Leadership styles are multifarious and each presents advantages and disadvantages.

The texts
introduce two contrasting examples – The “Affiliative Style” and The “Pacesetting Style”. The
former appears to be the more appropriate style to follow although it is not without its faults. This
essay argues that a combination of both styles would be more beneficial in general.

To begin with, the Affiliative Style of leadership denotes that an employee’s allegiance stems from
how appreciated their work is alongside their emotional state. Conversely, under the Pacesetting
Style employees lack a sense of belonging as their roles within their organizations are not
recognized. This distinct difference conveys the crucial relationship between a leadership style and
the allocation of resources. Should employees not feel appropriately valued, they are more likely
to terminate their employment and the resources allocated to them will see no return on
investment.

Additionally, by setting unrealistic goals and expectations, Pacesetting leaders erode the morale of
their workforce from the beginning. On the other hand, Affiliative leaders highlight the importance
of emotionally intelligent employees in order to maintain a productive work environment by
ensuring their satisfaction. Moreover, trustworthiness is a differing issue in both leadership styles.
Affiliative leaders delegate responsibility dutifully so that people have the free will to do their jobs
in the most effective way. However, Pacesetting leaders negate the necessity of upholding trusting
bonds with employees which demotivates staff. Regardless of the setting, topics such as trust and
emotional stability are closely linked with productivity. Therefore, these issues should not be
undermined; rather they should be underpinned.

Furthermore, pacesetting leaders are able to ascertain poor performance and those responsible
for it. By increasing their workload, pacesetters hope to correct this hindrance. Whereas, affiliative
leaders have the luxury of overlooking subpar productivity and not remedying it. These opposing
spectrums bespeak of managerial incompetence which cannot lead to efficiency.

In conclusion, both leadership styles have pros and cons. Thusly, it is my view that a combination
of their strengths can be advantageous in any employment context. Notwithstanding, a holistic
approach should be considered, where each strength of the aforementioned styles is reinforced
and heightened while each of their weaknesses is diminished. Leaders must nurture success while
remaining humble by acknowledging their own personal flaws and seek assistance when they
deem it necessary.