Research Paper on:
Unionized Workplace Leadership Democratic vs. Autocratic

Unformatted Sample Text from the Research Paper:
The autocratic style of leadership has been applied to a number of management situations over the years. This style is particularly effective in situations involving unionized  employees. While such leadership style is not without its critics, many contend that it is necessitated by the need for detailed orders and instructions in the unionized situation.  These supporters of the autocratic style of leadership contend that unionized employees, in many cases, do not perform well under other leadership styles. In a unionized situation high-volume production  requiring coordination with other departments and/or organizations is often the goal and there is only a limited period of time in which decisions can be made and implemented. The  unionized situation also presents a number of management challenges, challenges which could be counterproductive in the absence of a strong autocratic style of leadership. The purpose of this paper  is to evaluate these contentions in the context of the history of the labor union movement, a consecutive movement referred to as the Progressive movement, and the social setting which  inspired each of these movements. Both the advantages and the disadvantages of the autocratic style of leadership will be addressed and it will be contrasted with the democratic form  of leadership advocated by many labor specialists. Labor unions evolved during the early twentieth century in response to the workplace problems resulting from  the heavy industrialization experienced in the U.S. as a result of our move from an agrarian lifestyle to an industrial lifestyle. Manpower was a prerequisite to industrialization and the  United States was teaming with men and women eager and ready to work on the factory assembly lines. Labor unions and the consecutive movement known as the Progressive Movement