The most effective styles of Leadership

We continued to discuss chapter 2, which was about organizational structure and process. Class covered the different structures that organizations typically have in order to keep their companies running effectively and efficiently. Max Weber had a major influence on social theory, social research, and the discipline of sociology itself In regards to structure, he looked into how and what circumstances do people obey others, especially institutions, even when no force is applied. According to Weber, there are three legitimate powers or authorities: Charismatic, Traditional, and Legal-Rational (Bureaucracy).
Charismatic is highly personal in exercising authority. The person’s character is an assistant in how they lead and how they are perceived. President Barack Obama is a prime example of a charismatic leader. During the election Obama swept the nation off their feet with his comforting and inspiring speeches and an overall presence, leading the nation believing that “Yes we can”. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R83xMWtEp7k&feature=player_detailpage
The challenges that consist of a charismatic authority is there are problems finding a successor and how to keep the organization’s culture and structure once they leave. There is current worry of the future of Apple if Steve Jobs retires once and for all.
After discussing charismatic authority, we went on to talk about traditional authority such as Monarchs. However, challenges that are present with traditional authority are there is only one leader, which is designated by the family, and people do not want to “rock the boat”.
The final and most popular type of authority we discussed was legal-rational or Bureaucracy. Bureaucracy consists of a fixed division of labor and a clearly defined hierarchy of positions. Weber stated bureaucracy equated with administrative rationality. The key elements of Bureaucracy are fixed division of labor, clearly defined hierarchy of positions, applicants selected based on technical qualifications, and fixed salaries. The idea of bureaucracy is the harder you work and your loyalty to a company the greater the chances are of a worker to being promoted. There is a dominant sense of management and everyone has rules to follow for their particular position in the company. The benefits of bureaucracy are a person is based on their merit and is systematic, helps organize large systems, and rules can be learned and passed down over time. A police force is a good example of a bureaucratic organization.
Overall it seems that bureaucracy is the clear choice of the three leaders for a company’s type of leadership, but like the other options, bureaucracy has its faults as well. The disadvantages of bureaucracy are that there’s over centralization of power at the top, there is a threat to individuality, and people may forget the big picture and focuses on the small calculated tasks.
Overall I believe the leadership style that is most effective is pertinent to the type of organization it is a part of. My question is, if bureaucracy is not the end all solution for type of leadership, what elements or aspects of it could be eliminated and/or could it use aspects of charismatic/traditional leaderships?

By: Haley Schwartz