Home › Blog › Leadership

Goleman's Six Leadership Styles: What Each One Is, When It Works, and the Two That Damage a Team

Goleman leadership styles come from one article: Daniel Goleman’s “Leadership That Gets Results”, published in the Harvard Business Review in March-April 2000. It drew on research by the consultancy Hay/McBer into a random sample of 3,871 executives, taken from a database of more than 20,000. The study found six distinct styles, measured how each one affected the working climate, and linked climate to financial results. Four styles helped; two did harm. This page sets out all six, with the numbers, and what the research means for how you lead.

The six styles at a glance

The figures are the correlations the study reported between each style and overall climate. Climate was measured on six drivers: flexibility (how free people feel to innovate without red tape), responsibility to the organisation, the standards people set, how fair and apt rewards are, clarity about mission and values, and commitment to a common purpose. Goleman’s analysis suggested climate accounts for nearly a third of business results.

1. Coercive: “Do what I tell you”

The coercive leader gives orders and expects them followed. The article calls it the least effective style in most situations. Flexibility is hit hardest, because top-down decisions kill ideas before they are raised; people stop taking responsibility because they are not allowed to act on their own initiative, and pride in good work erodes. Goleman’s example is a turnaround CEO whose bullying drove away his senior team and was followed by a second downturn and his own dismissal.

It still has a narrow use: a genuine emergency, a turnaround, or a looming hostile takeover, where speed matters more than buy-in, and with an employee for whom everything else has failed. Used beyond that, it is the style most likely to cross into the conduct that a culture of ethical leadership is meant to prevent.

2. Authoritative: “Come with me”

The authoritative leader sets out where the organisation is going and why, then leaves people free to choose how to get there. It had the strongest positive link with climate of all six. People understand how their work fits the bigger picture, standards and feedback revolve around the vision, and flexibility stays high because the leader states the end, not the means. Goleman later used the label “visionary” for the same style, which avoids confusion with authoritarian leadership.

It fails with a team of experts who know more than the leader, who may see the vision as out of touch, or when it tips into overbearing behaviour.

3. Affiliative: “People come first”

The affiliative leader puts people and their feelings ahead of tasks and goals, and builds loyalty through praise and personal attention. It lifts flexibility, trust and communication, and is useful after a team has been through conflict or a bruising period. Its weakness is that praise alone lets poor performance go uncorrected, and people can be left without direction. Goleman recommends pairing it with the authoritative style.

4. Democratic: “What do you think?”

The democratic leader spends time getting people’s ideas and agreement before deciding. That builds trust, respect and commitment, and people tend to set realistic standards because they had a say. The cost is time: endless meetings, decisions deferred in search of consensus, and a team that feels leaderless. It is a poor fit for a crisis, or when the people consulted lack the information to give good advice.

5. Pacesetting: “Do as I do, now”

The pacesetter sets very high standards, models them personally and quickly takes over from anyone who falls short. On paper this sounds like good leadership; in the research its effect on climate was almost as negative as the coercive style. People feel overwhelmed by demands they are expected to guess, flexibility and responsibility vanish, and commitment drains away. It works for a short burst with a highly skilled, self-motivated team, such as a group of senior specialists, and should be used sparingly.

6. Coaching: “Try this”

The coaching leader helps people find their strengths and weaknesses, ties them to their career goals, and delegates stretching work. Goleman found it was the style used least often, because leaders said they had no time for it, yet it had a clearly positive effect on climate and results. It works best with people who know where they need to improve and want to. It flops when the person resists learning, or when the leader lacks the skill to coach.

What the research says about using them together

The most important finding was not any single style. Leaders with the best results did not rely on one; they used most of the six in a given week, in different measure, depending on the situation. Leaders who had mastered four or more, especially the authoritative, democratic, affiliative and coaching styles, had the best climate and business performance.

Goleman linked each style to parts of emotional intelligence: self-awareness, self-management, social awareness and social skill. A leader short of a style can build it by working on the competency underneath, or by building a team that covers the gap.

Why it matters for ethics

Style is where the values in a code of ethics either show up or do not. The coercive and pacesetting styles are the ones that most often push people to cut corners, stay silent about problems and hide bad news; the CEO in Goleman’s example had a team that stopped bringing him any news at all. If your whistleblowing policy is rarely used, or concerns surface only after damage is done, the dominant leadership style is worth looking at alongside the policy itself.

Limits of the model

The study was run by a consultancy and summarised in a management magazine rather than a peer-reviewed journal, and correlations do not prove that a style causes a better climate. The six styles are best treated as a practical vocabulary for reflecting on how you lead, not a scientific scale. For the difference between leading and running the organisation, see governance vs management, or go back to the E-Business Ethics homepage.

Sources: Daniel Goleman, “Leadership That Gets Results”, Harvard Business Review, March-April 2000.