‘I want to be a better leader so I feel like I need to define my leadership style.’
This came up in conversation with a startup founder recently and got me thinking about the frequency with which I see hear some variation of this statement, often borne out of a desire for some sort of ballast that might provide stability as they navigate the stormy seas of leadership. And I understand that desire - I’ve been there myself, feeling like you’re being thrown around in the storm.
But is defining a leadership style the appropriate ballast? On one level I believe it’s both interesting and useful to understand how others have thought about and categorised different leadership styles, and in what situations those styles might be most effective - something I'll come on to discuss - but to my mind there is no such thing as a leadership style other than your own. Not really. There are many different frameworks on leadership styles, but each of them is simply an attempt to group some common observed patterns into something coherent. The truth though is that there’s so much subtlety and depth to the connection between a leader and those they lead, that two different people exhibiting the ‘same’ leadership style will likely be doing just as many things differently as they are similar to one another, and may be getting vastly different results.
To my mind, the more interesting questions-behind-the-question include, ‘Who do I want to be?’ 'What do I really stand for?' And ‘What am I truly lacking here and now?’ I’d propose that it’s in answering those questions deeply, that leaders might find much of the ballast they need for smoother sailing through stormy waters. Something unique and effective that goes beyond the styles outlined in any framework.
It’s surprisingly difficult to come to a satisfying definition of leadership. If you spend some time researching it you might see common themes around influence, persuasion, achievement of goals, execution of plans; but I choose to simply define it as ‘the act of creating collective alignment’. The ‘what’ you are collectively aligning around, and the ‘how’ you go about it, will of course vary widely dependent on the context; but at it’s core I believe this to be the essence of leadership.
With the above definition in mind, and the caveats around the limitations of any framework, I’ll point to what I believe to be a pertinent and succinct outline of common leadership styles, by psychologist Daniel Goleman. Goleman defines 6 core styles as follows.
Authoritative leadership, as defined by Goleman, means being clear on high level vision and direction, whilst allowing a high degree of autonomy for others to decide how to get there. This style of leadership is widely recognised as the most effective in the broadest set of circumstances but success often depends on the degree of autonomy being well matched to the capabilities within the team - a very inexperienced team, for example, may require a period of more specific guidance.
Directive or command-and-control style of leadership. Typically associated with telling people what to do and how to do it. There are many public examples (and many of us have personal experience) of the negative effects of working with leaders who solely deploy this style of leadership; however, it can be used effectively in the face of a crisis for example, where there may be a need to move quickly and decisively.
Affiliative leadership focuses on people and culture over goal setting. It can be used to create community, harmony and individual growth. However, if a leader fails to pair this with a more authoritative style then there is a risk of lack of direction; and if not paired with a coaching style then a risk of lack of direct feedback.
Democratic leadership focuses on inclusion of differing perspectives and a spirit of collaboration. On the plus side people can feel heard, and it can tap into the power of diverse opinions. The risks include a greater burden of meeting time, slower decision making, and the erosion of trust in a leader who is unwilling to take a clear stance or make a bold decision.
Pacesetting leadership is focused on consistent pursuit of excellence - holding everyone to extremely high standards which the leader themself role models. In the current economic climate I know this is the style of leadership that many leaders in the tech industry are expected to deploy - to drive teams harder and create an ever greater sense of urgency. Pacesetting is a form of leadership with a high risk of burnout both for the leader and those they lead so often needs to be paired with other forms to mitigate this risk.