Introduction
Daniel Goleman’s Situational Leadership Styles Framework, derived from his research on emotional intelligence (EI), provides a nuanced understanding of how different leadership approaches influence organizational climate, performance, and employee engagement. These six (6) styles—Coercive, Authoritative, Affiliative, Democratic, Pacesetting, and Coaching—are not mutually exclusive but are best applied situationally, depending on the context, team dynamics, and organizational goals. Goleman’s key insight is that emotionally intelligent leaders, who can shift between styles as needed, create healthier organizational climates and drive better business results. (Bawany, 2023)
- Coercive (Commanding) Style
This style is characterized by the directive “Do what I tell you.” It is most effective during a crisis or turnaround situation where swift, decisive action is required. However, overuse can stifle innovation, lower morale, and breed resentment. While it can ensure immediate compliance, it often has a negative long-term impact on organizational culture and employee engagement. - Authoritative (Visionary) Style
The authoritative leader sets a clear vision and rallies people around a shared goal. It is highly effective in driving change and fostering a sense of purpose. This style is especially useful when an organization lacks direction or needs inspiration. It creates clarity and motivates performance by aligning individual contributions with a larger mission, significantly boosting morale and strategic alignment. - Affiliative Style
Focused on creating emotional bonds and harmony, the affiliative style values people and their emotions. It is particularly beneficial during times of stress or team conflict, helping to rebuild trust and cohesion. While it builds strong interpersonal relationships, overreliance can lead to a lack of direction or avoidance of performance issues. Used in combination with authoritative leadership, it fosters loyalty and collaboration. - Democratic Style
This participative style emphasizes collaboration and seeks input from team members. It is effective in generating commitment and innovation, especially when diverse perspectives are needed. It enhances engagement and ownership but may slow down decision-making in urgent situations. Leaders who use this style well build consensus and cultivate a culture of inclusion. - Pacesetting Style
Pacesetting leaders lead by example and set high standards for performance. While it can drive short-term productivity and results, it may overwhelm team members if not managed carefully. This style often leads to burnout and diminished morale if employees feel they are being constantly pushed without support or recognition. It is best used with highly motivated, skilled teams. - Coaching Style
The coaching leader focuses on personal development and long-term growth. This style helps employees improve performance by connecting their goals with organizational objectives. It is highly effective in developing future leaders and building capacity, though it requires time and commitment. Organizations that foster a coaching culture often see improved talent retention and capability development.
In conclusion, Goleman’s 6 Leadership Styles demonstrate that no single style is sufficient in all situations. The key to organizational success lies in a leader’s emotional intelligence and flexibility to adapt styles based on situational needs. When applied thoughtfully, these styles can enhance employee engagement, improve team dynamics, and ultimately drive sustained organizational performance. The most effective leaders are those who can assess the climate, understand their people, and deploy the right style at the right time.
The concept of applying and adopting various leadership styles was popularized by psychologist Daniel Goleman through his evidence-based research on emotional intelligence. In the Harvard Business Review (HBR) article “Leadership That Gets Results”, Goleman describes six different styles of leadership (see Figure 1)—visionary, coaching, affiliative, democratic, pacesetting, and commanding and how the most effective leaders embrace all six styles, utilizing the appropriate style based on situational, organizational, or human cues (Goleman 2000).
Figure 1: Goleman’s Situational Leadership Styles Framework
Goleman describes the situation most appropriate for applying visionary leadership as one of directional change, where openness is critical for blazing new paths: “Visionary leaders articulate where a group is going, but not how it will get there—setting people free to innovate, experiment, take calculated risks.”
However, when the visionary style is your only style, it can leave your team confused about their priorities, searching for vital details, dealing with “organizational whiplash” in the face of constant change, and unsure where the organization (and their career) is going. Therefore, it can be critical for visionary leaders to balance their style and surround themselves with fellow C-levels, directors, managers, or team leads more adept at integrating the other leadership styles into the mix when being democratic, coaching, or a pacesetter isn’t their strong suit.
Importance of Authoritative Leadership During Crises
Authoritative leaders, also called visionary leaders, tend to approach leadership like a mentor guiding a mentee. Instead of telling their team to follow instructions and do as they say, authoritative leaders put themselves in the scenario and utilize a “come with me” approach. They have a firm understanding of the challenges to overcome and the goals to reach and have a clear vision for achieving success.
Authoritative leaders inspire motivation. They offer direction, guidance, and feedback to maintain enthusiasm and a sense of accomplishment throughout the crisis or business challenge.
At its heart, authoritative leadership depends on a thoroughly developed sense of emotional intelligence. To be effective, authoritative leaders must demonstrate certain emotional intelligence competencies, such as:
-
Self-confidence: to develop a vision and inspire others to follow it.
Authoritative leaders provide direction and vision. They approach resolving challenges arising from the crisis from a position of confidence. They have a clear vision of what success looks like and give their team members clear direction and constructive feedback as they work toward achieving those organizational goals (Bawany, 2023).
-
Empathy and empathetic listening: to understand and anticipate the emotions felt by team members at key junctures during the crisis.
Authoritative leaders breed goodwill whereas in the authoritative leadership style to work, a person must approach his or her team from a position of empathy. By understanding the personal and professional emotions, desires, and worries of a team member, an authoritative leader is better able to identify potential roadblocks to performance and remove them, while simultaneously incentivizing success.
-
Ability to adapt: identify and remove barriers to change that may be required for success on the path of recovery from the crisis.
Authoritative leaders bring clarity. They are effective because of their ability to inspire, motivate, and influence their team. Often, this motivation stems from their ability to understand a company’s strategic goals and communicate them in a way that’s easy for employees to follow. When everyone knows what the organization is striving toward, it’s easy to ensure everyone is aligned.
Reference: Sattar Bawany (2023), Leadership in Disruptive Times: Negotiating the New Balance. Business Expert Press (BEP) LLC, New York, NY. Abstract available at: https://www.disruptiveleadership.institute/second-edition-book/