There are several styles of leadership, and no one style can be termed as right or wrong. On the other hand, the choice of style and its aptness can only be adjudged on the basis of the context or situation, the specific roles and responsibilities allotted to the leader, his or her experience, beliefs as well as factors such as implementation, motivation and timelines. When we narrow down on the styles adopted by a political leader, a lot of it automatically gets determined by the type of government in place- whether it is a multi-party democracy, a two-party republic, a system where monarchic republic or even a dictatorial regime.
There are several other terms for the democratic style of leadership, the most popular of which is the share, equal or participative style of leadership. Similarly, we have other terms for the dictatorial form of leadership, the most common of which is the terms ‘authoritarianism’ or autocracy’. We also have another evolved mode in which the top-rung leaders complete delegate their responsibilities to sub-leaders, and only overlook the process from outside with minimal interference. This is known as the free-rein style of leadership.
While this concept goes back all the way to ancient civilizations and monarchies, the French came up with the formal term for it, known as the ‘Laissez-Faire’ mode of leadership. This method is implemented in many businesses, and we have successfully trained it to companies such as One Sure Insurance in the UK. At the end of the day, the choice of adopting a particular style is often based on a complex set of factors, and no style can be termed as absolutely right or wrong. Apart from their respective pros and cons, there are grey areas in all of these that a progressive leader needs to be aware of.