The article discusses the problem with the "Participative Leadership" style. It doesn't always work because this is a two way process and the subordinates might not be very willing to participate. The article discusses four alternatives, which are Directive Autocrat, Permissive Autocrat, Directive Democrat and Permissive Democrat. These styles differ in the degree of freedom for decision-making and execution of work. With the first one being the most rigid and the last one being most flexible. These methods will suit different organizations according to their size and structure. Even in a single organization the various styles would be effectively used with the first one being successful in the earlier stage of life of the company and as the company grows the leadership style would change to the next ones to yield best results.
In my own example I was the part of a team made by a friend at the height of the dot-com boom to develop a web site. My friend was the informal leader of the team and he used to discuss the plans and ask each person to take the work of their liking. I don't remember one instance when I could do my work on my own. It always seemed to be "too technical" or "too lengthy". I did not want to show that I was not capable of doing the work so never went to others for help. No one ever told me how to go about it as well. Eventually I lost interest and patience and dropped out of the team. After a few days the team was disbanded altogether. The reason cited was lack of effort on the part of the members. Though in hindsight it seems that the leader was using the "participative" model where the "directive" model was needed.
