Different Leadership Styles: Which One Works Best In Modern Society
History has proven that a mixture of leadership styles is always the best way to deal with groups. There are six types of leadership styles ranging from demanding immediate compliance to building emotional bonds to create a common consensus.
The styles are as follows:
- Coercive leadership style
- Authoritative Leadership Style
- Pacesetting Leadership Style
- Affiliative Leadership Style
- Democratic Leadership Style
- Coaching Leadership Style
The greatest leader is not necessarily the one who does the greatest things. He is the one that gets the people to do the greatest things.
Ronald Reagan
To be an effective leader, an individual must be able to switch between these styles effectively. Each of the styles have a very distinct quality which is dominant and thus overpowers the other qualities. For instance an individual with coercive leadership style demands immediate compliance while on the other hand one with an authoritative leadership style is highly focused on working towards a vision.
Along similar lines, people who follow coaching leadership style are vision centered however their vision involves training the next generation for the tasks. Meanwhile, pacesetting is more about self-direction without expecting much interference from authority figures; something people with affiliative style cannot relate to due to their tendency to ensure harmony and bond building amongst the team members.
Similarly, Democratic leadership style takes into consideration a common consensus of people involved. One of the major pitfalls of coercive leadership style however is that it comes across as a non questioning authoritative tone and attitude.
Although this approach might produce immediate results, it has a detrimental long-term effect on the company culture, resulting in a disengaged staff as well as significant employee turnover. In some emergency situations where quick, decisive action and a clear chain of command is a requirement, this command-and-control leadership style might be effective. For example, in an emergency room or during a business takeover, but the same will appear overbearing in other situations.
On a similar note, Authoritative leadership style often comes across as micromanaging instead of what it is- setting clear guidelines and expectations as it involves motivating the team members connecting their work to a larger organization. Similarly, pacesetting should be avoided if possible to avoid burnout as it is highly focused on increased productivity. On the other end of the spectrum, we’ve got the affiliative style which fosters a sense of belonging in the team. Although this approach encourages forming deeper bonds between employees and a great workplace culture, it shouldn’t be applied alone. It might potentially not offer enough input to handle difficult problems or performance concerns. By providing both guidance and support, this strategy, when combined with the authoritative, inspirational style, produces greater balance.
Additionally, it is advisable to utilize democratic style to get the best ideas out as one can demonstrate to their team members that their opinions are important, their voices are heard, and their efforts are valued by taking the time to collect input, listen to concerns and other points of view, and incorporate comments. Similarly, coaching style ensures everyone feels like they are heard and valued leading to a healthy work culture. The real time feedback loop created via this style allows employees to grow and learn.
In conclusion, the above mentioned leadership styles are effective by their own volition. However, It is best if they are blended with each other whenever appropriate to get the best results. Adaptability on behalf of the team leaders is the key to success!
