In 2000, Daniel Goleman published an article in Harvard Business Review that anyone who leads a team should read: Leadership That Gets Results. His team analysed almost 4,000 executives and reached a conclusion that still makes many managing directors uncomfortable: the way you lead changes your team’s climate, and the climate changes the results. It isn’t a question of personality. It’s a question of the P&L.
Goleman identified six styles. I’m not going to repeat the book. I’m going to tell you how I see them, after running companies and teams in 11 countries, with my successes and my mistakes.
The six styles, in one sentence each
| Style | What the leader says | When it works | My verdict for an SME |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coercive | “Do what I tell you” | A real, very short crisis | Unnecessary. If you need it often, something is fundamentally wrong |
| Authoritative | “Come with me” | When direction is needed | Essential: missing in many SMEs |
| Affiliative | “People come first” | To heal wounds in a team | Useful, but no substitute for high standards |
| Democratic | “What do you think?” | When the team knows more than you | Badly lacking |
| Pacesetting | “Do as I do, now” | With highly skilled, motivated teams | Dangerous: it burns people out |
| Coaching | “Try this” | When you want someone to grow | The one most lacking |
A clarification that avoids a lot of confusion: the style Goleman calls authoritative is not authoritarian. It’s the leader who sets the direction and leaves freedom on how to get there. That’s why I think of it as the visionary style. The truly authoritarian one, the “because I say so” style, is the coercive one.
My natural style: collaborating so the team grows
My natural style is collaborative. In Goleman’s terms, a mix of democratic and coaching. I like every person on my team to reach their full potential, and I’m convinced you don’t achieve that by giving orders or controlling how every task is carried out.
When I hire a director or a managing director, I don’t hire them to do what I say. I hire them to have their own plan. My job is to support them and give them every tool they need to succeed. And for that, you have to leave your ego parked at the door.
The style I find hardest is the coercive one. I think it only makes sense in a real crisis: when there’s no time to debate and someone has to decide in minutes. Outside that, it destroys more than it builds.
The style I’ve never needed
I’ll put it plainly: I’ve never had to use “do this because I say so” with my leadership teams. And it isn’t for lack of character.
At senior level, if you have to impose, something is fundamentally wrong. Either you’ve chosen the wrong person, or you haven’t explained the objective properly, or the relationship of trust is broken. The order covers up the symptom, but the problem is still there. And it comes back.
Goleman measured it: the coercive style creates the worst climate. People stop making suggestions, stop flagging problems and do the bare minimum. The exact opposite of what a company that wants to grow needs.
The style that cost me dearly
It hasn’t all been successes. Applying a collaborative style with production staff taught me something important.
I opened the door to participation: ideas, debate, improvement proposals. The intention was good. The result, less so: the team started to lose focus on the daily work that had to get done. In production, every day has a volume of work that has to be completed, and constant debate was draining its energy.
What I learnt is that you don’t choose your style according to taste. You choose it according to the team and the moment. In a production team, it works better to separate two things:
- Today’s “what”: clear, not up for debate. Daily objectives, standards and priorities. This is where you set direction.
- How to improve: with room to take part, but at the right time. One short weekly meeting for improvement ideas, not a never-ending debate.
That’s what Goleman calls having several styles in your toolkit. According to his study, leaders who master four or more styles achieve the best climate and the best results. It isn’t about changing your personality. It’s about knowing what the team in front of you needs.
What I see in Spanish SMEs
Spanish SMEs are badly lacking in collaborative style and, above all, in a culture of helping teams grow.
I still see many leaders who want to give instructions and control the execution of every task. I understand why: many managing directors got where they are because they were the best at doing the work. But that model has no future. A managing director who controls everything becomes the ceiling of their company: the company grows as far as their diary allows, and not a day more.
And there’s another problem. Talented people don’t stay where all they get is orders. They go where they’re allowed to think. And in a market where retaining talent is so hard, that’s a luxury no SME can afford.
My recommendation
If you run an SME, you don’t need to master all six styles tomorrow. Start with three:
- Authoritative: make sure your team knows where you’re heading and why. Three clear objectives are worth more than thirty instructions.
- Coaching: spend time helping your managers grow. Ask before you answer.
- Democratic: on decisions where your team knows more than you, which are usually more than you think, ask them.
And save the coercive style for when there really is a fire. If you use it every week, the problem isn’t your team.
If you want to know what mode your team is in, take the ON Check: in 5 minutes you’ll see where the brakes are on.
Source: Daniel Goleman, “Leadership That Gets Results”, Harvard Business Review, March–April 2000.
Your actions for this week
- Write down the orders you give over three days. At the end, mark which ones could have been a question.
- In your next meeting, before giving your opinion, ask: “What would you do?” And listen to the end.
- Pick one person on your team and spend 30 minutes talking about their development, not their tasks.
More on Leadership and teams
Eleven countries, one problem
I’ve led teams in Europe, America and Asia. The language, the hours and the way people say things all change. But the underlying challenge is always the same: people.
Read the guide
The indispensable managing director is the bottleneck
If your company doesn’t work when you’re away for a week, the problem isn’t your team. Here’s how I stopped being the engine of everything, what I found hardest to let go of and why the result was better than if I’d done it myself.
Read the guide
Situational leadership: why delegating the same way to everyone doesn’t work
Not everyone needs the same thing from their boss, and the same person doesn’t need the same thing in every task. I learnt that by delegating too quickly. This is what I take from Hersey and Blanchard’s model, and what I don’t.
Read the guide