L

ABSTRACT
[Draw your reader in
with an engaging
abstract. It is typically a
short summary of the
document. When
you’re ready to add
your content, just click
here and start typing.]

USER
[Course title]

[Document title]
[Document subtitle]
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I am overwhelmed in all humbleness and gratefulness to acknowledge my debt to all those

who have helped me to put these ideas well above the level of simplicity and into something
concreate.
I would like to express my special thanks of gratitude to my teachers of this respective
subject as well as our principal Dr. Pooja Ramchandani who gave me the golden opportunity
to this wonderful project on the topic “LEADERSHIP STYLES” which also helped me in
doing a lot of research and I came to know about so many new things for which I am really
thankful to them.
Secondly, I would also like to thank my parents and friends who helped me a lot in finalizing
this project within the limited time frame.
 LEADERSHIP AND FOLLOWERSHIP
Leadership, both as a research area and as a practical skill, encompasses the ability of an
individual, group or organization to "lead", influence or guide other individuals, teams, or
entire organizations. The word "leadership" often gets viewed as a contested term. Specialist
literature debates various viewpoints on the concept, sometimes contrasting Eastern and
Western approaches to leadership, and also (within the West) North American versus
European approaches.

U.S. academic environments define leadership as "a process of social influence in which
a person can enlist the aid and support of others in the accomplishment of a common
and ethical task". Basically, leadership can be defined as an influential power-
relationship in which the power of one party (the "leader") promotes movement/change
in others (the "followers").
Some have challenged the more traditional managerial views of leadership (which portray
leadership as something possessed or owned by one individual due to their role or authority),
and instead advocate the complex nature of leadership which is found at all levels of
institutions, both within formal and informal roles.
Studies of leadership have produced theories involving (for example) traits, situational
interaction, function, behaviour, power, vision and values, charisma, and intelligence, among
others
Followership is the actions of someone in a subordinate role. It can also be considered as a
specific set of skills that complement leadership, a role within a hierarchical organization, a
social construct that is integral to the leadership process, or the behaviours engaged in while
interacting with leaders in an effort to meet organizational objectives.
As such, followership is best defined as an intentional practice on the part of the
subordinate to enhance the synergetic interchange between the follower and the leader.

In organizations, “leadership is not just done by the leader, and followership is not just done
by followers.” This perspective suggests that leadership and followership do not operate on
one continuum, with one decreasing while the other increases. Rather, each dimension exists
as a discrete dimension, albeit with some shared competencies.
The study of followership is an emerging area within the leadership field that helps explain
outcomes. Specifically, followers play important individual, relational, and collective roles in
organizational failures and successes. “If leaders are to be credited with setting the vision for
the department or organization and inspiring followers to action, then followers need to be
credited with the work that is required to make the vision a reality.”
The term follower can be used as a personality type, as a position in a hierarchy, as a role, or
as a set of traits and behaviours. Studies of followership have produced various theories
including trait, behavioural attributes, role, and constructionist theories in addition to
exploring myths or misunderstandings about followership.
 THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT

It’s important to know leadership and management have two very different objectives and
require different skillsets, although it’s easy to confuse the two. Throughout our lives, we’ve
been trained to respect people in positions of authority and our elders. But job title and age
factor more into the management conversation and have little to nothing to do with
leadership.
A leader provides inspiration. A manager provides direction. That’s the difference in a
nutshell. Managers can be leaders and vice versa, but the two require a different approach.

1. Differences in Vision
Leaders are considered as visionaries. They set the pathways to excel the organizational
growth. They always examine where their organization stands, where they want to go, and
how they can reach there by involving the team.
In comparison, managers set out to achieve organizational goals by implementing processes,
such as budgeting, organizational structuring, and staffing. Managers' vision is bound to the
implementation strategies, planning, and organizing tasks to reach the objectives set out by
leaders. However, both of these roles are equally important in the context of business
environments and necessitate associative efforts.
2. Organizing vs Aligning
Managers achieve their goals by using coordinated activities and tactical processes. They
break down long-time goals into tiny segments and organize available resources to reach the
desired outcome.
On the other hand, leaders are more concerned with how to align and influence people than
how to assign work to them. They achieve this by assisting individuals in envisioning their
function in a wider context and the possibility for future growth that their efforts may give.

3. Differences in Queries
A leader asks what and why, whereas a manager focuses on the questions how and when. To
do justice to their duties as a leader, one might question and challenge the authority to reverse
decisions that may not be in the better interests of the team. If a firm has a stumbling block, a
leader will be the one to step up and ask, what did we learn from this? and Why has this
happened?
On the other hand, managers are not required to assess and analyse failures. Their job
description emphasizes asking How and When, which assists them in ensuring that plans are
carried out correctly. They prefer to accept the status quo and make no attempt to change it.

4. Position vs Quality
A manager is a role that frequently refers to a specific job within an organization's structure,
whereas the term leader has a more ambiguous definition. Leadership emerges as a result of
your actions. You are a leader if you act in a way that inspires others to do their best. It makes
no difference what your title or position is. On the other hand, a manager is a job title that
comes with a fixed set of responsibilities.
 TYPES OF LEADERSHIP STYLES

German-American psychologist Kurt Lewin is credited with branding the basic leadership
styles in 1939. Lewin and his researchers tasked schoolchildren with an arts and crafts project
while the team observed behaviours and responses to different styles of leadership. The idea
was to determine which style was most effective to use in business.
Lewin identified three styles of leadership: Autocratic, Democratic, and Laissez-faire. Over
time, more leadership styles have emerged, and one that is commonly grouped in with
Lewin’s three is Transformational Leadership. Today, there are a variety of leadership styles
in business, but the four primary leadership styles you’ll be exposed to include:
 Autocratic
 Democratic
 Laissez-faire
 Transformational
 Let’s examine each of them individually.

1. Autocratic Leadership
Also known as Authoritarian Leadership, an Autocratic Leadership style can easily be
summed up by the command, “Do as you’re told.”
In Autocratic Leadership, direction comes from the top, a singular figure who leads a
company or team. An autocratic leader determines strategy, policies, procedures, and the
direction of the organization, dictating everything to subordinates. Authoritarian leaders are
not focused on collaboration with those in their circle, they are rarely interested in feedback,
and they prefer to hold all of the power and be in charge.

2. Democratic Leadership
Also known as Participative Leadership, the Democratic Leadership approach involves
gathering input from your subordinates and team members so everyone has a chance to
contribute to the decision-making process. Democratic leaders are still the decision-makers,
but their approach allows others to feel engaged and have a stake in the final outcome.
Democratic leaders excel at sparking creativity among subordinates, and projects are
enhanced when positive contributions come from all sides.

3. Laissez-faire Leadership
Don’t let the name deceive you. Laissez-faire Leadership is not a “Who cares?” approach.
Rather, it involves empowering your employees, being hands-off, and trusting them to
accomplish the task at hand without constant questions or micromanagement. Laissez-faire
leaders leave decisions to their employees, while staying available to provide feedback when
necessary.

4. Transformational Leadership
Transformational Leadership involves developing a grand vision and rallying your employees
around it. Under this style, the team is eager to transform and evolve – personally and
professionally – in order to achieve the overall goal. With the organization and employees
aligned, teams working under a transformational leader are united for the singular cause, and
willing to commit their effort, time, and energy to the organization.
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN

Abraham Lincoln (February 12, 1809 – April 15, 1865) was an American lawyer and
statesman who served as the 16th president of the United States from 1861 until his
assassination in 1865. Lincoln led the nation through the American Civil War and succeeded
in preserving the Union, abolishing slavery, bolstering the federal government, and
modernizing the U.S. economy.
Lincoln was seemingly a natural born leader. With his ability to command a room, give a
powerful speech and negotiate, he is regarded as one of the best presidents in American
history. As a leader, Lincoln was determined to hold together a nation that was falling apart at
the seams. Without his leadership during the tumultuous Civil War, it is difficult to imagine
where the United States would be today.
Lincoln matters because he is an iconic figure whose qualities of personal integrity, vision
and perseverance have become an ideal for leaders in all times. People collect Lincoln items
to bring themselves into proximity with his stature. In times when tearing down famous
figures seems rampant, Lincoln’s character and just plain goodness still shines.
Lincoln set precedents for all future leaders to follow. And, despite racial issues, which still
plague the country today, he ensured freedom, to some extent, for all.
Lincoln held the country together at a point when there was a very real threat of the “great
experiment” called democracy failing. The U.S. may be a young country, but it is the oldest
democracy. We should take great pride in that, and without Lincoln, the U.S. may not exist.
Lincoln’s sacrifices and leadership during what many consider the most troubling period in
American History epitomizes the highest standard for selfless service to the Nation. His
untimely death at the conclusion of the conflict marks him as perhaps the consummate model
for giving the last full measure possible to the greatest of American struggles.
Abraham Lincoln is one of the greatest leaders and he was born on twelfth (12th) February,
1809 in Hodgenville, Kentucky. He is a self-educated lawyer Illinois. Abraham Lincoln falls
under trait leadership theory since he has the traits of intellective traits like being self-
educated (intelligence) and was very knowledgeable. He also has social characteristics he
was very friendly with everyone and very social.
He falls under democratic leadership style.
One of Lincoln’s greatest leadership traits was his good communication skills which helped
him to be a successful leader. He was a very communicative person, he knew how to talk
with people and knew how to make the people listen to his talk by telling stories through
which he could convey the message. Being a leader, one must be essential to establish oneself
as a good communicator and know how to convey a message clearly so that people can trust
with their wholeheartedly. Abraham was a very honest man, he knew how to deal with the
circumstances and was very truthful to the people. Lincoln did what he thought was right
according to the situations and this way it led to his success. He was a very responsible
person. He took at the mistakes as his own and work towards achieving it. He acknowledged
all the mistakes of his deputy and he shared every achievement without keeping himself. He
made sure his deputy was praised and given credit for their work so that they won’t get
discouraged and would continue to work for him.
Lincoln was a responsible leader, he took account of everything his deputy did and
apologized for the mistake his deputy did. He followed the democratic leadership style. He
did what people wanted to do by being fair in every situation. He was a supportive leader and
he motivated his deputy to take part in decision making and had a lot of trust in his deputy.
Through this, they feel motivated to do their work and had a lot of efficiency in their work.
Lincoln’s democratic leadership style was successful, as he was the kind of person who
always motivates others and made them have faith in whatever he believed. Lincoln always
respected other opinions and always included his deputy ideas and strategies in decision
making. Through his actions and his leadership style, he ended the slavery system and
brought freedom in the country.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Grint, Leadership: Limits and Possibilities, 2005

Western, Leadership: A critical text, 2013, p. 26
Uhl-Bien, Mary; Riggio, Ronald E.; Lowe, Kevin B.; Carsten, Melissa K., 2014,
“Followership theory: A review and research agenda", The Leadership Quarterly. 25 (1): 83–
104.
Riggio, 2014, "Followership Research: Looking Back and Looking Forward"
Favara, 2009, "Putting Followership on The Map: Examining Followership Styles and Their
Relationship with Job Satisfaction and Job Performance"
Baker, 2007, "Followership: The Theoretical Foundation of a Contemporary Construct"
Kelley, 1988. "In Praise of Followers"
Koonce, 2016, All in “the family”
Carpenter, 1866, Six Months in the White House: The Story of a Picture