-Lasting Legacy of Bailouts." Financial Analysts

Journal 65.6 (2009): 17,23,1. ABI/INFORM Global. 22 Feb. 2012

Rice, Robert W. "Psychometric Properties of the Esteem for Least Preferrred Coworker (LPC

Scale)." Academy of Management.The Academy of Management Review (pre-1986)

3.000001 (1978): 106-. ABI/INFORM Global. 22 Feb. 2012 .

Sims Jr. H, Szilagyi A. Leader Structure and Subordinate Satisfaction for Two Hospital

Administrative Levels: A Path Analysis Approach. Journal Of Applied Psychology [serial

online]. April 1975;60(2):194-197. Available from: Business Source Complete, Ipswich,

MA. Accessed February 22, 2012.

20

Smither, Robert D. "The Return of the Authoritarian Manager." Training 28.11 (1991): 40-.

ABI/INFORM Global; ProQuest Education Journals. 22 Feb. 2012

Somech, Anit. "Relationships of Participative Leadership with Relational Demography

Variables: A Multi-Level Perspective." Journal of Organizational Behavior 24.8 (2003):

1003-18. ABI/INFORM Global. 22 Feb. 2012

Stewart, Jim. "Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Theory of Leadership and HRD."

Leadership & Organization Development Journal 28.6 (2007): 531-51. ABI/INFORM

Global. 22 Feb. 2012

Susan Elaine Murphy, Ellen A. Ensher, A qualitative analysis of charismatic leadership in

creative teams: The case of television directors, The Leadership Quarterly, Volume 19, Issue

3, June 2008, Pages 335-352, ISSN 1048-9843, 10.1016. 22 Feb. 2012

Van Dierendonck D. Servant Leadership: A Review and Synthesis. Journal Of Management

[serial online]. July 2011;37(4):1228-1261. Available from: Business Source Complete,

Ipswich, MA. Accessed February 22, 2012.

Warrick, D. D. "The Urgent Need for Skilled Transformational Leaders: Integrating

Transformational Leadership and Organization Development." Journal of Leadership,

Accountability and Ethics 8.5 (2011): 11-26. ABI/INFORM Global. 22 Feb. 2012

Xirasagar, Sudha. "Transformational, Transactional and Laissez-Faire Leadership among

Physician Executives." Journal of Health Organization and Management 22.6 (2008): 599-

613. ABI/INFORM Global. 22 Feb. 2012