Mastering Leadership
The management of corporations is charged with the puzzle of selecting the best leadership styles. The identification of the type of employees and the ways of operations form part of the analysis assessment, (Cassidy, 2011). The different leadership styles help in the control of the dynamic situations occurring within the organization. This editorial will assess the different leadership styles. The awareness of the approaches will increase the productivity offered in the management of the leadership requirements.
The different leadership styles are the following. The Laissez-Faire style is considered the hands-off style. The approach is applied to the staffs that are highly educated, experienced or skilled. The satisfaction of the employees in their occupation will permit the successful movement of the organization, (Cassidy, 2011).  The manager or the leader offers the least direction for the staff. The style reduces the amount of freedom the employees can entertain in decision-making. All the power or authority is offered to the leader. The leader determines the decisions, goals and solutions.
            The autocratic leadership style varies to an extent. This approach is applicable to the generation X employees. The high resistance level of the employees can necessitate the implementation of the leadership style.  The style is regarded to be a classical approach. The style promotes the need for the manager to retain the largest amount of power. The decision-making authority is centered on the leader. The autocratic leadership style harms the motivation of the employees. The leader will not consult the staff or allow their inputs. The style requires the offering of the possible punishments and rewards for the organization. The management of the corporation will be required to focus on the offering of orders.
           The other style is the bureaucratic leadership. The leadership style is applicable to the staff that performs the routine tasks. This forces the need for a style that will help the employees to understand the certain procedures and standards, (Yang, 2011). The employees of the bank can require the leadership style. Bureaucratic leadership style focuses on the offered rules or policies. The examples of the employees using the leadership style are the policing officers. The policing officers enforce the law through the rules set on the constitution. The enforcement of the leadership style focuses on the provision of the dealings and rulings set on policies and procedures.
           The democratic leadership style is considered to focus on participation. The style is applicable to the employees who complain of the management’s involvement. The style offers the opportunity to establish goals and recognize or encourage achievements.  The style is applicable in places where people feel left out.  The democratic leadership encourages the staff to be part of the decision-making process. The style allows the placement of the individuals to keep the staff informed. The participation increases the individual’s ability to share in decision-making and problem solving responsibilities, (Gold, 2011). The approach maintains the sovereignty of the leader while collecting opinions from team members.  The staffs are able to generate the high morale, team spirit and corporation.
           In conclusion, leadership styles can be implemented on changing situations. The leaders are required to assess the ways of creating and sustaining the context of maximizing the organizational and human capabilities. The leadership styles should be placed on the level of implementation. The business core values offer the direction of the leadership styles and decision-making.
Reference
Cassidy H. (2011). Staff nurse awareness of nurse manager leadership styles and outcome. Journal of Nursing Management, 19, 4, 124-189
Gold J. (2011). Locating dispersed Leadership. International Journal on Management Reviews, 13, 3, 239-250
Yang L. (2011). Divergent Leadership Styles experienced by Global Managers in India: Indian Journal on trade Relations, 46, 3, 214- 265
