Leadership That Gets Results By Daniel Goleman

-Harvard Business Review, March-April 2000-

[Excerpted]

Ask any group of businesspeople the question "What do effective leaders do?" and you'll hear a sweep of answers. Leaders set strategy; they motivate; they create a mission; they build a culture. Then ask "What should leaders do?" If the group is seasoned, you'll likely hear one response: the leader's singular job is to get results.

But how? The mystery of what leaders can and ought to do in order to spark the best performance from people is age-old. New research by the consulting firm Hay/McBer, which draws on a random sample of 3,871 executives selected from a database of more than 20,000 executives worldwide, takes much of the mystery out of effective leadership. The research found six distinct leadership styles, each springing from different components of emotional intelligence. The styles, taken individually, appear to have a direct and unique impact on the working atmosphere of a company, division, or team, and in turn, on its financial performance. And perhaps most important, the research indicates that leaders with the best results do not rely on only one leadership style; they use most of them in a given week, seamlessly and in different measure, depending on the business situation.

Leadership's Impact

The research tested each executive's immediate sphere of influence for its climate. "Climate" is not an amorphous term. It refers to six key factors that influence an organization's working environment: its flexibility,that is, how free employees feel to innovate unencumbered by red tape; their sense of responsibility to the organization; the level of standards that people set; the sense of accuracy about performance feedback and aptness of rewards; the clarity people have about mission and values; and finally, the level of commitment to a common purpose.

We found that all six leadership styles have a measurable effect on each aspect of climate. Further, when we looked at the impact of the climate on financial results, such as return on sales, revenue growth, efficiency, and profitability, we found a direct correlation between the two. Leaders who used styles that positively affected the climate had decidedly better financial results than those who did not. That is not to say that organizational climate is the only driver of performance. Economic conditions and competitive dynamics matter enormously. But our analysis strongly suggests that climate counts for nearly a third of results. And that's simply too much of an impact to ignore.

	Coercive	Visionary	Affiliative
The leader’s operating style	Demands immediate compliance	Mobilizes people toward a vision	Creates harmony and Builds emotional bonds
Key phrase	"Do what I tell you."	"Come with me."	" People come first"
Underlying emotional intelligence competencies	Drive to achieve, initiative, self-control	Self-confidence, empathy, change catalyst	Empathy, building relationships communication
When the style works best	In a crisis, to kick start a turnaround, or with problem employees	When changes require a new vision, or when a cleardirection is needed	To heal rifts in a team or to motivate people durins stressfull circumstances
Overall impact on Climate	Negative	Most strongly positive	Positive
	Democratic	Pacesetting	Coaching
The leader’s operating style	Forges consensus through participation	Sets high standards for performance	Develops people for the future
Key phrase	"What do you think?"	"Do as I do, now."	"Try this."
Underlying emotional intelligence competencies	Collaboration, team leadership and communication	Conscientiousness, drive to achieve initiative	Developing others emphaty and self awareness
When the style works best	To build buy-in or consensus, or to get input from valuable employees	To get quick results from a highly motivated and competent team	To help an employee improve performance or develop long-term strengths
Overall impact on Climate	Positive	Negative	Positive

 

The Coercive Style

It is easy to understand why of all the leadership styles, the coercive one is the least effective in most situations. Consider what the style does to an organization's climate. Flexibility is hardest hit. The leader's extreme top-down decision making kills new ideas on the vine. Likewise, people's sense of responsibility evaporates: unable to act on their own initiative, they lose their sense of ownership and feel little accountability for their performance. Coercive leadership also has a damaging effect on the rewards system. The coercive style erodes pride. And finally, the style undermines clarity and commitment, leaving people alienated from their jobs.

However, our research uncovered a few occasions when it worked masterfully. That said, the coercive style should be used only with extreme caution and in the few situations when it is absolutely imperative, such as during a turnaround or when a hostile takeover is looming. In those cases, the coercive style can break failed business habits and shock people into new ways of working. But if a leader relies solely on this style or continues to use it once the emergency passes, the long-term impact of his insensitivity to the morale and feelings of those he leads will be ruinous.

The Visionary/Authoritative Style

Our research indicates that of the six leadership styles, the visionary one is most effective, driving up every aspect of climate. Take clarity. The authoritative leader is a visionary; he motivates people by making clear to them how their work fits into a larger vision for the organization. Authoritative leadership maximizes commitment to the organization's goals and strategy. When he gives performance feedback, whether positive or negative, the singular criterion is whether or not that performance furthers the vision. The standards for success are clear to all, as are the rewards. Finally, visionary leaders give people the freedom to innovate, experiment, and take calculated risks.

Because of its positive impact, the visionary style works well in almost any business situation. But it is particularly effective when a business is adrift. A visionary leader charts a new course and sells his people on a fresh long-term vision. But the style will not work in every situation. It fails, for instance, when a leader is working with a team of experts or peers who are more experienced than he is; they may see the leader as pompous and out of touch. And if a manager trying to be authoritative becomes overbearing, he can undermine the egalitarian spirit of an effective team.

The Affiliative Style

The affiliative leader says "People come first". This leadership style revolves around people, its proponents value individuals and their emotions more than tasks and goals. The affiliative leader strives to keep employees happy and to create harmony. He manages by building strong emotional bonds and then reaping the benefits of such an approach, namely fierce loyalty. The style also has a markedly positive effect on communication. The style drives up flexibility; friends trust one another, allowing habitual innovation and risk taking. Affiliative leaders give people freedom to do their job in the way they think most effective. He offers ample positive feedback. Finally, these style leaders are masters at building a sense of belonging. They are natural relationship builders.

Despite its benefits, the affiliative style should not be used alone. Its exclusive focus on praise can allow poor performance to go uncorrected. When people need clear directives to navigate through complex challenges, the affiliative style leaves them rudderless. Authoritative leaders state a vision, set standards, and let people know how their work is furthering the group's goals. Alternate that with the caring, nurturing approach of the affiliative leader, and you have a potent combination.

The Democratic Style

This style is ideal when a leader is himself uncertain about the best direction to take and needs ideas and guidance from able employees. By spending time getting people's ideas and buy-in, a leader builds trust, respect, and commitment. By letting workers themselves have a say in decisions that affect their goals and how they do their work, the democratic leader drives up flexibility and responsibility. And by listening to employees' concerns, the democratic leader learns what to do to keep morale high. Finally, because they have a say in setting their goals and the standards for evaluating success, people operating in a democratic system tend to be very realistic about what can and cannot be accomplished. Even if the leader has a strong vision, the democratic style works well to generate fresh ideas for executing that vision.

However, the democratic style has its drawbacks such as endless meetings where ideas are mulled over, consensus remains elusive, and the only result is scheduling more meetings. Some democratic leaders use the style to put off making crucial decisions. In reality, their people end up feeling confused and leaderless. The democratic style makes much less sense when employees are not competent or informed enough to offer sound advice, and consensus building is wrongheaded in time of crisis.

The Pacesetting Style

Like the coercive style, the pacesetting style has its place in the leader's repertory, but it should be used sparingly. In the pacesetting style, the leader sets extremely high performance standards and exemplifies them himself. He is obsessive about doing things better and faster, and he asks the same of everyone around him. He quickly pinpoints poor performers and demands more from them. If they don't rise to the occasion, he replaces them with people who can. You would think such an approach would improve results, but it doesn't.

In fact, the pacesetting style destroys climate. Many employees feel overwhelmed by the pacesetter's demands for excellence, and their morale drops. Guidelines for working are not clearly stated. Work becomes not a matter of doing one's best along a clear course so much as second-guessing what the leader wants. People often feel that the pacesetter doesn't trust them to work in their own way or to take initiative. Flexibility and responsibility evaporate; work becomes so task focused and routinized it's boring. The pacesetter either gives no feedback on how people are doing or jumps in to take over when he thinks they are lagging.

The pacesetting style isn't always a disaster. The approach works well when all employees are self-motivated, highly competent, and need little direction or coordination. Given a talented team to lead pacesetting does exactly that: gets work done on time or even ahead of schedule. Yet, like any leadership style, pacesetting should never be used by itself.

The Coaching Style

Coaching leaders help employees identify their unique strengths and weaknesses and tie them to their personal and career aspirations. They encourage employees to establish long-term developmental goals and help them conceptualize a plan for attaining them. They make agreements with their employees about their role and responsibilities in enacting development plans, and they give plentiful instruction and feedback. Coaching leaders excel at delegating; they give employees challenging assignments; and they are willing to put up with short-term failure if it furthers the learning.

Of the six styles, our research found that the coaching style is least often used. Many leaders told us they don't have time in this high-pressure economy for the slow and tedious work of teaching people and helping them grow. But after a first session, it takes little or no extra time. Leaders who ignore this style are passing up a powerful tool: its impact on climate and performance are markedly positive. Coaching improves results. The reason: it requires constant dialogue, and the dialogue has a way of pushing up every driver of climate. The coaching style works well in many business situations, but it is perhaps most effective when people on the receiving end want to be coached.

Some companies have realized the positive impact of the style and are trying to make it a core competency.

Leaders Need Many Styles
Many studies, including this one, have shown that the more styles a leader exhibits, the better. Leaders who have mastered four or more, especially the authoritative, democratic, affiliative, and coaching styles, have the very best climate and business performance. And the most effective leaders switch flexibly among the leadership styles as needed.

It is recommended that leaders expand their own repertories of style. To do so, leaders must first understand which emotional intelligence competencies (refer to the chart above) underlie the leadership styles they are lacking and then work assiduously to increase their quotient of them. Executives must learn to play their leadership styles like a pro, using the right one at just the right time in the right measure. The payoff is in the results.

( View other views )