Participative Democratic Leadership Style

Democratic/Participative Leadership

Yukl (1999) confirmed that the leader adopting this style shares his power with employees to include them in the decision making process. Kayser and Melcher (1973) summarized this style to be ‘powerful’ as it included the commitment, understanding and cooperation of the managers and employees. Additionally, Halal and Brown (1981) identified 16 forms of participation which were further classified into four groups: communication, compensation personnel actions and work processes where the latter was seen as the most commonly used in USA after sampling a total of 363 employees from manufacturing, financial and retail institutions sectors. It was also identified that managers who implement this style assume McGregor’s (1960) Theory Y approach where managers appraise workers as being capable of self-direction and self-control (Halal and Brown 1981; Russ, 2011).

In analyzing this style, Kayser and Melcher (1973) maintained that for this style to be effective stress levels should be moderate and turnover should be minimal. Additionally, they found that this model is time consuming because the parties of the organization will have to build trust among each other; and Halal and Brown (1981) saw that it could also be risky and complex. They also summarized it as ‘industrial courtesy’ since managers do not actually let subordinates. They further maintained that the successful implementation of this style was confronted by the following obstacles a struggle for power sharing and may therefore seen as threatening to some people; managers do not willingly abdicate their decision making authority to employees. On the other side of the coin, some employees do not willingly accept responsibility; and others believe that the traditional autocratic style as it relates to sensitive matters.

Once implemented, Halal and Brown (1981) found that this style increases employee performance and