Murray defines ‘autocratic style of leadership’ as being a person who leads because of the authority they hold. They come up with all ideas of how things should be done and implement them with none or very little consultation with the subordinates below them, as they think subordinates have nothing to offer (Murray 2002,p.13).
Murray defines ‘democratic style of leadership’ as being a person who leads a group and treats the subordinates as if they have something to add to the group. He seeks input and consultation in decisions especially by those who the decision effects (Murray 2002,p.13).
During the case study there was discussion between the senior officer and the junior officer on what avenues of investigation the junior officer could take to investigate the matter and feedback on how the job was done. Murray states “There is no single answer to most problems and debate and consultation… will have a valuable contribution to the decision”(Murray 2002,p.13). As the senior officer had discussed options together and come up with how to investigate the assault this is an example of democratic leadership.
During the case study we see that the senior officer takes a step back and lets the junior officer run the job, until he asks for help or does something wrong. Murray states “Trust in the member is assumed and since trust is mutual…would have respect for the ultimate decision” (Murray 2002,p.13). The senior officer obviously trusts the junior officers ability to conduct the job. As well as the junior officer has trust in the senior officer that if he asks for advice or does something wrong that it will be picked up by the senior officer, and he will then give him advice or guidance which the junior officer will do, for example by getting the footage the senior officer asked him to secure. This is an example of democratic leadership and therefore the senior officer demonstrates the traits of a democratic leader.
Murray, J 2002, Leadership and integrity...