What makes an effective leader? For years, management scholars and other tried to answer that question by identifying a certain leadership style that correlated with managerial success. These scholars were essentially asking: What type of leader gets the most desired results?
The results of an oft-cited 2000 study changed that approach. A study of nearly 4,000 leaders by Hay/McBer identified six distinct leadership styles. Each of the styles delivered results differently. But, most interesting, was that the study found "leaders with the best results do not rely on only one leadership style; they use most of them in a given week — seamlessly and in different measure — depending on the business situation," according to a Harvard Business Review article discussing the study.
While this research is not new, I recently came across the article as I was researching leadership traits for another article I'm working on. While nearly 14 years old now, its findings — that the best leaders are flexible, using different leadership techniques in different situations — are simple but profound.
The six leadership styles these top leaders move between include:
- Coercive — demands immediate compliance
- Authoritative — mobilizes toward a vision
- Affiliative — creates emotional bonds and harmony
- Democratic — builds consensus through participation
- Pacesetting — expects excellence and self-direction
- Coaching — develops others for the future.
What do top leaders and top golfers have in common?
Daniel Goleman
"Imagine the styles, then, as the array of clubs in a golf pro's bag. Over the course of a game, the pro picks and chooses clubs based on the demands of the shot. Sometimes he has to ponder his selection, but usually it is automatic. The pro senses the challenge ahead, swiftly pulls out the right tool, and elegantly puts it to work. That’s how high-impact leaders operate, too."
So, the next time you are working with an individual or department to move them toward better results, consider the six leadership styles and weigh the relative value of each approach for the individual and situation at hand, just as the golfer would weigh the relative value of his various clubs given the needs of the shot.