It can be beneficial to test out and propose ideas while speaking passively. Additionally, it is a nice approach to give someone an option and respect their decision. Conversely, speaking harshly can result in a decision being made immediately. It can also get rid of ambiguities. Try each technique out depending on the circumstance and your objectives. Therefore, the team leader needs to be aware of which one works best for managing the team at work.
Which one is better, a passive leader or an aggressive leader?
- Thread starter Shavkat
- Start date
I think a leader should have a bit of both. The leader should listen to the opinion of others with an open mind, and make decisions based on the feedback of his subordinates. However, there are situations when an immediate and firm decision needs to be made. In such case, the leader should be more aggressive and make a decision without hesitation.
I would actually said that is very important for a leader to be both passive and aggressive because there is no situation that he's going to require each attribute to be able to carry out his job very well.
When you understand the meaning of passive, you would know that it is not worth it at all for a leader to be passive
Aggression on the other hand is not a quality of a leader.
Aggression on the other hand is not a quality of a leader.
A passive leader won't even bother about the conduct of the subordinates. He would just allow them to do their wishes. There has to be some level of control but aggression is not the way either.
A leader must have a bit of both, both passive and aggressive at times. But if I had to choose, I'd prefer a passive leader, because he or she won't put too much pressure on the employee, as long as the job is going well as it should.
It is true because moderacy is very important for a leader.
