Leadership makes and breaks organizations. In many cases, leadership styles make the difference.
Depending on the resource, many different leadership styles can exist. Some resources may state that there are over ten different styles, while others state that they can actually be trimmed down to three.
We believe, that in many cases, the styles overlap; leaders often use different styles depending upon the group and situation, as well as the organizational culture and industry. Often, though, leaders will have a tendency to lean toward a particular style.
So let’s dig in and unpack the 8 styles that we differentiate.
Autocratic Leadership
Autocratic Leadership is a top-down style of management. Another name that might be used for it is authoritarian leadership. (Frequently, when talking about parenting styles, “authoritarian parenting style” is the term that’s used and refers to this type of leadership within a family.)
Company vision is always front and center, where the boss hands down directives to employees and the employees are expected to do what is asked. Conformity is expected. In some situations conformity is essential to get the job done well and, sometimes, safety may be an issue as well. (An example of this may be a large construction site, where each group has specific deliverables expected within a certain time frame without injuries.)
Hands-Off Leadership
Hands-Off Leadership, otherwise known as Laissez-Faire Leadership, is as the name suggests: a let-them-do-as-they-will style. This type of leadership can be a good style when overseeing creative or artistic work, OR where each team member is very experienced / knowledgeable with their own capacity. While this style has it’s place in certain environments, the leader must keep an eye on objectives and milestones met by the group to ensure that objectives are met and performance doesn’t suffer.
Transactional Leadership
Transactional leadership is centered around a behavior-then-reward, or behavior-then-punishment type of work environment. There is an understood exchange between performance and consequence, with the consequence either being positive or negative.
Transactions, of course, can be worked into other leadership styles, but when this is the primary way a leader goes about motivating their employees, the employees can tend to become very focused on each transaction, making them very short-sighted– looking to perform to complete the transaction and receive the reward(s)– versus growing as individuals through the process.
Bureaucratic Leadership
This type of leadership adheres to strict guidelines and regulations; the ability to inspire and be creative is limited due to the these top-down, policy-driven regulations. There are usually layers of people and organizations that provide protection from punishments or negative consequences being applied by the boss for poor performance. These layers could be departmental layers, unions, or other groups that are focused on legal rights.
Participative Leadership
Participative leadership, otherwise known as a Democratic Leadership style, is where the leader solicits feedback from the team prior to making decisions. This style of leadership can tend to make teammates feel more valued since their opinions are being sought by the decision-maker.
Transformational Leadership
Sometimes referred to a visionary leadership, transformational leadership provides vision of the direction that’s desired, and leaves the details to others. They communicate well, and ultimately inspire associates, transferring their passion to others.
This type of leader is often looked at very favorably by associates, but because the leader leaves out the details of accomplishment, associates may be either left to their own to determine those details, or need another layer of management to help them with these and hold them accountable.
Coaching Leadership
This style of leadership tends to NOT be a stand-alone style, but instead is often incorporated into other styles of leadership, such as participative leadership or transactional. It provides a lot of one-on-one between the leader and the subordinates, with the leader aligning company objectives with the goals of the individual. The leader coaches the individual, helping them develop skills as they help to meet the company objectives.
Situational Leadership
Most of the time, bosses will clearly fall into one of the above leadership styles, but occasionally there may be a very adept leader who is able to take on the leadership style that is most effective for a particular situation. They may encourage collaboration when called for, and yet they may become transactional when the environment warrants clear incentives for the sole purpose of improving performance.
* Note 1: One type of leadership that we haven’t mentioned is Servant Leadership. While some may argue this is a viable, and even up-and-coming type of leadership, we see it more as part of an overall management or leadership strategy, versus an entire style. The idea behind servant leadership is that the leader equally shares power with others; therefore, there really aren’t subordinates in the true sense of the word. Those clamoring for power will be evident and will weed themselves out of the collegial culture.
We see this type of leadership as more of a method of management incorporated into the styles above versus an entire style. Others vary in their views on this.
** Note 2: There is a combination of styles which has been heavily reviewed since the 1990s, when two prominent leadership researchers, Bernard Bass and Bruce Avolio, developed a theory about the relationship between transactional, hands-off, and transitional leadership styles. It’s represented by the term, ” Full-Range Leadership Model” (FRLM). The premise of the theory is that leaders vary between these styles based on circumstances in the workplace. (1)
In summary, how a group is led is critical to the morale, and ultimately the productivity of the organization. Of course, morale and productivity can be intertwined, with one affecting the other. The leadership style is partially determined by the natural personality of the person in the position of leadership. But it can also be varied by conscious effort of the leader based on the needs and dynamics of the organization.
It’s important to note that many people fall into leadership roles without leadership “tools” and knowledge about leading to adopt and/or change leadership styles easily, but it can be done. Knowing your own personalities and tendencies, and then knowing the needs and dynamics of the organization are keys to developing a leadership style that will work well for you as you go about meeting your leadership and organizational objectives.
(1) Wikipedia