We have discussed how a leader's attitude and positive outlook can be such a fuel to the organization he or she is part of. Those traits and values can dictate what type of leadership style you might have. Many people engage in studying leadership and its various styles numerous times. I really believe there are three basic leadership styles and you can choose one of them or a combination: dictator, servant, and empowerment leadership.

Let me share a fictitious story with you to demonstrate the dangerous type of dictator leadership.

John and His New Boss

John is excited because today his new boss, David, will be introduced to the entire company. After weeks of rumors and chatter, the new sheriff is in town! As John gets ready that morning, his wife is doing her best to get two half-awake kids downstairs to the breakfast table and off to school for the day.

“Hey, honey, need any help?” John says halfheartedly.

She gives her shifty smile as to send a message: “Yeah, right, big help you are.”

But, being the keen leader of the family, she recognizes that John's mind is in another place. They talked the previous night about the introduction of David, the new CEO, coming on board.

John works at a company of roughly 90 employees, all hardworking blue-collar types. Although they're worn down from long hours and are hoping someday they might be awarded raises for their efforts, everyone tends to get along. Despite the usual office cliques, there was nothing that would fracture the organization.

In his upper-management role, John is in charge of the sales and marketing team, responsible, first and foremost, for bringing in the accounts. He and his team are very proud of their accomplishments and work well together to lure, cultivate, and close accounts. They have a core group of loyal clients they built over time. John also has responsibilities to market the company and build community relations. He wears many different hats throughout the course of the day, and really loves the responsibility he has earned over the years of employment.

John kissed his wife, hugged his twin daughters, and left the house 10 minutes earlier than usual, excited to start his day. His mind began to anticipate the initial meeting with the new boss. What type of person is David, he wondered. Can he really fulfill those promises of salary increases and a good work environment? Would he and his wife want to get to know all of the employees outside the office? Should John and his wife invite them for dinner?

John sat front row in the companywide 9 a.m. meeting, where David was about to address the crowd. Coffee and donuts were on hand, which was something new. John took two. Power breakfast, he thought.

David came from a rival company and held a similar management role there. What struck John and a few others who had chatted with him the previous week via a phone conversation was David's willingness to move from company to company so often. It was known David had recently been at two companies prior to arriving at theirs.

As David began his introductory talk, John's initial enthusiasm began to wane. The tone was not like the time they had met a few weeks earlier, when David addressed upper management during his in-person interview. That day, David was filled with energy and spoke swiftly, addressing the people and explaining the things he had done well, along with challenges to be faced together. That day, the management team had left David's interview with optimism for the future of their company if he were to be chosen as their next leader.

Today was different, right from his opening remarks. John saw a man standing at the podium with a different message. David's speech revolved around his first 90 days. In that window, David made it clear he was going to observe, with little to no interaction, then make decisions and changes as he saw fit. Of course, he wasn't going to be entirely alone. He had formed a senior leadership team of two individuals who would advise him during this 90-day evaluation. As John sat and listened, he had an uneasy sensation, as did the other 88 or so employees, who felt the same pressure as John.

David announced that his two team members were Susan and Nathan, the same two upper-management people that were on the search committee for his hiring.

“Wait,” John thought. “Did this just happen? Did the two individuals who had a hand in hiring David receive a promotion?”

As the meeting concluded, he noticed the entire room looking confused and feeling puzzled. No one knew if they should huddle and discuss, leave quickly, or hang around to introduce themselves to David.

John watched as Bob, one of his co-workers and more outgoing sales managers, made his way through the room to offer a hand and introduction to David. John tried not to stare, but he wanted to see if he noticed anything about David's body language. As Bob came close to David, saying hello and extending a polite handshake, John watched as David greeted him with a quick nod and continued to fold his notes and pack up his laptop. No return handshake. Poor Bob, John thought. There he was, probably the most outgoing person in the company, with his hand still extended for an awkward five seconds.

Bob slowly moved his hand to wipe away powder from his sleeve that must have gotten there from one of the donuts. Good recovery, John thought.

As 90 days ticked away, everybody went about their business as usual, doing what they were previously taught, working with their clients and teams within the company. Some actually forgot about the 90-day mark, but not John. He wondered if there would be another department meeting or simply some one-on-one discussions with David.

John was someone who liked things done—a “fixer” of sorts, one who didn't like things unfinished. If it needed to be fixed, he put all his energy into solving the issue. So John, more than others, began to grow anxious during this 90-day period.

Joseph and John had been friends and colleagues since John started. In a way, Joseph helped mentor John in his early days with the company. Joseph was senior-management level and had worn just about every hat in his 23 years at the company. He loved everything about the organization and in fact was a second-generation employee, growing up as a youngster who dreamed of following in his father's footsteps. He had started at the bottom and worked his way up the corporate ladder. This company was all he knew.

Dictator Leadership

Scenarios like these play out every day in many businesses. This dictator leadership has been used since the dawn of time and has been proven to be effective, but only for short-term gains. They don't last and can cause negative outcomes in the long term.

Try this little exercise that helps proves my point. Close your eyes and think of the word dictator, then think of a person in history who resembles what this means to you. Most will think of terrible people like Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, or  Gaddafi. Perhaps younger folks see someone like Saddam Hussein or Kim Jong-un.

These people ruled through terror and fear. The people around them were scared for their lives. They march, fight, and show fake loyalty out of this fear. But history proves that dictatorships tend to fail in the long term. Most of these brutal self-proclaimed leaders are eventually exiled and even executed. Then the healing process for their nations begins, to rectify the wake of destruction they left behind, which can take years, even decades.

Obviously, we don't exile or execute the dictator executive in the business world. But the story about David illustrates my point about how devastating it can be to lead by fear. People within an organization come to resent these people. Their short-term success is a by-product of the fear they create, and causes destruction to the organization that exists long after they have left.

Dictatorship is not sustainable for a company, team, or organization. It is a self-centered style that most people in an organization will quickly sniff out. The long-term damage it causes makes it extremely difficult for the next person who attempts to lead that organization. Long after the dictator departs, employees are left with feelings of mistrust and lack confidence in the next leader. The new supervisor who attempts to right the ship will find it quite difficult to build the trust necessary for a positive work environment. The dictator leader has tarnished the culture, and the healing process takes time. Unfortunately, this becomes a vicious cycle of dictator leaders, because most do not see the value in spending the time to focus on the culture of an organization to build long-term employee success.

Leaders who choose this path in an attempt to grow an organization usually have distinct characteristics. They abuse their authority and lack compassion for others. They tend to be selfish and flex their power often. Employees do not respect this type of leader, and the environment is viewed as corrupt and unfair. Dictator leaders are inclined to make decisions on their own, without considering anyone else's input. These decisions are usually made in the quest for self-promotion, not for the good of the team.

Servant Leadership

I find it interesting when articles come out yearly about the top 10 companies that employees like to work for. Factors include employee satisfaction with leadership, management, and compensation. These companies clearly don't look at quarterly earnings or a single successful sports season, but at long-term growth and development of the organization.

Most of us have gone through change at the leadership level of our school, business, or organization, so we tend to get nervous with organizational leadership change. People want to follow genuine leaders, leaders who encourage, who demonstrate care and respect, and who earn the trust of the employees.

This leads to servant leadership, where the leader with a strong foundation of core values and traits typically is hired. This person is in charge ultimately to serve the organization and will have much more long-term personal and organizational success. Serving your employees takes personal time, energy, money, commitment, and sacrifice. But it leads to an environment that can be positive and productive, and can sustain long-term growth.

Serving your employees does not mean catering to them. There is a clear difference between earning the respect of those you choose to serve and serving just so everyone likes you. Most people will recognize when a leader works hard to earn trust, loyalty, and respect. These leaders create a fair and stable environment, with clear values outlined for everyone to focus on.

A servant leader will work for the good of others, creating an atmosphere where a supervisor will give to each employee. Such leaders demonstrate that they have the backs of everyone within the organization, making sure everyone's needs and priorities are met and focusing on the growth and well-being of everyone on the team. This, in turn, allows employees and team members to feel safe, and work more productively over long periods of time. They become happy with their work and the environment they choose to be in.

Empowerment Leadership

Utilizing servant leadership, combined with the ability to empower people of a group, can be highly successful when building a strong culture. Empowering your team members allows them to take ownership of the organization. When you empower every member of the team, they feel part of the growth process and culture-building procedure.

Some people confuse empowering a team member with an individual promotion within that organization, believing that the only ones to be empowered are those on top. Your team captain, All-American quarterback, best salesperson, or biggest earner in the company tend to be the easy ones to empower, and they take on leadership roles due to their status in a particular group. They are your “superstars.”

It is just as important to focus on every member of the team when it comes to empowerment. This is the most critical step not to overlook if you choose to employ empowerment as a leadership style.

Focus on every member of the team when it comes to empowerment.

It is the players who are not starters or first-year hires that you need to be involved with and spend much of your time as the leader of the organization. Find ways to empower these people. The more time you invest in these folks, the more they begin to trust you and become loyal. Their production might not be at superstar status yet, but your job in the mentoring process is essential to the long-term growth of these individuals and the organization as a whole. Ask the rookie employee to sit in on a big sales meeting. Spend quality one-on-one time mentoring the person in charge of cleaning up the office after everyone has left for the day. It takes a commitment from the leader to serve and empower everyone.

This commitment plays a vital part in servant leadership. It builds the trust needed between a player and a coach, or an administrator and an employee. Giving those around you the ability to grow, learn, fail, and persevere through your leadership mentoring will lead to huge advances for them.

When you serve and empower as a leader, you allow employees to see just how much they are valued.

When you serve and empower as a leader, you allow employees to see just how much they are valued. Remember, it is your daily role to invest in the mentoring process as you build leaders. Understand that there will be setbacks, failures, and even resistance. Stick to the core values you believe in; the culture you create will have others follow your lead. Realize that not everyone will grow to superstar status. Yet if you can grow each person 5% each week, you have the ability to create an environment that will eventually produce a few superstars. This, in turn, allows you to become a servant leader. We will address the 5% rule in Chapter 16, and I am convinced no organization can achieve growth and long-term success without the leader believing in it.

Relying on Both Forms of Leadership

Keep in mind that servant and empowerment leadership can stand alone or be intertwined. What works best really depends on everchanging factors. It could be what works best for you as the leader. Or, because employees constantly change, a leader may need to adjust teaching styles to best fit each employee. Upper management changes and their ideas of leadership could have a trickle-down effect, forcing a quality leader into a role they are not comfortable with.

Most likely, you will find it best to have both forms of positive leadership in your portfolio of leadership styles, as they can both be beneficial when building a positive culture within your organization.

Most successful people don't want a “nice” boss. They want a respectful, fair, and loyal leader. That's what motivates the people you need to surround yourself with to produce a positive, productive, and successful organization.