Leadership Styles

BY MARK SHEAD 

1 Introduction
Leadership traits tell who a leader is as leader. Leadership styles tell what a leader does
in the process of leading. In this article we are going to explore the leadership styles
found in the research of three different researches:

1. Kurt Lewin
2. Renis Likert
3. Daniel Goleman

Each of these individuals discovered a different set of leadership styles. While there is a
great deal of overlap, they all allow you to view leadership from a different vantage
point. In addition to these three, there are many other researchers who have developed
many other systems for categorizing leadership styles. Each has a slightly different
emphasis and perspective on how to view the way people lead.

There is no “correct” point of view in examining leadership styles. Each view is valuable
and emphasizes different aspects of leadership in different environments. As a leader, a
study of different leadership styles can help give you better perspective and make you
more conscious about what methods you utilize to lead others.

In matters of style, swim with the current;

In matters of principle, stand like a rock.
~T. Jefferson (leadership quotes)

A good leader is not going to be stuck using a single leadership style. Leaders will
consciously or unconsciously shift between and blend leadership styles in order to best
achieve their goal. The most valuable thing you can get out of this article is a better
understanding of what your default style is, its weaknesses and strengths, and the
ability to deliberately choose an appropriate leadership style when faced with a new
situation.

2 Kurt Lewin’s Leadership Climates

In 1939 a German-American psychologist named Kurt Lewin categorized the
environments in which people experience leadership into three different approaches.
These approaches depend on the style of the leader and the result determines what
Lewin described as the “leadership climate” of an organization.

The three different styles or climates are:

1. Authoritative / Autocratic
 2. Democratic / Participative
3. Laissez-faire / Delegative

These three styles determine how a leader directs works and interacts with
subordinates in giving praise and criticism Just like climates in weather, leadership
styles can shift to adapt to the situation. A leader’s style is usually going to be a
combination of styles with a emphasis on one in particular.

2.1 Authoritarian Leadership

An authoritarian leadership style is also referred to as an autocratic style. In this
leadership style the leader makes the decisions with little or no input from the people
who will be doing the actual work. In Lewin’s study he found that this leadership style
led to the most discontent and produced the least creative solutions. He also found that
it was difficult to make the switch from an authoritarian leadership style to a participative
leadership style while the reverse was not so difficult.

Often an authoritarian style is associated with a abusive leadership. While the autocratic
style can be done in an abusive manner, it is important to realize that a leader can use
the autocratic leadership style without being abusive. In fact, there are some situations
that call for an authoritarian style as the most effective.

For example, when the leader is the only one with the technical skills and knowledge to
make a particular decision, the autocratic style may be in the best interest of the
organization. In such a case, additional discussion and input from the subordinates
would be unlikely to alter the decision made. Other situations that require an
authoritarian approach would be time sensitive decisions where group input would be
detrimental.

Typically symphony orchestras follow this style of leadership. The conductor makes the
decisions and tells everyone what to do. The conductor picks the music and decides
how each musician is to play it. The second violinist isn’t asked her opinion on how loud
a particular passage should be and the percussionists don’t take a vote on the tempo.

Obviously this has certain advantages. The conductor is in the best place to hear the
sound as a whole while the individual musicians are not. The conductor is also likely to
be the most skilled in dealing with the piece of music as a whole while the individual
musicians are most skilled at their particular instrument. There are some orchestras that
take a different approach. Most notable is probably the Orpheus Chamber Orchestra
which we will discuss in more detail under the other leadership styles.

The important thing to remember about an autocratic, authoritarian style of leadership is

that it is not innately bad. It can be very effective and a very important style to use—
even if it is not your primary way of leading. The ability to switch styles as necessary to
get the best results is a sign of a well-rounded leader.

2.2 Participative Leadership

Participative leadership is also known as democratic leadership. In this leadership style,
the leader consults with the group in order to make decisions. Subordinates have input
and are given choices. The leader is still heavily involved in guiding the decision and
usually retains the right to override team made choices as necessary.
Most leaders who make use of a democratic leadership style will still switch to the
autocratic style occasionally when it is necessary or when a certain circumstances
requires an autocratic decision to be made.

Most people are happiest with a participative leadership style and it usually produces
the greatest motivation and creativity. In some studies with children, the democratic
style was less productive, but the quality of contributions was much higher than when
under an autocratic style of leadership. This is an important point to note. Different
changes in leadership style can produce different results. By tailoring your leadership
style toward the desired end result you can better achieve organizational goals.

For example, the study involving children suggests that when the volume of work is
most important and autocratic leadership style may be appropriate, but if the quality of
each person’s contribution is desired, participative / democratic leadership may produce
better results.

I previously mentioned the Orpheus Chamber Orchestra. They are typically known as a
leadership-less or conductor-less orchestra. They make their decisions as a group and
there is no conductor in charge. Of course this is very different from the way most
orchestras are run and their style of leadership falls somewhere between participative
and delegative. While they don’t have a conductor, the group self-organizes to give a
particular person a leadership role for a particular piece of music. In this way there is a
leader responsible for each piece, but each piece gets a different leader. The musician
given responsibility for a piece of music acts in a much more participative style rather
than the autocratic style typically used by conductors.

2.3 Delegative Leadership

Delegative leadership is also referred to as the laissez-faire leadership style. This style
is characterized by leaders who leave most of the decision making process up to their
teams with very little input. Leaders who use this style of leadership typically take a
hands-off approach.

This style is generally less effective than the autocratic or democratic styles. In
situations where the team is highly skilled, delegative leadership can work, but if too
much of the decision making is handled in a laissez-faire way, it can be detrimental to
motivation. Since the leader is not closely involved, positive feedback for a well done job
is often lacking. Motivation can suffer when positive actions don’t result in some type of
positive feedback. On the flip side, a lack of criticism, suggestions and directions can
damage motivation as well.

If you ever hear someone complain that it doesn’t matter whether they work hard or not,
they are probably working under a delegative leadership style with little feedback in an
environment that lacks good motivational input.

As mentioned above a delegative style can create an environment like Orpheus

Chamber Orchestra enjoys. However, for this to be effective, the team must self-
organize which basically means they take the freedom of the delegative approach and
use it to create a participative environment. The take away from this is that people need
leadership, but it doesn’t have to be forced on them. When you leave a team without
leadership or with the freedom to do whatever they way, the most effective way for them
to function is to create some type of leadership structure and at a minimum put different
people in charge of different areas.
3 Renis Likert’s Management Systems
In the 1960s Renis Likert outlined four systems of management to show how managers
and subordinates interact. The four systems are:

1. Exploitive Authoritative
2. Benevolent Authoritative
3. Consultative
4. Participative

Likert used his studies to create a model that successfully predicted the performance of
organizations in the future based on the current management systems that were in
place.

3.1 Exploitative
In an exploitative system, subordinates follow the decisions of their leaders with little or
no input. Aversion to negative consequences and punitive measures are the main
motivating factor. An exploitative system falls under the authoritarian leadership style by
Lewin, but it typically a negative working environment.

Exploitative systems typically have very poor communication and very little teamwork.
Instructions come down from the person in charge and are given to the people doing the
work, but there is very little feedback going up the chain of command. This means that
leadership is operating without the benefit of knowing what is really happening in the
work process.

It is interesting to note that there is also very little horizontal communication in this
system. The environment created doesn’t lend itself well to communication among
peers which leads to very little teamwork even within groups that work together. The
environment created by top leadership creates a teamwork dysfunction even at levels
where workers could do otherwise.
3.2 Benevolent
The benevolent system also falls under the authoritarian style, but the negative factors
are replaced with positive rewards as the primary motivating factor. This system will
typically have more communication and more teamwork than the exploitative system,
but still ranks relatively low on both factors.

The differences in motivation leads to a better more positive view among the workers. In
some cases it may result in a higher degree of loyalty to the organization. However, the
problem with information not traveling back up the chain still exists and leadership still
lacks the data necessary to make the best decisions.

3.3 Consultative
This system involves a blend of Lewin’s authoritarian and participative style of
leadership. There is more collaboration between leaders and their subordinates than
either of the purely autocratic systems, but collaboration is usually limited to only certain
areas. In many cases, communication appears to be flowing back up the chain of
command, but subordinates are very careful what information they divulge. The culture
of this system rarely makes workers feel free to express the truth when there are
problems because there is not a strong sense of teamwork between different levels of
the chain of command.

However, compared to the two authoritarian styles, this stye enjoys significantly more
trust with subordinates and creates a great deal more communication—even if some of
it is filtered. This facilitates a much higher degree of teamwork than the other styles in
Likert’s model. This team work occurs both up and down the hierarchy and laterally
among peers.

3.4 Participative
The participative system matches nicely with the participative climate from Lewin’s
research. In this system there is much more interaction between leaders and
subordinates and communication flows freely. Motivation is based on rewards as well as
the desire to perform well at mutually agreed upon tasks toward mutually agreed upon
goals.

One of the biggest differences between this system and the consultative system is the
degree of trust subordinates have for upper leadership. In the consultative system,
workers are much more comfortable sharing bad news because there is less fear of
reprisal on the bearer of the message. Problems are viewed as things that need to be
fixed by the entire chain of command instead of something that needs to be blamed on
someone.

In Likert’s model, this is the optimal system when trying to maximize production. It is
characterized by a shared sense of responsibility at all levels of the organization, free
flowing communication and significant teamwork both up and down the chain of
command and across—between peers and separate teams.
4 Daniel Goleman Leadership Styles
Daniel Goleman is the author of Primal Leadership which categorizes leadership into six
styles. These styles are:

1. Visionary / Authoritative
2. Coaching
3. Affiliative
4. Democratic
5. Pacesetting
6. Commanding / Coercive

4.1 Visionary/Authoritative Leadership Style

A visionary leadership style focuses on the vision or where the organization needs to go
while leaving the actual details up to the team. If an organization needs to go from point
A to point B a visionary leader will be best at defining what point B actually is. However,
they may be less adept at creating a good map showing how to navigate from A to B or
in defining the necessary processes to support such a transition. (It is worth noting that
until recent times, the term visionary had negative connotations of an impractical
dreamer.)

Still with many organizations this type of leadership is very effective because it holds
people accountable for their results toward a goal without getting in the way of how they
want to work. It is particularly effective when an organization lacks a clear vision or
when a change of direction is necessary. It can be less effective when working with a
group of experts with a great deal of experience and in situations where the goal is
easily defined. In those cases the team may question the value provided by the leader if
there is no contribution to the actual process of achieving the goal.

4.2 Coaching Leadership Style

A leader who adopts a coaching style of leadership will do best working one-on-one with
employees, helping them improve their skills, mentoring them and helping them better
understand the goals of the organization and how those goals relate to their own
personal development desires. The leader is focused on encouraging subordinates to
try different suggestions while providing feedback and helping interpret the results and
consequences of their decisions and actions.

This type of leadership can be very effective with employees who are looking to improve
their skills and develop their careers. However, leaders need to be very careful not to
slip into becoming too “hands-on” and micromanaging. Coaching leadership needs to
steer subordinates but still give them the ability to make their own decisions and learn
from small failures. The leader needs to be good at giving feedback and evaluating
performance in a positive way.

4.3 Affiliative Leadership Style

Leaders who practice this style of leadership focus on group dynamics. Their goal is to
create strong teams that work well together. This style focuses on lowering stress levels
and creating good relationships between members of the team. This type of leadership
is especially effective when there have been problems within the organization and
morale and trust is low.

New leaders coming in to an organization after a catastrophe will find this style of
leadership especially effective. It provides a strong foundation of trust and helps meet
people’s need to be understood and valued. In most situations leaders will benefit from
making use of the affiliate leadership style in addition to other styles.

4.4 Democratic Leadership Style

Democratic leadership involves allowing the group to collaboratively decide on the
direction and goal. This style focuses on getting input from everyone and a high degree
of involvement. Leaders skilled in this area are adept at pulling out contributions from
quiet members of the team and making sure that everyone contributes their opinion to
the decision making process.

In situations where a leadership role doesn’t come with any formal authority, democratic
leadership can be the only viable approach. Since the focus is on getting consensus, it
works well when the leader can’t unilaterally make a decision on their own. Regardless
of whether the leader has authority or not, the democratic style of leadership can help
establish a deep commitment to the plan, goal and vision by team members that is
difficult to replicate using more authoritative styles.

4.5 Pacesetting Leadership Style

Pacesetting leaders focus on performance and typically set extremely high goals. This
leads to an environment that is intensely focused on improvements or at least
improvements as defined by the leader. This type of approach can get fast results from
a competent skilled team, but over time the results of exclusively using this form of
leadership is negative.

Pacesetting leaders leave very little room for input from the rest of the team. This style
can be a good way to quickly win a war or get things done quickly, but it overlooks the
value of other members. Ignoring other’s input will make it particularly difficult for the
leader to recover from any mistakes.

The redeeming quality of pacesetting style leadership is that the leader is usually setting
high standards that are in keeping with their personal standards. In other words, they
achieve very high performance for themselves and want others to do the same. If
coaching sits beside subordinates and helps guide them forward, pacesetting charges
forward while telling everyone else to keep up.

In some ways pacesetting style leadership has some of the attributes of

commanding/coercive leadership, but with the positive aspect of leading the way. Still
the long term results of pace setting is negative.

4.6 Commanding/Coercive Leadership Style

As the name implies this is the leadership style typically associated with the military. It
differs from the Visionary/Authoritative style in that instructions tend to be much more
detailed instead of just focused on the end result. It differs from the Pacesetting style in
that in that pacesetters are generally asking others to follow their lead and keep up,
while command/coercive leaders are usually sending people out.

Generally this is a negative style of leadership, but there are some situations where it
can be effective. The military is one good example. Situations that require quick
decisions to deal with a crisis are places where this style might be an effective choice.