Leadership That Gets Results

This HBR article attempts to categorize leadership into 6 distinct styles, and aggregate quantitative data on the effectiveness of each. In doing so the Author Daniel Goleman also overlaps each style with various aspects of emotional intelligence - which to me seems like a logical conclusion. Not all individuals would be suited for all leadership styles. Additionally each leadership style would have different levels of impact based on the landscape, environment, and goals.

For me this felt like reading the results from one of those popular Enneagram tests, but for leadership styles. If nothing else the article offered a bit of self-reflection on different leadership styles. It also planted that idea that leadership styles can shift to adapt to specific circumstances.

Different Styles

Leadership Styles:

Coercive - demand immediate compliance
Authoritative - mobilize team towards a common vision
Affiliative - create emotional bonds and harmony
Democratic - build consensus through participation
Pacesetting - expect excellence and self-direction
coaching - develop people for the future

Coercive

Coercion is achieved by demanding immediate compliance. It is only viable in an absolute crisis situation, or with very problematic team members. This usually has a large negative impact on team culture, by directly attacking the intrinsic rewards enjoyed by those on a team. Research suggests that most high performers are motivated by more than just money. Among other factors, autonomy, impact, and and purpose all have a high correlation with high-performing team members. Given the downsides and negative impact on a team, this style is really only best suited for drastic and immediate change in direction. Even in those instances its success is best when utilized over short time periods.

Authoritative

When people are part of a team managed by an authoritative leader, they understand what they do matters and why. Of all the leadership styles, authoritative style has the strongest positive impact on team culture when applied. This can be described as the "come with me" style. This style works best when changes require a new vision or direction, by framing individual or smaller chunks of work in the high level vision of the company and connecting its organizational objectives. This approach only works when a leader is viewed as experienced and an expert by their peers. Without the "authority" granted by these, attempts to lead this way can be interpreted as out-of-touch.

Affiliative

The affiliative leader focuses on a people first mindset. Like the authoritative style, affiliative also has a strong positive impact on team culture, but is best used to build relationships, motivate during high stress times, or improving team morale. If overused, it can lead to a lack of direction. Like the authoritative style, affiliative also has a strong positive impact on team culture, but is best used to build relationships, motivate during high stress times, or improving team morale. If overused, it can lead to a lack of direction and clarity. A affiliative leader could be characterized as someone willing to take team members out for lunch, or champion their wins. Affiliative leaders tend to have a high level of empathy and express their emotions openly.

The focus on praise and celebrating wins could allow poor performance to fester, building resentment among the team, seeing that mediocrity is tolerated. As such this style is best when utilized in conjunction with other leadership styles as best suited. Many successful leaders rely on a combination of authoritative and affiliative styles as they complement each other nicely.

Democratic

Best defined as "what do you think?" This is great for winning buy-in or building consensus, and doesn't excel in situations that require decisive decision making. This style most closely aligns with the open decision making framework, in that decisions are made in an open, transparent setting, fostering input, and collaboration. Without a designated leader or a more authoritative style, at times this can leave a team frustrated at feeling directionless and leaderless.

Pacesetting

The "do as I do" style. These leaders set a high standard in expectations, often jumping in when a team member is lagging behind to bring the work up to expectations. This style only works well when a team is composed entirely of highly skilled and highly motivated team members that all have a clear understanding of the vision and direction. Pacesetting should only be used in very specific scenarios, as it tends to have a negative impact on team culture.

Coaching

The "Try this" style. A coach will fixate on personal development even more so that immediate business goals. This style also hits upon several intrinsic motivations that are impactful in the workplace, challenge, growth, and impact. By coaching a team member, it gives the implicit message of "I believe in you, and am investing in your future." Coaching leaders have a positive impact on team culture albeit less so than authoritative and affiliative.

Conclusion

So what style is the best? None! The research indicates that the most successful leaders can deploy a mix of all of the approved based on the landscape, climate, and scenario. As with most aspects of leadership, there is no lookup table as to which style fits which situation, it's all very dynamic, and something that comes with wisdom and experience, as well as being intune with the needs of a team, and the individuals that compose that team.

Personal Take Away

This was an insightful read into my own leadership styles. After some retrospection of the last year, I think I've relied too heavily on the affiliative and democratic leadership styles where the landscape and team were that decision did not best suit the team at the time. I'm already focused on improving the technical skills and soft skills to better navigate the landscape and climate, but will likely solicit peers for feedback on my personal leadership style to prove my hypothesis.