Allowing leaders to convey their mission to stakeholders is among the primary functions that communication plays. When they adopt effective communication approaches, organizational leaders are able to articulate the objectives and strategies that they wish to accomplish. These approaches are particularly vital in the modern environment where leaders have to balance conflicting interests while stile delivering on their main mandate of directing organizational performance. In general, communication is an indispensable tool. However, the mere fact that a leader has adopted a particular communication approach does not necessarily mean that that he will achieve success. To be effective, the communication approach that a leader integrates into his function needs to be aligned with his style. For instance, given their focus on encouraging participation, democratic leaders should embrace a communication approach that celebrates and challenges stakeholders to perform their respective roles. There is abundant literature regarding the link between communication and the various leadership styles. While different scholars offer varying perspectives, they all confirm that communication should match a leader’s style.
The Six Leadership Styles
Daniel Coleman (2000) led the academic community in providing insight on the most common leadership styles: coercive, authoritative, affiliative, democratic, pacesetting and coaching. While the main focus of his article is the role that emotional intelligence plays in the different styles, he also identifies the behaviors and traits that characterize each of the styles. According to Coleman, coercive leaders tend to use such techniques as bullying and demeaning their juniors in the pursuit of organizational growth. Wendy James (2005) agrees that coercive leaders impose change and dismiss the concerns that stakeholders raise. While it may be effective in promoting organizational performance, the coercive style has detrimental effects on the wellbeing and productivity of such stakeholders as employees. As regards the authoritative style, Coleman posits that “by framing the individual tasks within a grand vision, the authoritative leader defines standards that revolve around that vision” (p. 84). In essence, leaders who apply the authoritative approach use clear commands to remind stakeholders of the need to perform their mandate so as to attain a particular vision. Pallegrini and Scandura echo Coleman’s assertion in their article. They observe that control and dictatorial tendencies are the definitive features of the authoritative approach. Affiliative is yet another leadership approach that Coleman explores at length. He notes that the leaders who have adopted this style value human relationships and place immense premium on collaboration. Coleman adds that the proponents of the affiliative style “value individuals and their style drives up flexibility, friends trust one another, allowing habitual innovation and risk taking” (p. 84). Through this description, Coleman essentially suggests that since it encourages teamwork and helps to establish a culture of community, the affiliative style energizes stakeholders to venture into risky pursuits that hold opportunities for growth.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In addition to the three styles discussed above, Coleman also examines the democratic, pacesetting and coaching approaches. He defines democratic leadership thusly: “by spending time getting people’s ideas and buy-in, a leader builds trust, respect and commitment” (p. 85). Here, Coleman is basically contrasting the democratic style to such other approaches as the authoritative and the coercive which fail to recognize that stakeholder support is needed for organizational growth. Foels, Driskell, Mullen and Salas (2000) penned an insightful article in which they confirm the tremendously positive impact that democratic leadership has on organizational performance and stakeholder wellbeing. The findings of their study revealed that “in general… (there was a) tendency for groups experiencing democratic leadership to be more satisfied than groups experiencing autocratic leadership (p. 676). The pacesetting style is the fifth approach that Coleman addresses extensively. While he admits that little is known about this style, he asserts that it is a common approach. The key feature of this style is that the leader establishes high expectations and standards and sets the example by pursuing the standards. As Coleman observes, the main drawback of this style is that is imposes needless pressure on employees who feel the need to match the leader’s unreasonably high delivery of the standards and expectations. Hadjithorna-Garstka (2011) agrees that the pacesetting style can have destructive impacts on employee performance and satisfaction levels. She found that the leaders who use this style tend to expect and demand excellence from their employees. Luckcock (2008) joined Hadjithorna-Garstka in highlighting the damaging effects of pacesetting leadership. He defines pacesetting leadership as an approach that effectively glorifies leaders and does not acknowledge their fallibility. Basically, Luckcock warns that since this style does not account for the limitations and the flaws that leaders possess, it can lead to poor organizational performance and low employee productivity.
The coaching approach is the last style about which Coleman shares insights in his article. According to Coleman, “coaching leaders help employees identify their unique strengths and weaknesses and tie them to their personal and career aspirations” (p. 87). It is important to note that the different leadership styles are not mutually exclusive. It is possible, and even strongly encouraged, for leaders to apply multiple styles to different situations: “leaders who have mastered four or more-especially the authoritative, democratic, affiliative and coaching styles-have the best climate and business performance” (Coleman p. 87). The ability to apply a particular style appropriately to a specific case is the essence of situational leadership. As Sims, Faraj and Yun (2009) make clear, situational leadership is necessary because “one type of leadership will be effective in one situation, but a different type of leadership will be effective in another situation” (p. 149). Since situational leadership helps leaders to handle a wide range of challenges and leverage opportunities, it is critical for the leaders to invest in developing the different leadership styles. In the following section, a review of literature focusing on communication as it pertains to the six leadership styles is offered.
Since 2000, extensive research has been conducted on the six leadership styles discussed above. The table below offers a summary of the research findings.
Literature on Leadership Styles and Communication
Communication Approaches
The research community has examined the communication approaches that leaders who use different styles have adopted. As a result of the efforts of this community, it is understood that the communication approaches are as varied and numerous as the leadership styles. Offered below are discussions of the communication approaches that define the six leadership styles explored above and the most appropriate approach for each of the styles.
Coercive
As noted earlier, coercive leaders bully and intimidate their employees. In his discussion, Coleman offers insights into the communication approaches that these leaders employ. He shares that the coercive style sees a leader using demeaning language that is intended to create terror and fear. These leaders are usually quick to point out blunders and assign blame for mistakes (Coleman, 2000). Furthermore, Coleman observes that coercive leaders are dismissive and fail to consider the concerns or perspectives of their employees or other stakeholders. A review of literature shows that Coleman is not isolated in finding that coercive leaders use language that is forceful, disrespectful and dismissive. Fellows, Liu and Fong (2002) also determined that these leaders are disrespectful and dictatorial in their communication. They conducted a study to determine the leadership approaches used in the construction industry in Hong Kong. In their discussion, they note that the leaders who have adopted the coercive style use communication designed to reinforce power dynamics. Essentially, Fellow and his colleagues confirm Coleman’s observation that the coercive leaders seek to demean and to protect their power and authority. Greenfield (2007) is another researcher whose study confirms Coleman’s assertions regarding the communication approaches that coercive leaders use. His study sought to establish the impact that leadership has on collaboration among teams in healthcare. The main observation that he made is that coercive leaders establish a top-down communication system through which they issue stern directives and demand compliance from their juniors. What is clear from the discussion that the different researchers offer is that coercive leaders adopt communication approaches that highlight power differences and are designed to intimidate, dictate and bully.
To gain a deeper understanding of the communication style of coercive leaders, it is essential to consider an example. Giritli and Oraz (2002) offer an example that captures the essence of coercive leadership. They note that the leaders using this approach tend to make such statements as “Do what I tell you”. This statement is loaded with insight. When one examines the statement, what becomes clear is that coercive leaders do not respect employee perspectives and expect full compliance with their commands. Dambe and Moorad (2008) present compelling arguments in their quest to highlight the ineffective communication approaches that coercive leaders use. To enable their readers to understand why leaders are abandoning the coercive style and embracing approaches that empower employees, Dambe and Moorad warn that the coercive leaders strive to dominate and control. This can be seen in their language which tends to be harsh particularly when correcting an employee. Coercive leadership is inherently flawed and however inspired the communication approaches that the leader adopts, it is difficult to accomplish success. However, as the discussion below reveals, there are situations that necessitate the adoption of coercive leadership and proper communication strategies.
It is evident that the coercive leadership approach rarely works. This raises the question of why it is still commonly applied. Crises are among the situations that provide leaders with the opportunity to justifiably apply the coercive approach. Wang (2011) and his colleagues make this clear in their article. They performed a study with the goal of determining the features that define different leadership styles among small and medium sized businesses in China. Among the observations that they made is that crises require leaders to mobilize their employees for action. In such situations, the leader must use language that conveys urgency and authority. Wang offers the example of the global financial crisis that was witnessed in 2008. The pressure that leaders faced during the crisis forced them to adopt the coercive style so as to secure the strength and future of their companies. While it is the case that there are various situations that necessitate coercive leadership, in general, this style is ineffective. As Oner (2012), the coercive leaders adopt patronizing communication approaches through which they stile freedom and force employees to perform as directed. Since it is generally ineffective, leaders should shun the coercive approach. However, should a situation that demands the adoption of this style arise, a leader needs to be disrespectful in their communication with employees and other stakeholders.
Authoritative
The authoritative style is largely similar to the coercive approach discussed above. It is therefore not surprising that the leaders who use the two styles adopt communication approaches that are also similar. Radu Raducan partnered with Romona Raducan (2014) to author a paper in which they identify the features that constitute the communication approaches that authoritative leaders use. According to this duo, the authoritarian style involves a system where “communication takes place upside down, without offering the possibility to give advice or to suggest to the subordinates” (p. 816). Raducan and Raducan made this observation after reviewing literature which established that authoritative leaders dominate discussions and dismiss the thoughts of their employees.
In collaboration with Waniganayake and Nobile, Marsh (2013) perfomed a study with a focus on the impact of authoritative leadership on learning. While the study does not necessarily examine the communication approaches of authoritative leaders, its findings allow one to understand how these leaders engage with their employees. Marsh and his colleagues established that to be effective, authoritative leaders should adopt communication structures and methods that nurture relationships and create a culture that yields organizational success. The article that Dellve and Wikstrom (2009) authored mirrors the issues that Marsh and his colleagues raise. After interviewing leaders in healthcare institutions, they provide proposals that authoritative leaders can implement to enhance their effectiveness. Among the proposals concerns the need for adopting more open and inclusive communication systems. Essentially, communication systems that foster dialogue and participation allow authoritative leaders to inspire employees without compromising organizational objectives and strategies.
For a complete understanding of communication among authoritative leadership to be gained, it is helpful to relate this leadership style to the current political climate in the United States and the larger western world. Over the last few years, a populist wave has emerged. This wave is responsible for the election of Donald Trump and other leaders with populist leanings. In their article, Bos, der Brug and de Vreese describe the communication styles of these leaders. While their leadership style is not authoritative in the strictest sense, the approach that they adopt offers insights into the communication methods and techniques of authoritative leaders. According to Bos and his team, these leaders tend to use communication is rather simple and enhances clarity. This communication approach is designed to enable the leaders to endear themselves to the public. The situation in the business context is rather different from that in the political environment. As noted earlier, authoritative leaders have little regard for the thoughts or perspectives of their employees. The communication styles that they use enable them to reinforce their power while dictating to their employees how they should perform their duties so as to accomplish organizational goals.
Affiliative
Building partnerships and establishing a sense of community are the key features of the affiliative leadership style. Affiliative leaders embrace communication approaches that enable them to create strong bonds with employees and other stakeholders. Various scholars have examined the different techniques that affiliative leaders use to build strong relationships. Pundt and Hermann (2014) are among these scholars. The primary purpose of their study was to determine the link between humor and the strength of the relationship that leaders have with their employees. One of the key conclusions that they make from the findings of the study is that humor is one of the components of the communication strategies that affiliative leaders use. Through humor, the leaders are able to relate with employees and establish a climate that facilitates free expression. Pundt and Hermann are not isolated in identifying humor as among the components of communication that enables affiliative leaders to be effective. Robert, Dunne and Iun (2016) also found humor to be a critical tool that enhances employee satisfaction. Whereas their article does not explicitly address affiliative leadership, the insights that they share underscore the role that strong relationships among leaders and their employees have plays in enhancing employee satisfaction. Lee and Shin (2012) partnered to perform a study whose findings echo the outcomes of the research that Pundt and Hermann conducted. As part of their research, Lee and Shin reviewed the Twitter habits of political leaders with the goal of determining how affiliative tendencies affect engagement with the public. They note that “heightened social presence, in turn, led to more positive overall evaluations of the candidate and a stronger intention to vote for him” (p. 515). This observation is significant as it shows that when they use communication tools that allow their employees to engage freely, affiliative leaders are able to create an atmosphere of support and trust. One can argue that the Twitter users likely to vote for an affiliative leader feel that this leader truly cares and is committed to building relationships. Therefore, the affiliative approach is enhanced when leaders use communication tools and strategies that allow for participation.
The discussion on the communication approaches used by affiliative leaders would not be complete without a look at the purpose for which these leaders use communication. Hatter and Van Bockern (2005) worked together to pen an article whose main focus is the impact that transformational leadership has on organizational performance. Having identified the affiliative approach as one form of transformational leadership, they proceed to note that this style helps leaders to communicate in a fashion that enables employees to develop a sense of belonging. This sense is vital as it challenges the employees to strive for excellence so as to drive organizational growth and performance.
Most researchers would agree that the affiliative leadership style places emphasis on relationships. While this is still largely true, it is important to note that there are some researchers whose study findings deviate from the dominant position within the research community. Gurley and Wilson (2011) are among the scholars who disagree with other researchers regarding communication styles of affiliative leaders. They conducted a study involving simulation to determine how students with different leadership styles perform in such areas as customer engagement. Among the main observations that they made was that “the results indicated that the affiliative style was less effective in developing and utilizing power and spoke significantly less to people than students with the other managerial styles” (p. 1). Here, these scholars essentially suggest that affiliative leadership makes it difficult for individuals to engage with others. While their observations are significant, Gurley and Wilson are in the minority. An overwhelming majority of the scholars and researchers believe that thanks to affiliative leadership, various stakeholders in organizations develop strong relationships that deliver positive outcomes to all. For instance, Chapman, Johnson and Kilner (2014) contend that affiliative leadership challenges leaders to create channels for unhindered communication that fuels organizational performance.
Democratic
The democratic leadership style is perhaps the most popular. Its popularity can be linked to its focus on freedom and respect for the people that one leads. Extensive research regarding the communication approaches that accompany this leadership style has been conducted. Joseph Raelin (2012) is one of the scholars whose study aimed to enlighten readers on the communication styles of democratic leaders. He reviewed literature on this topic but narrowed his focus on dialogue in communication. The main finding that he articulates in his article is that “dialogue, an authentic exchange between people, and its decision-making cousin, deliberation, can become the communication modes associated with participatory organizational change” (p. 2). This statement captures the meaning of democratic leaders. Democratic leaders encourage their employees to work with them to solve complex organizational challenges through dialogue and consultative deliberation. The importance of communication among democratic leaders extends beyond enabling these leaders to consult and engage their employees. As Kane and Patapan (2010) contend, democratic leaders also leverage communication to persuade their followers. Persuasion becomes important when a leader needs to gain support for an initiative that is not necessarily popular. For instance, suppose that a leader wishes to introduce salary cuts. Anticipating opposition, the leader uses a communication approach designed to persuade and secure support. The democratic leader distinguishes himself from other leaders by recognizing that the views of employees are vital and should not be dismissed.
An examination of the application of democratic leadership to complex and unique situations allow one to recognize the importance of this leadership approach. Lynn Doyle (2003) perfomed research to highlight the interplay of democratic leadership, communication and disability among students. Before outlining her research methodology and findings, Doyle acknowledges that there is a knowledge gap among disabled students regarding the definition and significance of democratic leadership. She then proceeds to note that through democratic leadership, students with disabilities are able to engage in free and open discussions on a wide range of issues. Effective communication approaches empowers these students to understand that they are essential stakeholders whose perspective matter and should play active roles in the decision making process. Antonio (2008) shares Doyle’s belief that democratic leadership has an empowering effect. Such leaders as those who employ the authoritative and coercive style do not respect the views of their employees. These leaders are persuaded that the employees do not possess any insight that can promote organizational performance. As Antonio notes, the democratic leader is different. This leader is an active listener who understands that active employee engagement is essential for performance and growth. Overall, there appears to be consensus within the research community regarding the communication styles that democratic leaders adopt. These leaders consult widely, encourage participation and listen intently.
Pacesetting
It was noted in a previous discussion that pacesetting leadership involves setting standards and requiring employees to match the leader’s delivery on these standards. An analysis of the communication strategies of the pacesetting leaders reveals that for most of these leaders, the primary purpose of communication is to demand compliance. In an article whose main focus is emotional intelligence in leadership, Hamish Elliott (2003) dedicates a significant portion to communication styles of pacesetting leaders. He observes that pacesetting leaders “are generally highly critical and tend to micromanage or take over from subordinates instead of helping them to reach the high standard” (p. 30). This observation indicates that the communication style of pacesetting leaders demeans and discourages employees instead of empowering them. In light of this, it is not surprising that this leadership approach is not common. Thilo (2005) agrees with Elliott that pacesetting leaders lack the communication competencies needed to manage an organization effectively. He laments that these leaders are often engrossed in the demands of their jobs and the pursuit of excellence that they are unable to develop communication skills. As they push their employees to match their high performance, the pacesetting leaders create a high-stress environment that has detrimental impacts on employee performance and wellbeing (Dhamodharan & Arumugasamy, 2011). Since they lack communication skills, these leaders are unable to understand the damage that their style has on employees. If they possessed adequate and effective communication skills, these leaders would consult employees, thereby understanding the effect of the high-pressure climate that the leaders have established. The inability of the pace-setting leaders to sympathize with their employees underscores the need for leaders to develop communication styles that safeguard employee wellbeing.
In general, the pacesetting style has a damaging effect on employees. However, as such scholars as Braun, Child and Saborio (2014) reveal, there are various situations that necessitate the adoption of this leadership approach. They argue that pacesetting leadership can help an organization to achieve success when time constraints demand that results be achieved quickly. This situation offers clues regarding how pacesetting leaders communicate. One can imagine that facing pressure to deliver results, a pacesetting leader would make such statements as “Do it like this. No. How many times do I have to teach you this? I said, do it like this”. This example shows that in an effort to achieve excellence, pacesetting leaders can use harsh words as they challenge their employees to follow their example. If the harsh words are sustained, they can cause serious harm to employee wellbeing and productivity. It is critical for pacesetting leaders to select their words carefully and to demonstrate patience and sympathy.
Coaching
Coleman discusses the coaching leadership style extensively. The communication methods that define this leadership is one of the key issues on which he focuses. He provides the example of a leader who serves as a coach to his employees. This leader uses words that are meant to encourage and build the esteem of the employees. Regarding one of his employees who has made a mistake, the leader says the following: “James is a good guy, very talented and promising… and I don’t want this to derail his career. I want him to stay with the company, I want him to work out, I want him to learn, I want him to benefit and grow. Just because he screwed up doesn’t mean he’s terrible” (p. 87). The words of this leader highlight how empathic communication allows leaders to help their employees grow. These leaders endeavor to safeguard the wellbeing of their employees. For the employees to develop, they need constant encouragement and warm support. Coleman’s example is a manifestation of the effective use of communication among leaders who coach their followers. The research that Gilley, Gilley and McMillan (2009) performed sheds further light on the communication strategies that characterize the coaching leadership approach. According to these researchers, this approach makes it possible for leaders to offer feedback to their employees. The feedback then allows the employees to implement changes with the goal of improving their performance. Another issue that Gilley and his team address is the adoption of open communication by leaders who also coach. These leaders know that if their employees are to perform better, they need to trust that the leader understands their concerns and will institute measures to help them address the challenges that they encounter. In essence, the coaching approach sees the leader going beyond simply providing guidance and support. This leader also establishes intimate relationships that are based on trust and confidence. Partnering with other researchers, Nazarudin (2009) authored an article that underscores the open and participatory communication strategies that define the coaching leadership style. These researchers sought to establish the relationship between the leadership styles that coaches have adopted and the effect that these styles have on the satisfaction levels of athletes. After a rigorous data analysis process, they determined that by offering positive feedback and clear instruction, the coaches enhanced athlete satisfaction. This observation essentially establishes coaching as a leadership approach that exploits communication to drive growth.
Leadership is at the heart of organizational success. It is nearly impossible for any organization to achieve its objectives and mission if it is led by an individual who is incompetent and unfit. On the other hand, effective leaders guide their organization with care and excellence. Communication is among the key tools that enable leaders to stimulate growth. Leaders need to convey their vision to stakeholders so as to gain support. Various researchers have noted that the communication approach that a leader adopts is closely linked to their leadership style. Authoritative, coercive and pacesetting leaders tend to communicate in a manner that reinforces power differences and ensures compliance. On the other hand, affiliative, democratic and coaching leaders prefer communication styles that empower employees and encourage participation. There is no question that the communication approaches that the latter group of leaders uses are the most effective. Therefore, all leaders should adopt these approaches if they truly desire to engage their employees and challenge them to pursue organizational missions.
References
Antonio, D. M. S. (2008). Creating better schools through democratic school leadership. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 11 (1), 43-62.
Bos, L., der Brug, W., & de Vreese, C. (2010). Media coverage of right-wring populist leaders. The European Journal of Communication Research, 35 (2). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/comm.2010.008
Braun, S., Child, R. H., & Saborio, S. (2016). One emergency department’s management experiment: leadership by team. Journal of Emergency Nursing. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jen.2012.07.021
Chapman, A. L. N., Johnson, D., & Kilner, K. (2014). Leadership styles used by senior medical leaders: patterns, influences and implications for leadership development. Leadership in Health Services, 27 (4), 283-98.
Coleman, D. (2000). Leadership that gets results. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved October 25, 2018 from http://acarthustraining.com/documents/Leadership_that_gets_results-by_Daniel_Goleman.pdf
Dambe, M., & Moorad, F. (2008). From power to empowerment- a paradigm shift in leadership. South African Journal of Higher Education, 22 (3), 575-87.
Dellve, L., & Wikstrom, E. (2009). Managing complex workplace stress in health care organizations: leaders’ perceived legitimacy conflicts. Journal of Nursing Management, 17 (8), 931-41.
Dhamodharan, K., & Arumugasamy, G. (2011). Effect of occupational stress on executives’ leadership styles. Public Policy and Administration Research, 1 (4), 1-7.
Doyle, L. (2003). Democratic leadership and students with disabilities: discordant conversations but not incompatible. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 6 (2), 137-60.
Elliott, H. G. H. (2003). Emotional intelligence-based leadership. The Graduate Management Review, 1, 23-36.
Fellows, R., Liu, A., & Fong, C. M. (2002). Leadership style and power relations in quantity surveying in Hong Kong. Construction Management and Economics, 21 (8), 809-18.
Foels, R., Driskell, J. E., Mullen, B., & Salas, E. (2000). The effects of democratic leadership on group member satisfaction: an integration. Small Group Research, 31 (6), 676-701.
Gilley, A., Gilley, J. W., & McMillan, H. S. (2009). Organizational change: motivation, communication, and leadership effectiveness. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 21 (4), 75-94.
Giritli, H., & Oraz, T. (2002). Leadership styles: some evidence from the Turkish construction industry. Construction Management and Economics, 22 (3), 253-62.
Greenfield, D. (2007). The enactment of dynamic leadership. Leadership in Health Services, 20 (3), 159-168.
Hadjithorna-Garstka, C. (2011). The role of principal’s leadership style in the implementation of ICT policy. British Journal of Education Technology, 42 (2), 311-26.
Hatter, R., & Van Bockern, S. (2005). Transformational leadership in a treatment organization. Reclaiming Children & Youth, 14 (1), 40-3.
Kane, J., & Patapan, H. (2010). The artless art: leadership and the limits of democratic rhetoric. Australian Journal of Political Science, 45 (3), 371-89.
Lee, E., & Shin, S. Y. (2012). Are they talking to me? Cognitive and affective effects of interactivity in politicians’ Twitter communication. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 15 (10). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0228
Luckcock, T. (2008). Spiritual intelligence in leadership development. A practitioner inquiry into the ethical orientation of leadership styles in LPSH. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 36 (3), 373-91.
Nazarudin, M. N. B., Fauzee, M. S. O., Jamalis, M., Geok, S. K., & Din, A. (2009). Coaching leadership styles and athlete satisfaction among Malaysian university basketball team. Research Journal of International Studies, 9, 4-11.
Oner, Z. H. (2012). Servant leadership and paternalistic leadership styles in the Turkish business context: a comparative empirical study. Leadership & Organizational Development, 33 (3), 300-16.
Pallegrini, E. K., & Scandura, T. A. (2008). Paternalistic leadership: a review and agenda for future research. Journal of Management, 34 (3), 566-93.
Pundt, A., & Hermann, F. (2014). Affiliative and aggressive humor in leadership and their relationship to leader-member exchange. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 88 (1), 108-25.
Raducan, R., & Raducan, R. (2014). Communication styles of leadership tools. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 149, 813-8.
Raelin, J. A. (2012). Dialogue and deliberation as expressions of democratic leadership in participatory organizational change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 25 (1), 1-27.
Robert, C., Dunne, T. C., & Iun, J. (2015). The impact of leader humor on subordinate job satisfaction. The crucial role of leader-subordinate relationship quality. Group & Organization Management, 41 (3), 375-406.
Sims, H. P., Faraj, S., & Yun, S. (2009). When should a leader be directive or empowering? How to develop your own situational theory of leadership. Business Horizons, 52 (2), 149-158.
Thilo, J. L. (2005). Leadership in the ASC: opportunity and responsibility. Ambulatory Surgery,12 (1), 11-14.
Marsh, S., Waniganayake, M., & Nobile, J. D. (2013). Improving learning in schools: the overarching influence of ‘presence’ on the capacity of authoritative leaders. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 17 (1), 23-39.
Wang, J., Lee-Davies, L., Kakabadse, N. K., & Xie, Z. (2011). Leader characteristics and styles in the SMEs of the People’s Republic of China during the global financial crisis. Briefings in Entrepreneurial Finance, 20 (1-2), 17-30.
Wendy, J. (2005). The impact of corporisation and national competition policy: an exploratory study of organizational change and leadership style. Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, 26 (4), 289-309.
