Leadership Styles

There are many different leadership styles, but the question normally asked is when is each one most appropriate? The typical response is that it depends on the “conditions”, or the “followers”, or the “circumstance”: in other words the leader has to adapt to the particular situation. A lot of the arguments supporting this management theory emanate from the United States where the “divisional” style corporate culture (cf. Mintzberg) provides a suitable environment for selecting and changing leadership style.

Wondering nevertheless whether this theory might be universally applicable in all corporate cultures led me back to the (apparently) most downloaded article in the Harvard Business Review library: Daniel Goleman’s paper on “Leadership That Gets Results”, March 2000. Drawing on his work on “Emotional Intelligence” (self-awareness, self-management, social awareness and social skill) and building on research by Hay/McBer, he identified six distinct leadership styles. The argument is that “leaders with the best results do not rely on only one leadership style.”

Here are the six leadership styles followed by further implications (“et alors?”)

Leadership Styles

1.       Coercive
This is the “do what I say” approach which can be very good in a crisis. It stems from a drive to achieve, initiate and self-control. The overall impact on the work climate is negative.

2.       Authoritative
This is the “come with me” approach stating the overall vision/goal but leaving individuals to make their own way. Stemming from self-confidence and empathy, the impact on work climate is very positive.

3.       Affiliative
This is the “people come first” approach which builds team harmony and can improve morale. It stems from empathy and relationship building; the impact on work climate is positive.

4.       Democratic
This is the “what do you think?” approach which builds consensus through participation. It stems from collaboration and communication and can have a positive impact on the work climate.

5.       Pacesetting
This is the “do as I do, now” approach which works when leading highly self-motivated and very competent staff. Stemming from conscientiousness and drive to achieve, the overall impact on the work climate is otherwise negative.

6.       Coaching
This is the “try this” approach focusing on personal development rather than immediate work tasks. It stems from empathy and self-awareness and has a positive impact on the work climate.

Et alors?

The theory states that these leadership styles are like golf clubs in the golf-pro’s bag and as the leader plays the “game”, the appropriate style should be selected for the appropriate moment. Given the effect of these leadership styles on the “work climate”, and that fact that research showed a strong correlation between the use of more than one leadership style and superior financial performance, it is difficult to argue against this theory. What is particularly interesting is that Goleman asserts that the work climate starts with the leader: his or her leadership style will infuse the environment and have the consequential impact on the work climate. However, the leader might be somewhat restricted by the organizational culture as to what leadership styles can be used (in terms of appropriateness and effectiveness); then, the leadership style chosen will not only affect the work climate but reinforce the organizational culture.  

For example, organizational cultures which have strong hierarchies are more likely to see “coercive” and “authoritative” leadership styles being used. The “coercive” style might be more prevalent in a formal (rather than informal) hierarchy where the authority goes with the desk rather than the person – no particular vision or goals are communicated: the leaders use the “do what I say” approach. This might suggest that the work climate in a formal hierarchy (using predominantly a “coercive” style) will be negative and as a consequence there might actually be a strong and urgent need for leaders to use other styles. The challenge to surmount this cultural barrier is however quite significant for example introducing “affiliative” or “democratic” approaches: empathy with staff and seeking consensus through participation might be anathema to that environment.

If the organizational culture does appear to limit the number of golf clubs in the golf-pro’ bag, should leaders just “give up”? Should they only use the leadership style which is “easy” to effect in their particular environment? Certainly not! If any organization wants to survive in an ever-changing world, the organization itself needs to constantly adapt. Whilst the culture might make the choice more difficult, the leader can overcome this challenge. Work climate does begin with the leaders; so too financial results; and so too the culture itself. To return to the example of the formal hierarchy, in order to improve the work climate (and possibly improve financial performance) senior leaders should be encouraged to move more towards the “authoritative” style whilst generally, leaders should be encouraged to use (for example) “democratic” and “coaching” styles in their own domains.