Daniel Goleman, a renowned psychologist from Harvard University, in his book “Leadership That Gets Results”, defined six leadership styles – authoritative, visionary, affiliative, democratic, pacesetting, and coaching – each with its own specific characteristics. Which of these styles is the most effective for a leader? That is what we will explore throughout this article, but first it is important to identify the main features of each style.
Authoritative
This style can easily be associated with what we see practiced in military contexts, where the leader’s word automatically becomes an order that must be carried out without question. The phrase most often heard is “do as I say!”, where the follower is given a clear and direct instruction on what to do.
I remember a manager who, against all expectations, decided to promote an employee with doubtful potential, overlooking a more experienced one, justifying his decision by saying, “I’m the one in charge, and I know what’s best for the team.” The truth is that the promoted employee ended up showing great potential and is now a highly regarded professional. The same leader, in another situation, forbade a specific action in a strategic meeting. One of the team members went ahead with it anyway, and even though the outcome was positive, he was immediately removed from the project.
Visionary
In this style, the leader radiates energy and enthusiasm, explaining to people how their work contributes to the organization’s results—not only in the short term but mainly toward a longer-term vision. These are the leaders who take the first step, consistently repeating the idea: “come with me.”
One of the leaders who most influenced me had a remarkable ability to anticipate the future. He often highlighted how the industry would be different in ten years and focused on preparing the team for those changes. He also used to say that within five years, half of the management positions would be filled by people trained internally, ensuring full commitment and engagement from everyone. Years later, in another company, I had a leader with this same dominant style. His goal was to achieve an ambitious target within three years, but both the board and the shareholders wanted immediate results. Neither side was satisfied, and the leader ended up being replaced.
Affiliative
“People always come first” is the motto of this leadership style. The most important factor is the harmony between team members, and the focus is therefore on the emotions that the leader’s decisions evoke.
I remember a manager who, during an intense work period, ensured the best conditions for the team: a comfortable workspace, flexible schedules, and breaks whenever needed. We all loved working for him and felt that “he loved us too.” The result was an excellent interpersonal environment, but by the end, the team’s performance fell far short of its potential.
Democratic
In the democratic style, everyone’s opinions are valued, as collective consensus is sought. Facing the team, we often hear the leader ask, “what do you think about this?”, thus promoting everyone’s participation.
In one of the projects I worked on, the leader frequently gathered the most experienced employees to discuss strategic decisions. We all recognized his humility and respect for our experience. However, in another context, a leader with the same approach turned every meeting into an endless discussion, reducing the effective time for execution.
Pacesetting
The pacesetting style is characterized by setting high goals and showing everyone how to achieve them, based on the idea: “keep up with my pace.” What matters most is reaching the target—as fast as possible.
I had a leader who was the first to arrive and the last to leave. By working at his pace, the team achieved record results. In another situation, a manager with the same profile failed: he was so focused on his own performance that he forgot to support others, leading to frustration and collective exhaustion.
Coaching
For Goleman, coaching allows the follower to develop greater analytical and self-critical ability, as well as greater flexibility in achieving objectives. In this style, the leader often says, “try doing it this way.” The goal is to develop people in the long term, enhancing each individual’s strengths.
During the period when I learned the most, I had a leader who focused entirely on my development and followed every step, giving constant feedback. By allowing room for mistakes and learning, he helped me evolve quickly. However, for the rest of the team, the long-term focus was not always clear, and short-term objectives ended up being compromised.
The answer to the question of which leadership style is best obviously depends on the context the team is facing. Each style may be more or less effective, and it is the situation that determines which type of leadership should be applied.
The authoritative leader is excellent in times of crisis, when it is essential to centralize decision-making. The visionary style works best when there is a need for change and long-term restructuring. The affiliative style is great for motivating people during stressful moments or for healing internal team conflicts. A democratic leader is ideal for building long-lasting relationships based on trust and transparency. The pacesetting style is best when fast results are needed with highly motivated teams. The coaching style is excellent for developing teams for the future when there is time to nurture individual potential.
Typically, each leader tends to have one or two dominant styles, but what distinguishes the best ones is their ability to use all of them.
Some successful leaders with an authoritative style cannot stay in an organization for more than three years; others, who prefer the democratic style, struggle to assert their ideas; and leaders focused on individual development, when confronted with immediate targets, do not always achieve the desired success.
Today, a successful leader is one who can combine the best leadership styles at the right moments.
