There are four different types of authority these are: Y Authoritarian Y DictatorialY Consultative Y Participative I will now explain these different types of authority in detail
Task 7:
"Identify and explain four types of authority"
There are four different types of authority these are:
? Authoritarian
? Dictatorial
? Consultative
? Participative
I will now explain these different types of authority in detail.
Authoritarian:
In this type of authority the leader tells the group what has to be done and how to go on about it. An appropriate way to use this is when you have all the information you require for the task (there is nothing to discuss) but you have time limitations. This way of leadership is excellent to achieve your result. It gives the leader total power, which would be useful in the armed forces for example where personnel need to get used to not question orders.
Positive and negative points about authoritarian:
Positives:
? Can be effective in achieving task
? Improves discipline
? Time efficient
Negatives:
? Cause resentment
? Could miss good ideas
? Low morale
Dictatorial:
This type of authority comes from a dictator; this term is at times wrongly used to refer to someone who is bossy or arrogant as a leader. A dictator has an un-restrained authority over people.
Over history there have been many dictators such as, Augusto Pinochet, Sadam Hussein, Adolf Hitler, Stalin, or Mugabe.
Such a leader would have the right to change laws without consulting those who would later have to abide by these laws. Dictators cannot be removed from power through elections, which stops the dictator from having any fear of loosing power if they go too far out of line.
Power is maintained through imposing extreme fear upon its subjects.
Positive and negative points about dictatorial:
Positives:
? Effective for the leader
? Discipline level is high
? Time efficient
Negatives:
? Cause muting
? Discipline through FEAR
? No morale
? Blind obedience
? Frowned upon
? Could lead to rebellion if taken too far
Consultative:
This type of leader will share suggestions and ideas with the group. This is useful as the leader will be getting ideas from the group, but may not actually take these on board.
It would be a little like:
"I'll listen to what you have to say, but the final decision is mine, regardless of what you think".
Positive and negative points about consultative:
Positives:
? People get ideas across
? Idea development
Negatives:
? Confusion
? Not time effective
? Shared ideas are ignored
Participative (Democratic):
A democratic leader would take into account the groups opinion, authority is maintained as the leader has the say in what is actually done. But the fact that the final decision is influenced by the group's ideas improves the group's morale. Members of staff gain respect towards leader through this leadership style.
This can be used when the leader doesn't have all the information on the task being carried out, and the rest of the group do. They can share the information each member of the group has and contribute to the final decisions. This could be useful in the police force for example. By using this style of authority peoples expertise and knowledge is taken into account resulting in god morale.
Positive and negative points about participative:
Positives:
? Involves others in decisions
? No blind obedience
? Good morale
Negatives:
? ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
This can be used when the leader doesn't have all the information on the task being carried out, and the rest of the group do. They can share the information each member of the group has and contribute to the final decisions. This could be useful in the police force for example. By using this style of authority peoples expertise and knowledge is taken into account resulting in god morale.
Positive and negative points about participative:
Positives:
? Involves others in decisions
? No blind obedience
? Good morale
Negatives:
? Time consuming
? Not always what people want
? Might fail to reach decision
There are four main leadership styles these are:
Authoritarian/Directive: this leader would be highly concerned for task and have a low concern towards people. They are task orientated and give firm guidance, being very dominant in the way things are done. This is the traditional approach to leadership/management. Here the leader wants to maintain the authority and have full control over the team decisions, the leader would be telling the team what they are to do and how to do this, without leaving any space to discuss on how things are to be done.
Coach: This type of leader would be highly concerned for the team and the task. This type of leader would be very focused on task, and be highly supportive towards the team, and would be highly supportive of individual's feelings, by making sure that all team players take part and have a positive attitude towards the task, and are carrying this task out accurately. Decisions are reached in a consultative manner, the leader will decide the final decision but the leader will be interested in the team's opinion and the team's feedback is likely to reflect on the final decision reached.
Laissez-Faire/Delegater: this type of leader would have a low concern for task and for the people taking part in the task. This type of leader would give the team the responsibility of getting the work done, by telling them what to do and leaving the team to do it by themselves. The leader's role is limited to crisis, in normal situations the leader would be giving instructions as to what has been done and letting the team take whichever route they want to complete the task successfully. The leader is using a system of unrestrictive attitude.
Supporter: this type of leader would have a high concern for people but a low interest in getting the task done. This style of leader would be likely to focus on the team but not so much on actually getting the task completed accurately, the leader would be asking and taking into account the views of the workers before reaching any decisions, any decisions would be reached in a democratic manner. The team may like working in this situation, which is often kind and supportive, but they may not get the job done.
Positive and negative aspects of these different leadership styles:
Authoritarian/Directive:
Positives
? Decisions are reached without wasting any time
? Team is fully aware of what they are to do
? The discipline is kept
? The authority of the leader is fully acknowledged
Negatives
? Team may not trust the leader
? Team doesn't have a say onto what and how things are done
? The team may feel unappreciated, which could lead to having a negative attitude towards the situation/task/leader
Coach:
Positives
? Team is likely to have a positive attitude
? Team feel capable of completing the task and therefore they would put effort into their work
? Team feels appreciated
Negatives
? Team may not have enough respect for the leader
? Team may see leader as an equal and not realize that the leader is a superior and therefore find it hard to follow instructions
Laissez-Faire/Delegater:
Positive
? Trust is placed upon the employers, which makes employers feel appreciated
? Leaders can assign different duties to the different team members
? Team members feel like they are give power
? Will make team members them want to show that they are worthy of the power that has been given to them
Negative
? The task may not be completed, as it hasn't been monitored accurately
? The team may not be sure about the function they are supposed to carry out and which there responsibilities they have
? This leadership can be used to cover-up a bad leader
Supporter:
Positive
? Team members enjoy the sense of being important to the rest of the team
? The team has a positive approach towards the task
? Team has a sense of involvement
Negative
? Team may have a lack of focus on the task
? The team may find it hard to take orders from the leader when required to
? The task may quite possibly not get done
Legislation:
Various pieces of legislation have been put forward to ensure discipline and to protect the rights of personnel within the public services such as:
? Armed forces Discipline Act 2000
? Armed forces Act 2001
? Police discipline regulations 1995
? Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984 (and its following amendments)
Provisions such as the following where made:
? Removing the death sentence and changing it for one of imprisonment
? Powers of 'stop and search'
? Powers to issue search and arrest warrants
? Protection of children with families in armed forces abroad
Blind obedience:
What is meant by this term is the act of following orders without questioning them. This is mainly what the public services personnel should do, but there are situations when it would have been better if certain orders had indeed been questioned. Many atrocities have been committed throughout history because of somebody obeying orders without seriously questioning them.
But many acts of bravery and courage have also taken place because of it. If a fire fighter questioned an order received because he/she thought that they he/she could get hurt (for example) many peoples lives could be lost.
So basically obedience can be a very good positive aspect of everyday life, especially within the public services.
Nevertheless there can also be tragic consequences of obedience if it used in the wrong way. People obey and carry out actions that they may think are wrong because People in authority who issue the orders take away the responsibility from those who obey.
For example, the person who obeyed would probably say 'I was only carrying out orders' or because the people in authority often possess visible badges or signs of their superiority. These consist of special uniforms and titles. Having such obvious reminders of who's in charge, most people find it difficult not to obey.
One of the most horrific forms of obedience that can occur if obedience is abused is blind obedience.
Some events affecting blind obedience over history are the following:
The Holocaust - Blind Obedience carried to the extreme, during World War II, the Nazis established death camps where soldiers and even prisoners obeyed commands to systematically murder millions of innocent victims.
Tiananmen Square China 1989 - The willingness of Chinese troops to fire on unarmed civilians during a peaceful demonstration.
Nuremberg Trials 1945 - Adolf Eichmann was a high ranking official in the Nazi era in Germany he worked for the SS as an Oberstrmbannufhrer. He was responsible of the transport and extermination of Jews in the holocaust this was referred to as the final solution. Because of the job role he had and because many atrocities committed had been he's idea, he was known as the 'Chief Executioner' of the Third Reich (German Empire in the times of Nazi power). Eichmann didn't have any inbuilt racial hate. He just learned to hate and did what his job involved to the best of his ability. He was later tried in the Nuremberg trials for war crimes.
This bought into question the adequateness of blind obedience.
Current issues:
The 'shoot to kill' rule used on terrorist suspects was put into question after an innocent man was killed after being thought to be a terrorist. Below I have extracted part of a newspaper article which explains this. I found thi on th following website,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,,1552976,00.html
Police rethink shoot to kill policy
De Menezes death forces review of controversial tactic
Britain's top police officers are reviewing the controversial shoot to kill policy after its first use ended in the gunning down of an innocent man, the Guardian has learned.
The review by the Association of Chief Police Officers comes amid a continuing dispute around the Metropolitan police commissioner, Sir Ian Blair, over his handling of the killing of Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes.
Among the issues to be considered in an in-depth review are:
? Whether any other non-lethal weapons exist or are in development that could rapidly incapacitate a suspected suicide bomber
? How much intelligence is needed before officers are authorised to shoot to kill
? How to assess intelligence rapidly when under massive pressure
? How to ensure effective communications between commanders at base and those pursuing a suspect.
The review will also look at the bomb attacks on London on July 7 and 21, seeking to draw lessons from them. The two attacks will also be examined to provide "real-time" scenarios to help develop the best way to implement the policy.
The policy which claimed Mr de Menezes's life is known as Operation Kratos. Senior officers who support the policy have privately said there is anxiety about whether using the tactic again would result in another innocent being killed.
Mr de Menezes died on July 22 at Stockwell tube station after being mistaken for a suicide bomber. The case is under investigation by the Independent Police Complaints Commission. A string of blunders have emerged, including the white Brazilian man being misidentified as a black African terrorism suspect.
Senior officers have met in the past month to learn early lessons from the Stockwell incident. Senior officers believe that the shoot to kill policy must be retained, but they have been discussing ways in which the risk of killing innocent people can be minimised.
Part of the review will look at intelligence. The police source said: "In any firearms incident the most crucial bit is the intelligence you receive. One question is how much intelligence do you need to shoot to kill. What systems are available to check out the intelligence quickly?"
Miriam Smith-Renieblas Discipline in the Public Services
