Leadership Styles--Democratic Leadership
Democratic Leadership or Participative Leadership Style is the style of following a democratic process in decision making and taking the buy-in from every team member irrespective of position or hierarchy. Democratic leaders create an atmosphere of holistic decision making, however, the Final say is their's and their's alone. These are those type of leaders who are willing to take a responsibility, first of all, for collective thought process and the process does not end there. They are those leaders who are not in the blame game when there are failures. They have the gumption to take the complete responsibility for the result of the decisions.
Two of the most successful Leaders in Cricketing history, one an Aussie in Steve Waugh and another an Indian in M S Dhoni. The styles of both these Leaders seem very similar. Both utility men, very tough interiors, significantly cool exteriors. Very similar in style and very similar in the manner they captained their respective sides.
Teams lead by Democratic Leaders are highly productive. They seem to be in total control of their individual destinies and hence collective productivity is significantly better than most other types of Leadership teams. The teams inherited by both Steve Waugh and M S Dhoni had individuals who themselves were leaders, highly confident individuals and in total control. What with greats like Sachin, Dravid, Laxman, Sehwag, Yuvraj or Gambhir under M S Dhoni or for that matter the incredible Mark Waugh, Matthew Hayden, the mercurial Shane Warne, one of the greatest fast bowlers ever Glenn Mcgrath and someone as effective as Adam Gilchrist or as audacious as Brett Lee. All very effective individuals capable to Lead in the best of the situations coming together to perform under two of the best Leaders. And were these teams effective? The results did suggest that despite possibility of individual egos clashing, the Leadership style does matter to get the teams under control.
There were some negatives in the Leadership style which typically belies every leadership style. Democratic Leaders tend to slow down decision making due to too much reliance on total participation. This happened to both Steve (Australia could not win in the Indian Sub-continent despite being the world beater and met their waterloo against Saurav Ganguly's team) and MSD's recent tryst (negative though) with destiny when the Indian team lost two of the most hyped series out of India. That's where too much of democracy is not good either.
People develop skills under Democratic Leaders and even underdogs become top class performers. This is one type of Leadership Styles that can make leaders out of non-entities. It was more evident in MSD's leadership. India had guys coming from 2 tier, 3 tier cities and towns and performing like world beaters. MSD himself coming from Ranchi, Suresh Raina from Ghaziabad, Irfan Pathan and Yusuf Pathan from Vadodara, Sreesanth (although short lived) from Kerala and recently Cheteshwar Pujara from Rajkot and Bhuwanesh Kumar from Orissa are some of the significant examples of people developing skills, believing that they can do it and looking to be in total control of their individual destinies. It could be due to the type of Leadership style.
Teams under Democratic Leaders are the most satisfied and motivated lot. Cricket being a Team game, this type of Leadership Style is most suited for team games and where quality is expected more than even efficiency and thus we can see that Quality of performance is enhanced in the teams led by Democratic Leaders.
Two of the most successful Leaders in Cricketing history, one an Aussie in Steve Waugh and another an Indian in M S Dhoni. The styles of both these Leaders seem very similar. Both utility men, very tough interiors, significantly cool exteriors. Very similar in style and very similar in the manner they captained their respective sides.
Teams lead by Democratic Leaders are highly productive. They seem to be in total control of their individual destinies and hence collective productivity is significantly better than most other types of Leadership teams. The teams inherited by both Steve Waugh and M S Dhoni had individuals who themselves were leaders, highly confident individuals and in total control. What with greats like Sachin, Dravid, Laxman, Sehwag, Yuvraj or Gambhir under M S Dhoni or for that matter the incredible Mark Waugh, Matthew Hayden, the mercurial Shane Warne, one of the greatest fast bowlers ever Glenn Mcgrath and someone as effective as Adam Gilchrist or as audacious as Brett Lee. All very effective individuals capable to Lead in the best of the situations coming together to perform under two of the best Leaders. And were these teams effective? The results did suggest that despite possibility of individual egos clashing, the Leadership style does matter to get the teams under control.
There were some negatives in the Leadership style which typically belies every leadership style. Democratic Leaders tend to slow down decision making due to too much reliance on total participation. This happened to both Steve (Australia could not win in the Indian Sub-continent despite being the world beater and met their waterloo against Saurav Ganguly's team) and MSD's recent tryst (negative though) with destiny when the Indian team lost two of the most hyped series out of India. That's where too much of democracy is not good either.
People develop skills under Democratic Leaders and even underdogs become top class performers. This is one type of Leadership Styles that can make leaders out of non-entities. It was more evident in MSD's leadership. India had guys coming from 2 tier, 3 tier cities and towns and performing like world beaters. MSD himself coming from Ranchi, Suresh Raina from Ghaziabad, Irfan Pathan and Yusuf Pathan from Vadodara, Sreesanth (although short lived) from Kerala and recently Cheteshwar Pujara from Rajkot and Bhuwanesh Kumar from Orissa are some of the significant examples of people developing skills, believing that they can do it and looking to be in total control of their individual destinies. It could be due to the type of Leadership style.
Teams under Democratic Leaders are the most satisfied and motivated lot. Cricket being a Team game, this type of Leadership Style is most suited for team games and where quality is expected more than even efficiency and thus we can see that Quality of performance is enhanced in the teams led by Democratic Leaders.
Comments
Post a Comment