Leadership style has a direct impact on a company or team’s atmosphere and financial performance and… the most effective leaders mix and match styles.
In 2000, psychologist Daniel Goleman—best known for popularizing the concept of emotional intelligence—published an article in the Harvard Business Review (HBR) titled “Leadership That Gets Results,” in which he outlined six concrete leadership styles that vowed to take “the mystery out of effective leadership.”
The styles emerged from a survey by consulting firm Hay/McBer of thousands of executives that tied into Goleman’s own emotional intelligence research. In the article, Goleman asserted that leadership style has a direct impact on a company or team’s atmosphere and financial performance and that the most effective leaders mix and match styles: “They use most of them in a given week—seamlessly and in different measure—depending on the business situation.”
By phone from his Goleman Consulting Group offices in New York in 2025, the author reiterates the same message. “The best leaders have access to several styles and use them as needed,” Goleman says. “Some leaders are stuck in one or two styles. If they’re the worst styles, the ones that have a negative impact, then people’s performance is typically lower.”
Understanding the 6 leadership styles
What are those six distinct styles? In the original HBR article, they are defined as “coercive” leaders demanding immediate compliance, “authoritative” leaders mobilizing people toward a vision, “affiliative” leaders creating emotional bonds and harmony, “democratic” leaders building consensus through participation, “pacesetting” leaders expecting excellence and self-direction and “coaching” leaders developing people for the future.
In a nutshell, according to the original research, catchphrases for leaders of the six styles might be: “Do what I tell you” (coercive); “Come with me” (authoritative); “People come first” (affiliative); “What do you think?” (democratic); “Do as I do, now” (pacesetting); and “Try this” (coaching).
Since their introduction, the styles have been adapted extensively and applied to pretty much every industry. A variety of methodologies and training can be found online for determining, coaching and practicing leadership styles. Almost all seem to build on and/or come back to the original six laid out by Goleman.
Adapting styles
“Many managers mistakenly assume that leadership style is a function of personality rather than strategic choice,” Goleman wrote in 2000. “Instead of choosing the one style that suits their temperament, they should ask which style best addresses the demands of a particular situation.”
He offers an example today of how a leader might adapt their style to fit the moment. “You might be a visionary leader in a hospital,” he describes. “Instead of starting a meeting with people talking about the numbers, which is a downer, you start the meeting by reminding people that our mission is a noble one, which is helping people get better. That’s the visionary leader.”
“However,” he adds, “a visionary leader may also be an ER physician, and in the ER, you really need to be kind of ‘command and control.’ Someone needs to take charge. You have to triage; you have to decide quickly how to treat people coming in. So, you use a different style in leading in that context.
“People often misunderstand this literature and think that they are ‘one style’ or another, when in fact the best leaders exhibit four or more styles as needed,” Goleman says.
How emotional intelligence fits into the equation
Emotional intelligence plays a key role. “If you were high in self-awareness, you would know what your leadership styles tend to be,” he adds. “And if you’re high in empathy also, you’d be better able to fit a particular style to a particular situation.” In addition, if leaders are more aware of their own strengths and limitations, Goleman points out, they’d know to surround themselves with people on their team who have complementary strengths. “I think the best leaders, for example at the top of organizations, have this ability.”
You can find myriad quizzes and assessment tools online for determining your own leadership styles. But Goleman adds that you can intuit this from those around you: “I also think that generally, whether it’s emotional intelligence or leadership style, you do better to ask people who know you well, who work with you day in and day out, whether you’re good at self-awareness or whether you’re a visionary leader than to try to figure it out yourself, because of self-deception.”
The original research underscored that very few leaders “have all six styles in their repertory,” but by exploring the emotional intelligence competencies involved in each style, “They can work assiduously to increase their quotient of them.”
Pros and cons
“Being able to switch among the authoritative, affiliative, democratic and coaching styles as conditions dictate creates the best organizational climate and optimizes business,” the HBR article advised.
Goleman points out now that even the dubbed “negative” styles (read: coercive and pacesetting) have their place. “There is a context in which even what are usually the most negative styles can be quite positive,” he says. “So, for example, what we call the ‘pacesetter’ style, which often turns people off, in certain contexts when there’s an emergency, like in the ER, or if for example one company takes over another company, then the pacesetter or the ‘command and control’ (sometimes called the ‘coercive’ style) in a crisis can be very important. It’s very conducive to have someone in charge.”
Other writers have tried to pinpoint cons of the “positive” styles, such as that longer-term approaches might lose sight of shorter-term concerns, some approaches can be too time-consuming or some might presuppose that other team members be open to the same process.
How to use leadership styles
The HBR research summarized scenarios for when each style would work best:
Coercive: “In a crisis, to kick start a turnaround, or with problem employees”
Authoritative: “When changes require a new vision, or when a clear direction is needed”
Affiliative: “To heal rifts in a team or to motivate people during stressful circumstances”
Democratic: “To build buy-in or consensus, or to get input from valuable employees”
Pacesetting: “To get quick results from a highly motivated and competent team”
Coaching: “To help an employee improve performance or develop long-term strengths”
Styles can also fit better in certain industries. “I remember when I gave a talk in the financial sector,” Goleman recalls. “The idea of the ‘pacesetter’ was challenged because in that context of their business organization, it seemed like a valued leadership style. And it may well be, particularly because it’s very competitive to get a position there and to keep it, so that means people are both motivated and competent. If the people on your team are motivated and competent, then you can be a ‘pacesetter’ and have a successful team.” He adds that this could also be applied to the tech sector, for example.
“I think it’s useful to know that in certain contexts one style is more applicable than the other, and… to know whether you can manifest that style or not. Leaders need to know that, and I think coaches can help them.”
“Like parenthood, leadership will never be an exact science,” Goleman wrote in 2000. “But neither should it be a complete mystery to those who practice it.”
This article originally appeared in the May 2025 issue of SUCCESS+ digital magazine. Photo by Drazen Zigic/iStock.com
The post How Do You Lead? Understanding the 6 Leadership Styles appeared first on SUCCESS.