**2.2 Leadership styles**

Leadership styles have continued to be one of the most widely discussed areas by researchers worldwide [8, 9]. When leaders interact with their subordinates, they use various diverse features, attributes, and behaviours collectively referred to as their leadership style [10]. According to [10], leadership is the pattern of managerial action intended to integrate organisational or personal interests and impacts for accomplishing specific goals. The various definitions of leadership only imply that a variety of behaviours or aspects can explain the concept of leadership. These dimensions are usually referred to as leadership styles [11].

Like the general leadership construct, democratic leadership also has no conceptual precision [11]. Pioneer studies on leadership presented a classic formulation of democratic leadership that distinguished the concept from autocratic and laissez-faire leadership styles [12–14]. The idea of democratic leadership suggests that decision-making should be shared between the leader and the group so that praise and criticism may be delivered objectively and for the group as a whole to feel more accountable [15]. Decisions are made jointly by the leader and the group, in which praise and criticism are offered objectively, and a sense of accountability is fostered. This gives the followers the chance to take the initiative and contribute [15].

Contrarily, the laissez-faire leadership style avoids making important decisions and provides little assistance with problem-solving [16]. With laissez-faire leadership, there is no work improvement intervention or follow-up of performance feedback [17]. A Laissez-faire leadership style is associated with role conflict, increased stress, and low job dissatisfaction [16]. Laissez-faire leadership is ineffective because it may prevent followers from receiving information and feedback from their leader [18] and support when dealing with difficult situations at work. Indeed, this lack of adequate leadership has negative consequences for followers, such as higher levels of distress and more conflicts with colleagues [19], as well as reduced satisfaction with the job, satisfaction with the leader, and leader effectiveness [20].

According to [21], autocratic leaders use forceful methods to uphold the law, influence decision-makers and the public and reward loyalty over merit. Strict adherence to the organisational structure and a precise explanation of processes are concerns of autocratic leadership. According to research by Fred Fiedler, authoritarian leaders can be effective in some circumstances because they can alternate between consideration and ruthlessness [22, 23]. Given that the leader has unquestionable authority within a team or organisation, the leader's power determines the autocratic leadership style [24]. The organisation's behaviour, performance, and accomplishments are all decided upon and are the leader's sole responsibility. From co-workers, he requires them to follow his instructions and directives, respect and implement his decisions and orders, and communicate formally and in written form [24].

This leadership approach can be used for jobs that must be accomplished quickly, with reliant subordinates, in shaky working groups. This leadership approach performs well in the beginning and produces positive outcomes. Cherry [21], however, suggested that if this style of leadership conduct is used for a long time without taking into account the level of human resources and the requirement for associate independence, it becomes a limiting factor in the firm's growth.
