Is hands-off or laissez-faire leadership really applicable today?

The laissez-faire leadership style, which consists mainly of handing over various tasks to team members and offering little or no control, is the antithesis of the authoritarian leadership style. A laissez-faire boss often has more time to devote to other tasks since he or she does not aggressively manage the workforce.

When all team members are highly skilled, trained and need little supervision, managers can use this leadership style and worry about other tasks. However, it can also lead to decreased productivity if staff members do not clearly understand their manager's goals or if some team members need constant encouragement and coercion to function well.

The "hands-off" leadership style can easily turn into a "laissez-faire" leadership style. Such a decline is largely the result of a leader whose self-interest supports his or her executive laziness. Laissez-faire leaders keep an eye on their employees' performance, give them regular feedback, and foster a productive workplace with little intervention.

Laissez-faire leaders, on the other hand, are more focused on their own position and benefits. In such cases, the senior leader often makes a de facto decision and leaves the management of the organization in the hands of the staff. When the necessary experience of the staff is lacking or their personal integrity is not examined, this can lead to major problems.

When working conditions are difficult, no amount of resources can help a hands-off leader succeed and accomplish his or her plans. When things are going well and problems are few and far between, this type of leader is present. When such a leader is in charge, organizations gradually begin to decline.

The question to ask is: in this time of rapid service and significant job variation, should this leadership style be practiced to move teams forward and achieve goals?