Leadership and management

Leadership is the ability to set the direction or vision of an organisation and to inspire, motivate and influence people to work towards achieving it. Leaders have followers who choose to follow them, rather than merely subordinates who must obey.

Two leadership styles are the autocratic style, in which the leader makes all decisions and gives orders with little consultation, and the democratic style, in which the leader involves employees in decision-making.

Trait theory is the view that effective leaders are born with certain inherited personal characteristics or traits — such as confidence, charisma and decisiveness. On this view leadership is a natural gift rather than a set of skills that can be learned.

An autocratic style, where the leader makes decisions alone and gives clear orders, is appropriate in a crisis or emergency — for example a serious safety incident at a chemical plant. In such a situation decisions must be made instantly and communicated clearly, and there is no time to consult employees. A single leader taking charge ensures a fast, consistent and coordinated response, which reduces danger and confusion. The same directness also suits an inexperienced workforce that needs clear instructions, but it is the urgency and risk of the crisis that make the autocratic style the most appropriate here.

A democratic style, in which the leader involves employees in decision-making and encourages two-way communication, suits a marketing agency of skilled creative professionals for several reasons. First, these employees have valuable expertise and fresh ideas, so consulting them is likely to produce better, more creative campaigns than the leader deciding alone. Second, being genuinely involved in decisions raises motivation and job satisfaction, because skilled professionals want their views to count; this can improve the quality of work and reduce staff turnover, which matters in a sector where talent is mobile. Third, involvement builds commitment to the decisions that are made, so campaigns are implemented more enthusiastically. The main limitation is that consultation takes time, so for genuinely urgent decisions the leader may still need to act more directly — but for most of the agency's creative work the democratic style is a strong fit.

A manager plans, organises and controls resources to meet objectives, whereas a leader sets direction and inspires people to follow it, so the two roles require different skills. A person could be a good manager but a poor leader if, for example, a department head runs a tightly organised team — budgets are accurate, schedules are met and processes run efficiently — yet fails to inspire staff, communicate a vision or win their commitment, so morale and motivation are low. Here the person is 'doing things right' (strong management) but not 'doing the right things' in an inspiring way (weak leadership), which shows the two roles are distinct and do not always come together in the same person.

SoftGlow faces a genuine tension between its normal way of working and the demands of an urgent, high-risk situation, so the choice of leadership style must be judged carefully.

Normally, a democratic style fits SoftGlow well. Its staff are skilled, so consulting them improves decisions, and involvement keeps these valuable employees motivated. In everyday operations — developing products, planning marketing — the participative approach is appropriate and should be retained.

However, the recall decision is different. A product may be harming customers, which is an urgent safety and ethical crisis. Here the factors that normally favour democracy are outweighed by the urgency and risk. There is no time for lengthy consultation while customers may still be exposed, and the firm needs a fast, clear, coordinated decision. This points strongly towards a temporarily more autocratic style: a senior leader takes charge, decides quickly on the recall, and gives clear instructions to production, communications and retailers so the response is consistent.

Against this, one might argue that even in a crisis the skilled staff — for example the product scientists — should be consulted, because their expertise is exactly what is needed to judge the risk. This is a fair point, and it shows the answer is not simply 'be autocratic'. The best approach is therefore a rapid, focused consultation of key technical experts to establish the facts, followed by a decisive, autocratic decision and clear top-down communication to execute the recall. This captures the scientists' expertise without the delay of full democratic consultation.

There is also the ethics concept to weigh: acting quickly to protect customers protects both consumers and SoftGlow's long-term reputation, whereas a slow, over-consultative response could cause harm and lasting brand damage — so decisiveness is not just faster, it is more responsible.

In conclusion, SoftGlow should temporarily adopt a more autocratic style for the recall decision itself — justified by the urgency, the safety risk and the need for a coordinated response — while briefly drawing on its experts' knowledge to inform that decision. Crucially this should be temporary: once the crisis passes, SoftGlow should return to its democratic norm to keep its skilled staff engaged. This is situational leadership: the same firm rightly uses different styles as the situation changes, and the justification lies in matching the style to the urgency and risk rather than defaulting to one 'best' style.

Whether Orchard Foods should change its leadership style depends on weighing why the autocratic style was once effective against why it now appears to be failing.

The case for keeping some autocratic control is real. A clear, single decision-maker gives speed and consistency, avoids the delays of consultation, and reflects the founder's deep knowledge of the business that built it. For urgent or strategically critical decisions, firm central direction can still be valuable, so a wholesale switch to laissez-faire would be risky and could create drift in a 500-person firm.

However, the evidence points strongly towards change. Orchard Foods is no longer a small start-up: with 500 employees and a layer of senior managers, one person cannot make every major decision well, and doing so wastes the expertise the firm now employs. The resignations of senior managers are a clear warning sign — capable, senior people generally want autonomy, influence and recognition, and a purely autocratic founder denies them this, so the style is now driving away exactly the talent a large firm depends on. Both the workforce-skill factor (more skilled managers) and the organisational-culture factor (a large firm normally expects delegation) indicate that the style has outgrown its usefulness. This links to the Change concept: as an organisation grows, the leadership approach that suited its early stage often has to evolve.

The strongest option is not to swing to the opposite extreme but to move towards a more democratic style: the founder should delegate operational decisions to trusted senior managers and consult them on strategy, while retaining firm control only over the few decisions where consistency and vision genuinely require it. This would improve decision quality, use the managers' expertise, and — most importantly — retain them.

In conclusion, Orchard Foods should change its leadership style. The autocratic approach fitted the founder-led start-up but no longer fits a large firm with skilled senior managers, as the resignations show. Shifting towards delegation and consultation, while keeping selective central control, is justified because it addresses the immediate problem of losing talent without sacrificing all the speed and consistency the founder's control provided. If the style does not change, further departures and weaker decision-making are likely to follow.

The retailer's assumption rests on trait theory — the idea that leaders are born with characteristics such as charisma and confidence — so evaluating this decision means weighing trait theory against the behavioural and contingency approaches.

There is some support for the trait view. Certain personal qualities, such as confidence, energy and the ability to inspire others, genuinely help in a leadership role, and a charismatic salesperson may motivate a store team and win customers. If these traits transfer, the promotion could succeed, so trait theory is not worthless — it captures the intuition that some people are naturally influential.

However, relying on trait theory alone is risky for several reasons. First, research has found no consistent set of traits shared by all effective leaders, so charisma is a weak predictor of managerial success. Second, being a good salesperson requires different skills from managing a store: a manager must plan, organise, control stock and budgets, handle staff conflict and hit targets — largely management skills that charisma does not guarantee. This is the classic point that a good leader may be a poor manager. Third, trait theory ignores the situation entirely, whereas the contingency approach shows that the most effective leadership depends on the task, the staff and the context; the charismatic salesperson may thrive with an experienced team but struggle to direct new, unskilled staff.

The behavioural and contingency approaches suggest a better basis for the decision. Because effective leadership is largely learned behaviour that must fit the situation, the retailer should not promote purely on personality. Instead it should assess whether the candidate has, or can be trained in, the management behaviours the role needs, and whether their style will suit the particular store and its staff. Training and support could develop these skills, which trait theory would wrongly assume are innate.

In conclusion, trait theory should only partly guide the decision. The salesperson's charisma is a genuine asset and worth considering, but promoting on that basis alone is unwise because it ignores the management skills the role demands and the situation the manager will face. The retailer should judge the candidate on demonstrated or trainable leadership behaviours and their fit to the store, using trait theory as one input rather than the deciding factor — reflecting the modern shift from trait theory towards behavioural and contingency thinking.