Style seems such a subjective thing. But when it comes to leadership, style means something very specific.

Let me explain…

Daniel Goldman, a world renowned expert on emotional intelligence, put together a team to explore the role of emotional intelligence in leadership. Drawing on a global database of almost 4,000 leaders for their research, his team identified that the most effective leaders use one or more of six different approaches to leadership.¹ They even discovered that the best leaders are capable of switching between various styles depending on the situation.

Four of the leadership styles identified were found to boost performance, while the other two generally have a negative impact and are only useful in specific situations.

Goldman and his team were interested in how various leadership styles affected the emotional climate of the teams involved (i.e. their level of employee engagement) and financial results such as return on sales, revenue growth, and profitability. The results showed, all other things being equal, that leaders who used styles with a positive emotional impact created significantly better financial returns than those who did not. No surprise there.

Here’s a quick summary of the six leadership styles:

Visionary

Coaching

Affiliative

Democratic

These four leadership styles all have a positive impact on a team’s emotional climate, or employee engagement. As mentioned earlier, this positive impact on employee engagement pays off in financial results.

The final two leadership styles have a positive impact in very select situations. However as a general rule they are often over-used and poorly applied, which means they typically end up having a negative effect.

Pacesetting

Commanding

So how do the four positive leadership styles play out in application?

It’s clear that, as a general rule, the Visionary leadership style is the preserve of senior leaders in organizations. It’s an approach that is a strong driver of employee engagement but, while spelling out where the team is going, it does not identify how it will get there. However this approach creates a sense that everyone is working towards shared goals, and as a result it builds team commitment. People feel a pride in belonging to their organization.

The Coaching style fits closely with the role of managers. By making sure that they have personal conversations with employees, coaching managers establish rapport and trust. They communicate a genuine interest in people, rather than seeing them as simply tools to get the job done. As a consequence, coaching creates an ongoing conversation that allows employees to listen to performance feedback more openly.

Not surprisingly, coaching works best for employees who show initiative and want more professional development. However, it fails when employees lack motivation or require high levels of direction and feedback.

Interestingly Goldman’s team found two significant issues around coaching style. Despite the commonly held belief that people leaders need to be good coaches, they found that leaders tend to use this style least often. Additionally, they discovered that many managers are simply inept at coaching, particularly when it comes to giving performance feedback that builds motivation.

The Affiliative style has a surprisingly positive impact on employee engagement, but it is limited as a direct driver of performance. Leaders who use this style focus on the emotional needs of employee even over work goals. It’s useful when trying to heighten team harmony, increase morale and improve communications. However, if a leader uses this style exclusively real problems arise as they will fail to correct poor performance or offer constructive advice on how to improve. Consequently it should be used in conjunction with another approach such as the visionary or coaching style.

The Democratic style works best when the manager is uncertain what direction to take and needs ideas from able employees. Situations that might give rise to the opportunity to use this style are where a manager is new to an organization, their team is much more experienced than them in the tasks they perform, or an uncommon situation occurs. Leaders who can best use this style effectively are good listeners who can create the sense that they truly want to hear their employee’s thoughts and concerns.

Obviously, there are some real potential drawbacks with this approach as well. Seeking advice from uninformed or incompetent employees is a recipe for disaster. As is holding endless meetings to try and get a consensus from the whole team.

For managers, the most impactful approach on both employee engagement and performance seems to be leading with the coaching style while being flexible enough to use the visionary, affiliative and democratic styles when appropriate. Perhaps tempered with the occasional use of the commanding style.

The coaching style because it has a highly positive impact on employee engagement while helping to improve employee performance. The visionary style at times to consistently remind people how their work contributes to the organization’s vision, mission and values. The affiliative style at times to get, and keep, people working together. The democratic style at times to tap into the expertise and ideas of the team. And lastly, the rare use of the commanding style at critical times when someone fails to meet his or her responsibility.

Sadly, it is rare to come across managers who are competent in the coaching style of leadership, let alone those who also have the behavioural flexibility to apply these other four leadership styles when appropriate.

For more information on how Brava's Effective Leadership expertise can help you and your organization, contact Blair Stevenson, CEO on +64 (0)9 623 3662

Sources:

¹ Primal Leadership by Daniel Goleman, Richard Boyatizis and Annie McKee. Harvard Business School Press, 2002.