There are many leadership style questionnaires available to take these days and both would-be and

experienced leaders could be forgiven for being somewhat overwhelmed by the choices available.
However, although they will often have different labels for the leadership style or styles that an individual
may prefer the most in their output reports, most questionnaires will indicate a style based on several of
the ones described below. Please note that some of these styles are somewhat overlapping. For
example, the first five are the so-called “push” leadership styles, the subsequent six styles are the so-
called “pull” leadership styles and the last three are based on a particular expert’s approach.

The Command This is the familiar “military” style leadership model –

and Control often used, especially in times of crisis (which is why
it is used in readiness for war) but not always
Leader
effective when softer or more subtle approaches may
be needed. This is because this style rarely involves
praise and frequently employs direct and
“unvarnished” communication approaches and even
criticism (and can therefore lead to lower morale and
job satisfaction. Some leadership writers and thinkers
suggest that this style is only effective in crisis,
emergency or turnaround situations.

The This leadership style aims to be a role-model for

Pacesetting excellence and self-direction. If this style were
summed up in one phrase, it would be “Do as I do”.
Leader
This style therefore tends to works best when the
team is reasonably mature, quite motivated and both
knowledgeable and skilled. One major perceived
drawback of this style however, especially when used
excessively is that it can overwhelm some team
members and even limit free-thinking.

The This style of leadership mobilizes a team toward a

Authoritative common vision (focusing on particular targets)
thereby specifying the “what” and leaving the “how”
Leader
up to individuals. The authoritative style is often most
effective when the team needs a new or very different
direction. Authoritative leaders can often inspire
quite a lot of excitement and enthusiasm for new
team vision and mission but this may not last
(especially as the team matures).

The Coercive The coercive leader demands discipline and

Leader compliance. The coercive style is consequently most
effective in times of crisis, emergency, turnaround or
 on projects that require quick results. This style can
also quite effectively manage a problem individual on
a team (especially when every other approach has
failed). However, this style “takes no prisoners” and
can therefore ride rough-shod over individuals and
even alienate the whole team if they do not agree
with the overall direction in which they are being led.

The Autocratic In this style, the leader makes most if not all
Leader decisions and closely manages subordinates to
complete a task or project. An autocratic leader is
directive and may not be open to questioning. The
assumption is that individuals need strong guidance
to accomplish any task properly or well without being
told exactly what to do, how to do it and when it
should be done. The autocratic leadership style is
typically most effective when tasks are clear,
deadlines are tight and there are a great many
people involved in the overall work.

The Affiliative This leadership style works to create strong

Leader emotional ties between individuals on a team so as to
create strong bonds and even a sense of belonging
to the team and even the wider organization. The
affiliative style therefore tends to work best either
when work or projects are predictable and when work
is “even” or in times of high stress, or when the team
needs to learn to work together more effectively.
However, a reliance on only this style of praise and
nurturing can sometimes overly tolerate mediocre
performance.

The Coaching The prime focus of this leadership style is to develop

Leader individuals on the team. The coaching style tends to
work best when the leader wants to help individuals
to build new behavior or competencies which help
them to contribute at a higher level on the team. One
common approach in the coaching leadership style is
“managing by walking around”. This is most effective
when leaders expect their subordinates to complete a
task on their own with help when difficult situations
arise. The leader can then act as a coach on an as-
needed basis in order for the person to archive their
 goals.

The Democratic This leader style aims to build consensus through

Leader individual participation. The democratic style is often
most effective when the leader needs the team to
buy into or have ownership of a decision, plan,
project or goal. It also works well when there is lots of
time available for consensus decision-making to
occur. However, this style may not be very effective
in an emergency situation, turnaround or when time
is of the essence. It is also potentially problem when
fast or difficult decisions have to be made.

The Teamwork This leadership style seeks to motivate team

Leader members and encourages them to work together in
collaborative ways and come up with creative
solutions to problems more quickly than they might
individually. A teamwork oriented leadership style is
clearly ideal to get people working together and even
to bring about more self-direction. However, not all
tasks can or should be performed collaboratively.

The “Laissez- This leadership style (which is also sometimes

faire” Leader referred to as a “free-resign” style) is used most often
by leaders when individuals are well-able to
accomplish a task or project with little or no help.
With laissez-faire leadership, individuals make many
decisions and perform many tasks without any input
from the leader. This approach therefore works best
when individuals are knowledgeable about tasks and
motivated to complete them.

The This leader ship style typically coordinates the

Participatory contributions of a few individuals to work together or
small groups to collaborate on a given task or project.
Leader
To do this all individuals on a team are given lots of
input on what should be done in the future (and
particular on how) and are then encourage to work
together with as much or little of the leader’s
participation as they feel they need.

The This style (first described by Max Weber in the

Transactional 1940’s) focuses leadership effort on motivating
 Leader followers through a system of rewards (recognizing
good performance) and sanctions or minor
punishments (when some individuals do not meet
acceptable performance levels). Transactional
leaders therefore mainly concentrate their efforts on
increasing the efficiency of established work routines
and procedures and are most concerned with
following existing rules and approaches than with
making new changes.

The This style seeks to inspire enthusiasm in team

Charismatic members and to create a compelling vision for the
future that every individual can get behind. The
Leader
downside to this style however is that the leader is
very central to all efforts and success. This can
create the risk that a project or even an entire
organization might collapse if the leader leaves. As
such, charismatic leadership usually needs a long-
term commitment for it to succeed.

The Servant This style (first described by Robert Greenleaf in the

Leader 1970s) leads simply by meeting the needs of the
team (in a similar way to the democratic leadership
style). Servant leaders therefore often lead by
example but are also generous in their time to guide
others to achieve success. Advocates for the servant
leadership model suggest that it’s a good way to
move ahead in a world where values are increasingly
important, and where servant leaders can achieve
power because of their values, ideals, and ethics.

Apart from overlapping at times, every one of these leadership styles are rarely “all encompassing” in one
individual leader (and perhaps nor should they be). In other words, each style is likely to create problems
if used exclusively and it is therefore better to deploy several contrasting styles according the skills and
maturity of the people being led, the task at hand, the overall type and scope of work or project
circumstances encountered at any one time.