Leadership Model Submitted for Publishing

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
CombinedDemocratic/
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
SelfServant

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
GovernmentorOutside Influences
whichmeansnocontrol,no logic,or
no stabilitywhichisinserted
everywhere inthe model to
symbolize forcesthatare
unpredictableandnothingwill make
any sense like the government
bailoutsforWall Streetthatviolated
economiclaw andwere 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

Leadership Model Submitted for Publishing

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to Leadership Model Submitted for Publishing

Recently uploaded

Leadership Model Submitted for Publishing