The article Leadership That Gets Results by Daniel Goleman provided an interesting view on leadership in the workplace. In a recent study by consulting firm Hay/McBer, data was gathered from a random sample of 3,871 executives from a database consisting of 20,000 executives, taking the mystery out of effective leadership. The study revealed that effective leadership is composed of six distinct styles – all draw from components of emotional intelligence.
The six style of effective leadership are: Coercive, Authoritative, Affiliative, Democratic, Pacesetting, and Coaching. Coercive demands immediate compliance; it is a “Do what I tell you” style. Authoritative mobilizes people towards a vision, a “Come with me” style. Affiliative creates harmony and builds emotional bonds; it a “People come first” style. Democratic forges consensus through participation: “What does the group think?” Pacesetting sets high standards for performance, as in “Do as I do, now.” Finally, Coaching develops people for the future; it is “Try this” style.
The study found an effective leader uses each one of these styles at the right time for the right reason. An example of this right time – right reason ideology is most often seen in golf. A good golfer knows how and when to choose the right club for the hole. Additionally, the study showed that a combination of styles could be used in effective leadership. However, the study did confirm there are a few styles that are more effective than others. Authoritative ranked the highest among the six leadership styles. Affiliative was ranked second followed by Democratic ranking third. In contrast, Coercive and Pacesetting were ranked the lowest and produced a negative effect when not used in the right context.
In summary, the study did take the mystery out of effective leadership. It concluded that there are six leadership styles and each one can be used individually or in a combination to achieve maximum results. Throughout the article I was able to determine my personal style leans towards Affiliative; however, I would like explore the vision of the Authoritative and collectiveness of the Democratic leadership styles.