Leadership styles compared: Goleman's six styles

Leadership styles compared in one line: no single style works every time, and strong leaders switch between them. That is the finding of Daniel Goleman's well-known 2000 article in Harvard Business Review. Below are his six styles, what each one does, and when it fits.

The idea behind the six styles

Goleman wrote that the most effective executives use a collection of distinct leadership styles, each applied in the right measure at just the right time. He called this flexibility hard to put into action, but he said it pays off in performance and that it can be learned. At the time he was codirector of the Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations at Rutgers University.

The article starts from a plain point. A leader's singular job is to get results. So the useful question is not "Which style is best?" It is "Which style fits this moment?"

Sources: Daniel Goleman, "Leadership That Gets Results," Harvard Business Review, March-April 2000 (hbr.org/2000/03/leadership-that-gets-results).

Think of the six styles as tools in one kit. A hammer is not better than a saw. Each does one job well, and each does harm when used for the wrong job. The six are coercive, authoritative, affiliative, coaching, democratic and pacesetting.

Two styles that set direction

The coercive style is a "Do what I say" approach. It gives orders and expects quick compliance. Goleman wrote that it can work well in a turnaround, a natural disaster, or with problem employees. In most other settings, he said, it limits the flexibility of the organization and dampens motivation.

The authoritative style is a "Come with me" approach. The leader states the overall goal, then gives people freedom to choose how to reach it. It works especially well when a business is adrift and needs a new direction. It is less effective when the leader works with a team of experts who have more experience than the leader.

Two styles that build people and bonds

The affiliative style has a "People come first" attitude. It is useful for building team harmony or raising morale. Its weakness is that a sole focus on praise can let poor performance go uncorrected. These leaders also rarely offer advice, which can leave people unsure what to do.

The coaching style puts personal growth ahead of immediate tasks. The leader helps each person build skills for the longer term. It works well when people already know their weaknesses and want to improve. It does not work when people resist changing their ways.

Two styles about getting the work done

The democratic style gives workers a voice in decisions. Goleman said this builds flexibility and responsibility and helps produce fresh ideas. He also warned about the price: endless meetings and confused employees who feel leaderless. A leader who needs a fast call may find it too slow.

The pacesetting style means the leader sets high performance standards and meets them personally. Goleman found a very positive effect on employees who are self-motivated and highly competent. Other employees tend to feel overwhelmed by the demands for excellence, and they may resent the leader taking over a situation.

Sources: Daniel Goleman, "Leadership That Gets Results," Harvard Business Review, March-April 2000 (hbr.org/2000/03/leadership-that-gets-results).

How to compare them in practice

Use this quick test before a big conversation. Ask three questions.

How urgent is it? A real crisis may call for a firmer style, such as coercive or authoritative.
How skilled is the team? A skilled, self-driven team can take the pacesetting style. People who want to improve respond to coaching.
What does the team need most: direction, trust, skill or speed? Match the style to the need.

A leader can also name the style out loud. Saying "For the next week I need quick decisions, so I will decide" tells people why the approach changed. That small step keeps trust intact.

Build a wider range

It is easy to lean on a few favorite styles and avoid the rest. Pick the style you use least and try it once this month in a low-risk setting. Then ask two or three colleagues how it landed.

One more habit helps. After a hard week, write down which style you used and what happened. Patterns show up fast. You may find you reach for the same style under stress, and that is the one to practice setting down.

Goleman's point is that range can be learned. A leader who can move between all six has more ways to help a team succeed than one who repeats a single habit.

Sources: Daniel Goleman, "Leadership That Gets Results," Harvard Business Review, March-April 2000 (hbr.org/2000/03/leadership-that-gets-results).

Sources

Daniel Goleman, "Leadership That Gets Results," Harvard Business Review, March-April 2000. hbr.org/2000/03/leadership-that-gets-results