Closely linked to defining leadership is the goal of motivation. Management theory indicates that motivation is characterized by two basic elements. These elements are intrinsic and extrinsic. Intrinsic motivation is a type of motivation that arises within an individual, group, team, or organization. Its execution influences self –actualization and production. On the other hand, extrinsic motivation arises outside an individual or organization under investigation. Attaining external motivation results in what Dyer refers to as social rewards (1973). Dyer (1972) designates three aspects affected by motivation. These are quality, change in the amount, or the direction of performance.
Lewin et al (1969) did a comparison between the democratic and authoritarian leaders with laissez-faire. He used supervisors and employees who led individual organizations’ units. Laissez-faire leaders provided employees with materials, support, and freedom of action they needed. However, the supervisors refrained from active involvement in responding to questions when asked by employees. Besides, the supervisors did not make assessment remarks.
These aspects differed from autocratic supervisors. An autocratic leader embraces regularity and gives instructions. Similarly, it contrasted with the characteristics of democratic leaders who gave options and inspired subordinates to direct themselves (Lewin et al., 1969).
When a group of employees was required to execute a variety of projects on a higher level of laissez-faire control, they lacked organization strategies on the details to be accomplished. On the other hand, when an autocratic leader was followed by a laissez-faire leader, the employees showed sudden uncontrolled actions and were aggressive. This type of behavior is reduced after second and third encounters. Although laissez-faire did not inspire much belligerence, unlike the autocratic, laissez-faire leadership was ostracized because it showed a minimal amount of success, less lucidity on what employees should perform, and fewer employees’ unity.
Under the laissez-faire environment, employees were less effective, less organized, and less satisfying compared to employees under a democratic environment. Besides, fewer assignments were accomplished and were of poor quality. Similarly, there was more irritation, incompetence, play, and discouragement in laissez-faire than under democratic leadership. Therefore, Lewin et al asserted that minimal satisfaction was present in laissez-faire than in democratic. Besides, there was little satisfaction in democratic leadership than autocratic (1969).
Leadership deeds do not automatically support satisfaction, performance employee unity. For example, active but autocratic leadership will contribute to a lack of cohesiveness and rapport and more discontent with employee’s productivity. Similarly, laissez-faire leaders are downgraded by their subordinates, hence, productivity, change, and relations suffer from this leadership.
References
Dyer, WG. 1972, Sensitive manipulator, B.Y.U. Press, Provo: Utah.
Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., & White, RK. 1969. Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created social climates. Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 10, pp. 271-301.
Schein, EH. 1967, Attitude change during management education. Administration Science Quarterly, Vol.11, pp. 601-28.