Golf and Leadership

The best players know which iron to use. - by Daniel Goleman

New research on leadership suggests that the best leaders use a collection of distinct leadership styles - each one pulled out at the right time and used in the right degree. Think of it as a skilled golfer who, in the course of a game, picks and chooses each club according to the demands of the shot.

The research, conducted by the consulting firm Hay/McBer, draws on a random sample of 3,871 executives selected from a database of 20,000 executives worldwide. It found six leadership styles, which affect the climate of an organization or department or group. The factors affecting climate include: the sense of flexibility, or how free employees feel to innovate; their sense of responsibility to the organization; their level of standards or how high they set them; how accurate they perceive performance feedback to be and the subsequent appropriateness of rewards; the clarity people have about the mission and values; and the level of commitment to a common purpose.

Each management style has a specific effect on the climate of the team. And the effective leaders - the ones who had the best results - use most of the six leadership styles in a given week depending on the situation. What's most important about the research results is that each leadership style can be learned.

Following are the six styles of leadership and how and when they should be applied:

The Coercive Style

Coercive leaders demand immediate compliance. Needless to say, this style easily creates a reign of terror. Flexibility is impaired since the Coercive Style leader follows a top-down decision-making style that steamrolls over ideas. Likewise, team members' sense of responsibility erodes, as does the perception of apt rewards since high-performing members are motivated by more than financial gains.

This said, however, the Coercive Style is appropriate in circumstances that call for a quick turnaround and during emergencies. The style can break failed business habits and shock people into new ways of working. But it can only work on a short-term basis to deal with the emergency at hand. Used longer than that, the Coercive Style becomes an undermining influence on morale.

The Authoritative Style

Authoritative leaders mobilize people toward a vision. Among the six styles, it is the most effective in ramping up the climate of the work situation. The authoritative leader motivates people by clarifying how their work fits into a larger vision for the entire organization. Because everyone is clear on the vision, everything else revolves around realizing it: Standards are set accordingly; performance is measured against it; rewards are based on realizing it. Flexibility is at a maximum since an authoritative leader sets the goals, but allows people to come up with their own ways of achieving the goals.

Thus, the Authoritative Style is best for most situations, but not all. The style wouldn't work when a leader is working with a team of people who are more experienced than he or she is. They may interpret the authoritative leader as being pompous or out of touch. Also, the authoritative leader runs the risk of being overbearing.

The Affiliative Style

The affiliative leader values people and their emotions over the tasks and goals. Among the positive results of the Affiliative Style: It breeds fierce loyalty by building strong emotional bonds. As a result, communication improves since people who like each other will tend to share ideas and inspiration. Flexibility rises because people tend to trust one another more and the leader doesn't impose unnecessary structures on how people get work done. Rewards are ample since the affiliative leader provides ample positive feedback.

The style is best used to build harmony, increase morale, improve communication, and repair trust. But while the Affiliative Style is largely positive, it has its limitations. For one, constant positive feedback may overlook needed corrective feedback. It may neglect to provide constructive advice on how to improve, thus leaving employees to figure it out themselves.

The Democratic Style

The democratic leader builds consensus through participation. This style draws out people's ideas and buy-in, thus building trust, respect, and commitment. Flexibility and responsibility also increase since everyone gets say in decisions. Morale acts a boost since the democratic leader listens to everyone's concerns. And people tend to be realistic about goals and standards since each has a say in what they are.

There are drawbacks to the Democratic Style though: Meetings can go on and on as each person's ideas are mulled over, and decision-making is slower since everyone's opinion must be taken into consideration. But the style works best when the leader is uncertain about the best direction to take and needs ideas and guidance from able team members.

The Pacesetting Style

Pacesetting leaders set extremely high performance standards and exemplify them; they are obsessive about doing things better and faster and ask the same of everyone else; and they are quick to root out poor performers and demand them to improve lest they be axed.

All these characteristics seem good on the surface, but there are weaknesses in the Pacesetting Style. Employees can feel overwhelmed by the pacesetter's high standards, thus eroding morale. They may get the impression that this leader doesn't trust them to work in their own way or to take initiative. Pacesetters may also fail to state guidelines clearly, expecting that employees will know what to do. Also, pacesetters don't always give enough feedback, or worse, simply jump in on a job when someone is lagging.

Still, the approach works well when all employees are selfmotivated and need little direction.

The Coaching Style

Coaching leaders help people identify their strengths and weaknesses and tie these to personal and career goals. They help employees come up with a plan to achieve longterm goals. They also develop written agreements with their people about their roles and responsibilities, and provide feedback and instruction on the progress of fulfilling these arrangements. Coaches know how to delegate well, provide people with challenging assignments, and put up with short-term failures if it furthers long-term learning.

Of the six styles, the Coaching Style is least used, according to research. That's because few highpowered environments make it easy to use the more time-consuming style effectively. Yet its results are highly positive largely because it's heavy on dialogue. For example, flexibility increases because employees, who know the boss is watching and cares about what they do, are more apt to feel free to experiment. They'll get immediate feedback, which also allows them to know what's expected of them and how their work fits into the big picture. That, in turn, affects responsibility.

But using this style won't work on people who resist learning or changing. And it won't work if the leader doesn't have the expertise to help people, nor the commitment to provide constant feedback.

Adapted from "Leadership that Gets Results," by Daniel Goleman, in Harvard Business Review