In his quest to discover the links between emotional intelligence and business results, Daniel Goleman (2000) developed a set of six distinct leadership styles through studying the performance of over 3,800 executives worldwide. These six leadership styles, arising from various different components of emotional intelligence, are used interchangeably by the best leaders. He encourages leaders to view the styles as six golf clubs, with each one being used in a different situation. Goleman also found that each style taken individually has a unique effect on organizational climate over time, some positive and some negative. This in turn has a major influence on business results.
Goleman links the competence of leaders directly to business results, but also identifies the situations in which each style is effective:
Coercive style. Only to be used sparingly if a crisis arises. This is a useful style to employ if urgent changes are required now, but must be combined with other styles for positive results long term. Negative effects such as stress and mistrust result if this style is overused.
Authoritative style. Useful when a turnaround is required and the leader is credible and enthusiastic. This is the ‘visionary’ leadership style. Goleman indicates that this style will only work if the leader is well respected by his or her people, and is genuinely enthusiastic about the change required. He does acknowledge the strongly positive effect of this approach, given the right prevailing conditions.
Affiliative style. This style helps to repair broken relationships and establish trust. It can be useful when the going gets tough in a change process and people are struggling. However, it must be used with other styles to be effective in setting direction and creating progress.
Democratic. This is an effective style to use when the team knows more about the situation than the leader does. They will be able to come up with ideas and create plans with the leader operating as facilitator. However it is not useful for inexperienced team members as they will go round in circles and fail to deliver.
Pacesetting. This style can be used effectively with a highly motivated, competent team, but does not lead to positive results long term if used in isolation. Overuse of this style alone results in exhausted staff who feel directionless and unrewarded. The leader needs to switch out of this style to move into a change process rather than simply drive for more of the same.
Coaching. This is an appropriate style to use if individuals need to acquire new skills or knowledge as part of changes being made.
THE COERCIVE-AFFILIATIVE MANAGER
I realize on reflection that I have been using just two leadership styles all my working life. I am 54, and this has been something of a revelation. I have been using the coercive style together with the affiliative style. It never occurred to me to do it any other way. I would tell the staff how things would be, give them a dressing down, and make up afterwards by talking about the football or asking about the family.
No one would make suggestions or use their initiative, and no one ever seemed to learn anything new. I was completely in charge of an efficient but stagnant site.
It wasn’t easy incorporating other styles, but once I had cracked the coaching style, things began to change. The staff began to see me as more accessible. Now my people trust me more, and they are prepared to take responsibility and to suggest things and to make changes. I use less energy to carry out my role, and can think more clearly about how best to lead.
THE PACESETTING MANAGER
At first glance I thought I was using all six styles in the right measure. Then when I began to talk to my team about it, I realized that I was using the pacesetting style 85 per cent of the time. Even my attempts at being friendly (or affiliative) turned out to be pacesetting approaches. People described how a casual chat with me would end up feeling like an interrogation. People on the shop floor actively avoided me after a while. Or they spent ages preparing for an encounter with me.
Of course, all my star performers loved this style. They found it thrilling and stimulating. The others fell by the wayside as I had no time for coaching at all. My style became a self-fulfilling prophecy. The competent people did well, and those who needed to learn didn’t get the airtime from me that they needed, so they failed.
I’m not saying that this has completely changed. But now I do recognize when I need to coach and when I need to paceset. My actions are more aligned to my intentions, rather than being simply a question of habit.
See Our summary of Goleman’s six leadership styles for our summary of the six different styles and their uses.
Our summary of Goleman’s six leadership styles
Coercive
Authoritative
Affiliative
Democratic
Pace-setting
Coaching
Short defination
Telling people what to do when
Persuading and attracting people with an engaging vision
Building relationships with people through use of positive feedback
Asking the team what they think, and listening to this
Raising the bar and asking for a bit more. Increasing the pace.
Encouraging and supporting people to try new things. Developing their skills.
When to use this style
When there is a crisis
When step change is required. When manager is both credible and enthusiastic.
When relationships are broken
When the team members have something to contribute
When team members are highly motivated and highly competent
When there is a skills gap
Disadvantages of this style
Encourages dependence. People stop thinking.
Has a negative effect if manager is not credible
Not productive if it is the only style used
May lead nowhere if team is inexperienced
Exhausting if used too much. Not appropriate when team members need help.
If manager is not a good coach, or if individual is not motivated, this style will not work