In Leadership That Gets Results (2000), Daniel Goleman distinguishes six leadership styles, each of which can be effective under different circumstances. Unlike approaches that assume there is one optimal way to lead, Goleman argues that leadership effectiveness depends on the context in which leadership is exercised and on the leader’s ability to adapt his or her behaviour accordingly. The six leadership styles should therefore not be regarded as separate forms of leadership, but rather as different ways in which leaders can influence others within a variety of organisational contexts.
According to Goleman, the ability to consciously switch between different leadership styles is directly linked to emotional intelligence. A leader must not only be able to assess which approach is required in a given situation, but must also possess sufficient self-awareness, self-regulation, empathy and social skills to adapt his or her behaviour accordingly. Emotional intelligence is therefore not viewed by Goleman as an additional competency, but as an essential prerequisite for effective leadership. Successful leaders distinguish themselves not merely through their technical expertise or analytical abilities, but above all through their capacity to recognise, understand and constructively influence emotions, both their own and those of others.
Goleman therefore bases his perspective on leadership on two fundamental principles: (1) emotional intelligence and (2) leadership as a process of social influence. The following sections provide a concise explanation of how Goleman conceptualises these two principles.
1. Emotional intelligence
According to Goleman, emotional intelligence does not consist solely of cognitive abilities, but primarily of behavioural competencies that determine effective functioning within organisations. In Primal Leadership, Goleman, Boyatzis and McKee (2002) distinguish four interrelated domains: (a) self-awareness, (b) self-management, (c) social awareness and (d) relationship management.
Self-awareness refers to the ability to recognise one’s own emotions, strengths, limitations and motivations. Leaders with a high level of self-awareness understand the impact of their behaviour on others and are therefore better able to determine which leadership style is most appropriate in a particular situation.
Self-management concerns the ability to regulate emotions and impulses. According to Goleman, a leader who immediately resorts to authoritarian behaviour under pressure lacks the level of self-management required to consciously choose a different leadership style when circumstances demand it.
Social awareness relates to empathy and environmental sensitivity. Effective leaders not only recognise the emotions of individual employees but also understand group dynamics, informal relationships and the influence of organisational culture on behaviour.
Relationship management represents the practical application of these competencies in leadership behaviour. This includes influencing others, conflict management, collaboration, coaching and creating employee commitment.
According to Goleman, the combination of these four competency domains forms the foundation of effective leadership. Only when leaders are able to recognise both their own reactions and the needs of others, and adapt their behaviour accordingly, are they capable of consciously and purposefully applying different leadership styles.
2. Leadership as a process of social influence
According to Goleman, leadership should primarily be understood as a process of social influence. The emphasis is not on formal authority or hierarchical position, but on the manner in which a leader influences the behaviour, motivation and collaboration of others.
Within this perspective, leadership is not regarded as a fixed personal characteristic but as a dynamic process in which behaviour is continuously adapted to changing circumstances. The six leadership styles therefore do not represent six different types of leaders, but six different ways in which leaders can exercise influence.
For example, during an organisational restructuring, a leader may primarily adopt a visionary approach by providing direction and perspective, while the same individual may use a directive style during an acute safety crisis. In situations where experienced employees are able to work independently, a coaching or democratic approach may be more appropriate. According to Goleman, this behavioural flexibility is a defining characteristic of effective leadership.
The following sections provide a concise overview of Goleman’s six leadership styles.
1. The visionary leadership style
The visionary leadership style—referred to as authoritative leadership in Goleman’s original work and later often translated as visionary leadership—focuses on providing direction. The leader presents a compelling vision of the future and clearly communicates the direction the organisation intends to pursue. Rather than concentrating on day-to-day activities, the emphasis is placed on explaining why a particular development is necessary and how employees can contribute to achieving it.
Within this leadership style, meaning-making plays a central role. Organisations operate in environments characterised by continuous change. Mergers, digital transformation, changing legislation and evolving customer needs may render existing ways of working insufficient. Under such circumstances, uncertainty among employees can easily arise. The visionary leader seeks to reduce this uncertainty by providing a clear perspective and explaining the direction the organisation has chosen, the objectives it intends to achieve and the contribution expected from employees.
A defining characteristic of this style is that the leader does not closely supervise the way in which tasks are carried out. Once the direction has been established, employees are given considerable autonomy to determine how the objectives should be achieved in practice. The underlying assumption is that professionals are generally more motivated when they understand why change is necessary while simultaneously experiencing sufficient freedom to apply their expertise independently.
The visionary style closely resembles transformational leadership as described by Bass (1985). Both approaches emphasise the importance of an inspiring vision, aligning individual and organisational goals, and motivating employees through a shared vision of the future. Transformational leadership, however, represents a broader leadership approach that also incorporates elements such as intellectual stimulation and individualised consideration (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Goleman’s visionary style focuses primarily on establishing and communicating organisational direction.
According to Goleman, this style is particularly effective when organisations are undergoing periods of transition. During strategic change, organisational restructuring or entry into new markets, employees often require clarity regarding the organisation’s future direction. A leader who merely provides operational instructions without explaining the underlying rationale risks creating the impression that organisational changes are arbitrary or incomprehensible. By communicating a clear vision and explaining the purpose of the change, employees are generally more willing to commit themselves to the new direction.
This does not imply, however, that the visionary style is always the most appropriate approach. When employees possess substantially greater technical expertise than the leader, a strong emphasis on direction may undermine the leader’s credibility. Likewise, in acute crisis situations where immediate decision-making is required, this style provides less practical value. Building commitment and communicating a vision presuppose that sufficient time is available to do so.
2. The coaching leadership style
The coaching leadership style primarily focuses on the development of individual employees. Its central premise is that sustainable organisational performance depends, in part, on the continuous development of employees’ knowledge, skills and professional capabilities.
Goleman views coaching as a leadership approach in which employee development forms an integral part of day-to-day leadership. The emphasis is placed not only on current performance but also on how employees can continue to develop in order to meet future challenges successfully.
A coaching leader therefore actively invests in learning processes, discusses career ambitions, helps employees recognise their strengths and weaknesses, and supports them in formulating development goals. Mistakes are not regarded as undesirable outcomes that need to be corrected, but rather as valuable learning opportunities.
A defining characteristic of this leadership style is that the leader does not immediately provide solutions. Instead, employees are encouraged to develop their own insights by asking questions, exploring alternatives and creating opportunities for reflection. Coaching therefore differs fundamentally from instructing or advising. Its objective is not to create dependency on the leader, but rather to promote independence, ownership and professional growth.
From the perspective of motivational psychology, this approach closely aligns with the Self-Determination Theory developed by Deci and Ryan (2000). According to this theory, intrinsic motivation is strengthened when three basic psychological needs are fulfilled: (1) autonomy, (2) competence and (3) relatedness. The coaching style particularly supports the development of autonomy and competence by actively involving employees in their own learning process.
In practice, coaching proves especially effective within knowledge-intensive organisations where employees remain with the organisation over a longer period and have opportunities for continuous development. In such organisations, human capital often represents a major source of competitive advantage. Investing in employee development therefore contributes not only to individual performance but also to innovation, knowledge sharing and organisational learning.
It should be noted, however, that this leadership style also has its limitations. Coaching requires time, attention and genuine commitment from leaders. Furthermore, it assumes that employees are willing to critically reflect on their own performance and take responsibility for their personal development. When employees primarily require clear instructions or when organisations operate under significant time pressure, an intensive coaching approach may be less effective. Likewise, employees who are not receptive to personal development are naturally less likely to benefit from this leadership style.
3. The affiliative leadership style
The affiliative leadership style places interpersonal relationships within the team at its centre. Goleman considers social connectedness to be an essential prerequisite for effective collaboration. Organisations function not only through formal structures and procedures, but also through trust, mutual support and positive working relationships between employees.
The affiliative leader therefore seeks to create a working environment in which employees feel valued and where collaboration is actively encouraged. Particular attention is paid to interpersonal relationships, team members are listened to carefully, and tensions or conflicts are addressed as early as possible. Appreciation, recognition and the promotion of psychological safety are important instruments within this leadership style.
However, when harmony becomes an objective in itself, this approach also has its limitations. Leaders may become reluctant to address poor performance out of concern that doing so could damage interpersonal relationships. Over time, this may lead to unclear performance expectations and the acceptance of mediocre results. Although a positive social climate contributes to collaboration and employee engagement, effective teams are ultimately characterised by clear performance standards, constructive feedback and mutual accountability. Consequently, the affiliative style is most effective when it is combined with sufficient attention to task execution and organisational objectives.
According to Goleman, this leadership style is particularly valuable in situations where interpersonal relationships have come under pressure, for example following organisational restructuring, workplace conflicts, prolonged periods of high workload or major organisational change. Under such circumstances, rebuilding trust may be a necessary prerequisite before the organisation can once again focus fully on performance and results.
4. The democratic leadership style
The democratic leadership style is characterised by the active involvement of employees in decision-making. The leader does not regard knowledge and expertise as residing exclusively within management, but recognises that employees can make valuable contributions to organisational decisions based on their professional expertise and practical experience. Decision-making therefore becomes a process in which multiple perspectives are integrated.
Within this leadership style, the leader does not automatically assume the role of primary decision-maker but instead facilitates dialogue. Employees are encouraged to contribute ideas, discuss alternatives and jointly develop solutions. Although final responsibility remains with the leader, the quality of decision-making is enhanced by making optimal use of the knowledge and experience available throughout the organisation.
This leadership style closely aligns with participative leadership. Meta-analytical research demonstrates that employee participation in decision-making is generally associated with higher job satisfaction, stronger organisational commitment and greater acceptance of organisational decisions. However, these positive effects depend largely on the context. Participation contributes most effectively to decision quality when employees possess relevant expertise and when their input genuinely influences the final decision. When participation is merely symbolic and has no real impact on the outcome, these positive effects largely disappear.
The democratic leadership style is particularly suitable for complex issues involving multiple disciplines, organisational development initiatives and situations where broad support for significant organisational change is required. It is less appropriate when rapid decision-making is essential, such as during emergencies or acute crises. In such situations, extensive consultation may lead to delays and uncertainty, with potentially negative consequences.
5. The pacesetting leadership style
The pacesetting leadership style is characterised by high expectations in terms of performance and quality. The leader sets ambitious standards, performs at a high level personally and expects employees to meet the same standards. Within this leadership style, relatively little time is devoted to instruction or guidance, as it is assumed that employees are capable of working independently and already possess the necessary knowledge and experience.
The strength of this leadership style is most evident in environments where highly skilled professionals are intrinsically motivated and require little supervision. Within such teams, a pacesetting leader can contribute to rapid results, high productivity and a strong focus on quality.
Goleman points out, however, that prolonged use of this leadership style may have negative consequences for the organisational climate. The continuous emphasis on performance, speed and quality may cause employees to feel that they are constantly expected to meet exceptionally high standards. This can result in increased work pressure, reduced motivation and diminished creativity, among other consequences. Furthermore, leaders may become inclined to take over tasks themselves when employees do not meet expectations quickly enough, thereby limiting employee development and reducing their independence.
6. The commanding leadership style
The commanding, or directive, leadership style is characterised by a strong emphasis on control, clear instructions and immediate compliance. The leader determines what must be done, how it must be done and expects employees to follow these instructions without discussion. Consequently, there is little room for participation or shared decision-making within this leadership style.
Both in practice and in the academic literature, this leadership style is often viewed negatively. Goleman emphasises, however, that it is not the style itself that is ineffective; rather, its effectiveness depends on the circumstances in which it is applied. During acute crises, safety incidents or other situations requiring immediate action, a directive approach may in fact represent the most effective form of leadership. When time is insufficient to discuss alternatives, rapid decision-making becomes more important than building consensus.
Issues arise when this leadership style is applied on a structural basis outside such exceptional circumstances. Prolonged directive leadership restricts employee autonomy, reduces opportunities for initiative and may create dependency on the leader. In addition, employees become less willing to discuss mistakes or propose new ideas, as their primary focus shifts towards complying with instructions.
REFERENCES
- Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. Free Press.
- Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational Leadership (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
- Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.
- Goleman, D. (1998). Working with Emotional Intelligence. Bantam Books.
- Goleman, D. (2000). Leadership that gets results. Harvard Business Review, 78(2), 78–90.
- Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R. E., & McKee, A. (2002). Primal Leadership: Realizing the Power of Emotional Intelligence. Harvard Business School Press.
Reageer op dit bericht