Question

Give examples of the primary and secondary groups you are a part of, as well as your experience with the three leadership styles (authoritarian, democratic, laissez-faire), and each type of formal organization (utilitarian, normative, and coercive). Which type of leadership style and organization are the best fit for you and how did the process of socialization influence the leadership style and type of organization you most identify with?

Answer 1

A primary group is a small and interdependant group of people that you depend on. This is the first group of people who you not only identify on but also connect with to any level. The primary and secondary groups we are part of are firstly are family which include our parents and siblings and sometimes even are extended family. Also certain peer groups are in are primary group. These are the friends that have an influence on us and our decision making.

A secondary group is the next level where these people are in our lives but we are not so dependant on them for our emotional well being and other close aspects. This group could include people like our co workers who we see on a regualr basic but dont connect with them on a primary group level, or also the friends we meet at a social gathering etc.

Authotitarian leadership style is more like a dictatorship. Here the leadership dictates policies or rules that need to be followed withouth the consent or even the consultation of the subordinates. In pre school teachers are meant to use this type of leadership method as kids that age are not old enough to make their own decisions.

Democratic Leadership style is the opposite of the authoritarian leadership where the subordinates and the leaders work together to make a unanimous decision. The workers are consulted and asked for their feedback before any decision is made. In todays world most of the governments function this way where the citizens are asked to vote for their leader and decide who must run the government.

Laissez Faire leadership style is a handsoff kind of leadership where the leaders completely do no involve themselves in the decision making process. They completely give the reins to the employees and trust them completely to do it at their own pace. In colleges this kind of leadership is prevelant where the lecturers do not run behind their students to get their work down. They are just Assigned some work and they are given the complete liberty to do as they please with it.

Utilitarian organization is one where their is a give and take policy somewhat like a barter system. Here to do anything something is expected in return usually money. This sort of organization is mostly seen in all corporate organizations. Here people do what they are supposed to do in return for money or sometimes even for a promotion etc.

Normative organization is the second type which is more an emotional one where a person is part of that organiization as he has a moral code or undertanding with them. This could be like joining a rally or a cause not because you gain something from it but because you agree with them and their beliefs.

Coercive organization is one that maintains it people or control through force and nothing else. This is more identified with a prison or something on those lines where people do not want to actually be a part of it. Here they are to adhere to the rules and are taken away of all their own things.

The leadership style best fit for me is the Democratic one as it involves all parties that actively come together to make decisions. This would work for me as I would Like to be a part of something that Connects with me and I have had a Say in. All good things work on this leadership model being a marriage or a family or even a good working team to be a part off.

The organizational fit for me is the utilitarian one as it is a motivationg factor to continue in an organization. If a person was doing something because he thinks of his likes it mght change but in a utilitarian the motivation is always going to stay especially if it is money which is an absolute necessity.