Changing Styles

Three years ago, I switched teams at work, going from the most senior, experienced, and knowledgeable person on the team I led, to quite the opposite. My go-to leadership styles are visionary and coaching; I love focusing on the big picture and helping people grow into their roles. But as I took on a team of seasoned subject matter experts, I started questioning the effectiveness of my usual approach, despite the knowledge I've gained through years of study and research. Over the past couple of weeks, I’ve realized my leadership has been less impactful because I was relying on the behaviors that had previously brought me success, without fully considering the needs of my new team.

At a recent leadership institute, we discussed how the most effective leaders skillfully use at least four different leadership styles, flexing between them to meet various needs. In Primal Leadership by Daniel Goleman, Richard Boyatzis, and Annie McKee, six leadership styles are outlined, each with its own strengths and best-fit situations:

• Coaching

  • Focuses on individual growth and strengths, aiming for long-term development. This approach takes time to yield results but is effective for cultivating future potential.

• Visionary

  • Inspires by keeping the focus on big-picture goals and long-term vision. Best for times when a clear new direction or inspiration is needed.

• Democratic

  • Emphasizes team input and participation in decision-making, ideal for building buy-in and consensus, though it can be time-consuming.

• Affiliative

  • Prioritizes harmony and strong relationships, creating a positive, cohesive atmosphere. This style is effective during stressful times or when morale needs a boost.

• Pacesetting

  • Sets and exemplifies high standards, pushing the team to excel. Great for teams of highly motivated and skilled individuals but can lead to burnout if used excessively.

• Commanding (or Coercive)

  • Requires immediate compliance, often used in crisis situations. It’s effective in emergencies but can negatively affect morale if overused.

I love a good X/Y Axis for understanding. 

Each style has a unique impact on a team’s emotional climate, making it essential for leaders to adapt their style to meet the team’s needs. Reflecting on Goleman’s work, I’m realizing that my current team needs less coaching and development than my previous one. These experts often grow through self-directed learning and experience.

While I’m most comfortable in high-development, low-control environments, I recognize a need to shift toward a blend of democratic and affiliative styles. By focusing on relationship-building and inviting team input into decisions, I believe my team will be set up to thrive. This coming year holds exciting potential for growth and a deeper understanding of how to help teams succeed.

Leaders, what’s your natural leadership style, and how might you adapt it to meet your team’s needs?