They use the one-way system of communication. Such communication implies that they do not consult with the other members of the organization on critical issues that affect organizational performance. Autocratic leaders consider employee motivation to arise from the provision of structures rewards and punishments. They perform their tasks by using threats and punishment to evoke fear among the employees. In addition, these leaders focus on dealing with their assigned duties rather than developmental activities. Autocratic leadership is undesirable for the organization because it does not focus on empowering the junior followers and fails to recognize their varied personal and professional needs (Mary & Peter, 2014). Democratic leadership is defined as the leadership that takes into consideration the opinions of the employees for decision-making. A democratic leader emphasizes on great participation of the employees and the other stakeholders in decision-making. They constantly seek other people's views on the actions adopted by the organization. Such leaders promote the sharing of ideas and respect them to facilitate the adoption of the most effective strategies. Democratic leaders also delegate duties to other staff and employees within the organization. They delegate some of the duties to individuals considered able to execute as expected, to build their expertise knowledge, skills, and experience. In addition, democratic leaders trust his/her employees/superiors. Such leaders trust and value the decisions of the other employees as they play a role in influencing the performance of the criminal justice organizations. Other characteristics of democratic leaders include helping and providing guidance to the employees alongside recognizing the importance of the provision of opportunities that promote employee capacity building. The leadership style is desirable for the criminal justice organizations because it focuses on employee empowerment, motivation, and recognizes their varied personal and professional needs (Allen & Sawhney, 2010).

Laissez-faire leadership is a leadership style where the leaders give employees the powers and rights to make decisions related to the performance of the organization....

The leaders delegate his/her responsibilities to the juniors while proving minimal or no direction to them. Such leaders allow their employees to have a greater degree of self-rule and autonomy alongside providing support and guidance when requested by the followers. Laissez-faire leaders also provide the necessary resources and tools to the followers to execute their duties. As such, it distances them from the organizational activities and reduces the level of interaction with their followers. In addition, the leaders often focus on common organizational goals rather than exact ones. The generalized system of managing employees enables them to achieve the unimportant organizational goals. Laissez-faire leadership is undesirable for the criminal justice organization because it does not promote the realization of the specific organizational goals (Mary & Peter, 2014).
If a conflict arises in the criminal justice organization, democratic leadership is the most effective to adopt for solving the crisis. The collaborative nature of the democratic leadership proves effective in facilitating dialogue between the conflicting parties to achieve a shared objective. Democratic leadership also empowers the conflicting parties by equipping them with the desired competencies for solving future conflicts within the organization. In addition, democratic leadership is effective for solving the conflict because it provides equal powers and authority to the conflicting powers to contribute to problem solving process. The open communication system used in the democratic leadership style makes it effective for solving organizational problems because it offers the conflicting parties with opportunities to express themselves. As such, it ensures the adoption of a solution considered fair to the conflicting parties, as well as the organizational benefits (Allen & Sawhney, 2010).