Leadership is a bit like playing ‘good cop, bad cop’, but with a twist – you’re the whole cast. Some days, you’re the cheerleader rallying the troops with pats on the back and pizza Fridays. Others, you’re the drill sergeant demanding to know why deadlines haven’t been met. But leadership, like life, is rarely black and white, and it’s not always as simple as choosing between soft and stern. Being a truly great leader means knowing which hat to wear, and when. And there are definitely more than two hats.
According to Daniel Goleman, there are six. From the big-picture visionary to the nurturing coach, the six leadership styles give leaders a toolkit for managing teams made up of a whole host of personalities and skillsets. We all know diversity and versatility are key to productivity and performance, and diverse teams require situational leadership.
This article will run through the six styles to help you uncover your natural go-to approach, find areas to improve and, most importantly, show you that great leadership is never one-size-fits all. The best of the best can adapt, pivot and switch hats as needs arise.
The six leadership styles:
Goleman’s six leadership styles are:
- Coercive leadership – ‘do what I say, now’
- Authoritative leadership – ‘come with me’
- Affiliative – people first
- Democratic – ‘what do you think?’
- Pacesetting – ‘keep up!’
- Coaching – ‘try this…’
While some of these may jump out as more familiar or appealing, they are all effective leadership methods – but there’s a time and place. Each style has strengths and weaknesses, and choosing the right one for the person or situation requires emotional intelligence in leadership. If you get it right, it can have a big impact on morale, productivity and turnover.
Coercive leadership – ‘do what I say, now’
This doesn’t have the most inspiring or friendly name, but there are times when you need to live up to the stereotype of ‘the boss’. This style of leadership is often linked to the military, demanding unquestioning obedience. It means being a strong and decisive force in high-pressure situations, leaving no room for doubt and inspiring total confidence. Coercive leaders seek control and compliance above all else.
As this is a bit more ‘bad cop’ territory, you should use this style sparingly. There is a difference between playing bad cop, when the situation demands, and being bad cop. Times when this is a good choice include crises (eg a sudden IT outage or tech failure), and underperforming teams in need of clear direction.
If you’re like this all the time, or when the situation doesn’t warrant it, you risk burning yourself out, as it places a huge amount of pressure on you to make all the decisions. It will also alienate you from your team. as decisions are made top-down with staff input not invited. In a high-talent context, this would be stifling. People who are never asked to contribute ideas have no reason to think creatively. This is uninspiring and, ultimately, boring. Those who like a challenge and want to feel involved and invested will not thrive under this style of leadership, and will ultimately get bored and/or frustrated and move on.
Authoritative leadership – ‘come with me’
This one is a lot like good parenting – it’s about balancing clear guidance with encouragement and trust. The parent sets the tone of the household by setting firm boundaries, but also informs and inspires their kids by explaining the ‘why’ behind rules and limits. In the same way, an authoritative leader paints a clear vision, guiding the team towards shared goals – empowering but also focusing them.
This style is most effective when there is a set goal to be achieved (eg a product launch, or agreeing a new strategy), but less so when managing highly experienced or independent people.
This style combines discipline with motivation, and it’s a balancing act. Much like parenting, it can backfire if rules are too rigid or you assume too much control. It may feel also patronising to employees who are professionally mature enough to have more independence. The key to finding the balance is empathy and a strong connection with your team, both as a ‘family’ and as individuals.
Affiliative – people first
This style cares most about relationships, harmony and emotional wellbeing. Key concerns are dealing with conflict, forming strong bonds and building team morale.
This has its place, but too much focus on people can steal attention from strategy, outcomes and performance. It can also be stifling for those who prefer a more hands-off approach. It could mean that concerns are downplayed or overlooked in order to ‘keep the peace’, which might lead to long-term performance issues.
Use of this approach should be targeted rather than standard, as over-fixation on people’s emotional wellbeing can be smothering and get in the way of productive work. Some might even find this kind of attention intrusive. You need to be able to read the room and dial this one up or down as needed.
Remember that these are working relationships, not personal ones. Not everyone has to be best of friends, they just need to work together. If there are no professional issues, you don’t need to seek mediation just because Jill didn’t invite Pete to Friday drinks. On the other hand, being able to slip into this empathetic role will be a big help when navigating company downsizing, for example.
Democratic – ‘what do you think?’
As the name implies, democratic leaders seek input and consensus from those they lead. This is a great way to get buy-in for a project or decision, and useful when there is valuable expertise to be drawn on. It also gets the whole team invested in the work. For example, coming up with possible solutions to a customer issue, or coming up with ideas for a new product or service, are times when a democratic style is useful.
A collaborative style is hugely helpful in creative contexts, where diversity of thought can take you in new and exciting directions. But it can also be a blocker, with lots of competing ideas to discuss and time needed to ensure everyone is heard. A lot of options can also give rise to ‘analysis paralysis’, slowing down decision-making. This means that it’s best saved for early-stage concept discussions, rather than time-critical strategic decisions.
When adopting this style, do not let it be confused with lack of vision or direction, or uncertainty on your part. This will undermine your authority and position as leader. You can’t be seen to not know, not care, or to be shirking your responsibility. So when the situation or decision at hand is critical and/or above the pay grade of your team, you need to step up and lead from the front. It would not be right to seek team input when deciding on potential redundancies, for example.
Pacesetting – ‘keep up!’
The pacesetting leader aims to drive high performance and high standards, but working alongside the team as a role model and peer rather than barking orders from a distance. It’s great for motivating highly skilled teams that are driven to achieve and want to push themselves.
The key is not to set unrealistic or unsustainable standards. For example, presenteeism, which we know is counter-productive, is often fuelled by leadership doing things like emailing out of hours, or not taking enough leave. There is also a risk of burnout if the pace is relentless, or the ‘sprints’ don’t end. While this kind of leadership is ideal for driving a tight deadline or critical project, it has to be balanced with slower pace and lower priority periods too.
And remember, not everyone will be able to match your pace all of the time. People work in their own ways, and while some might benefit from being pushed a bit, others will be overwhelmed and push – or pull – back, having the opposite effect.
Coaching – ‘try this…’
The coach is all about developing people, supporting their long-term growth. It’s ideal for training new talent, or guiding someone towards a promotion. Effective coaching requires a willing subject, though, and won’t get you far with unmotivated team members who aren’t interested in career development. It’s also not great for fast-paced environments that require a team to show initiative and be self-motivated.
The big risk is that if someone gets too used to being coached and demands more and more of your attention, it can limit their growth and also lead to claims of unfair treatment if they’re monopolising your time and energy. As coaching is an investment in a person, the time you spend playing this role should be fairly distributed among the team to avoid favouritism.
Key takeaways
Leadership is not a singular role. While you may be a one-person show, you’re playing a whole cast of characters, as Goleman’s six leadership styles show. The best leaders can slip easily in and out of these styles as required – they’re ready to step in and resolve a crisis, hold the hand of a shy new starter or inspire a team with a bold vision.
The secret is in awareness – of yourself and of your team. Who are they? What do they need from you today? Ultimately, adaptability is key to getting the best out of the most people – so be prepared for a lot of hat swapping!
Do you want to try a Goleman Leadership Style test and see where you shine as a manager? Try this test.
Author
Abigail Willford
Abi is a freelance writer based in Brighton & Hove, UK, writing for businesses about work, life and everything in between.
Follow Abigail Willford on LinkedIn
