Leadership styles

Daniel Goleman’s six-style framework describes leadership as a repertoire of directive, visionary, affiliative, participative, pacesetting and coaching behaviours. Effectiveness depends on reading the situation and using the appropriate style rather than treating one preference as a permanent identity.

When to use it

• Use the framework to reflect on behavioural range, prepare for a leadership challenge and discuss development with evidence from colleagues and outcomes.

Origins

Goleman popularised the six styles through research and writing that connected emotional intelligence with organisational climate and performance. The framework synthesised earlier leadership research into memorable behavioural patterns. It is a situational guide, not a validated personality diagnosis or a claim that every culture interprets behaviour identically.

What it is

• Directive/coercive: expects immediate compliance; useful in a genuine emergency or serious breach, damaging when it becomes routine control.
• Visionary/authoritative: sets a compelling direction and gives people room to find the route; weak when the vision lacks credibility or execution support.
• Affiliative: restores trust and connection; weak when harmony prevents honest performance conversations.
• Participative/democratic: involves people in decisions and builds commitment; weak when consultation substitutes for timely accountability.
• Pacesetting: models high standards and speed; weak when demonstration becomes micromanagement or exhausts the team.
• Coaching: develops capability through questions, feedback and practice; weak when willingness, time or required expertise is absent.

How to use it

Begin with real situations and feedback, then use the questionnaire as a reflection prompt. It is not a psychometrically established selection test. Score quickly, compare the result with observed behaviour and ask where context changes your response.

Allocate points as follows, noting that 4 is not used:

Always true                                              5
Often true                                               3
True about 50% of the time                               2
Mostly untrue                                            1
Completely untrue                                        0

1. My team appears to trust my intentions and follow-through.
2. I invest time in gaining commitment to proposed ideas.
3. I expect instructions to be followed without debate when I give them.
4. I concentrate more on long-term direction than daily operating detail.
5. I delegate stretching work even when learning may slow completion.
6. I sometimes prioritise team harmony over correcting every fault.
7. I model the standards I ask others to meet.
8. I deliberately invest time in people’s growth.
9. I translate organisational strategy into meaning for the team.
10. I respond immediately when employees disregard a direct instruction.
11. I build a strong sense of belonging.
12. I use team discussion to develop insight.
13. I keep work strongly focused on delivery.
14. I help people identify strengths and development needs.
15. I believe major decisions should generally flow from the top.
16. Once direction is clear, I allow calculated risk and innovation.
17. I create a vision and invite others to help realise it.
18. When initiative is low, I demonstrate exactly what good performance looks like.
19. I work to create strong relational bonds with team members.
20. I provide frequent instruction and feedback.
21. I hold regular discussions about how the team is working.
22. I generally believe I know what the team should do and expect compliance.
23. I consider collective decision making the most effective approach.
24. I identify weak performance and press for improvement.
25. I favour replacing staff quickly when performance remains insufficient.
26. I remove systems that obstruct good work.
27. My feedback connects individual work with the shared vision.
28. I encourage long-term development goals.
29. I give regular performance feedback.
30. I define the destination and expect initiative in reaching it.
31. I continually look for better and faster methods.
32. I make explicit agreements about responsibilities in development plans.
33. I give the team freedom to achieve agreed goals.
34. I invite the team to influence how it is managed.
35. I rely heavily on personal judgement and self-control when leading.
36. I involve team members in setting goals and objectives.

Transfer each answer to the grid and total the columns. If question 16 received 5, for example, enter 5 in its corresponding cell. Revisit item 16 after comparing the profile with feedback.

Directive      Visionary       Affiliative   Participative   Pacesetting   Coaching

1. 4 1 2 7 5
2. 9 6 12 13 8
3. 16 11 21 18 14
4. 17 19 23 24 20
5. 27 29 34 25 28
6. 30 33 36 31 32

Totals

The highest and second-highest totals suggest familiar behaviours, not immutable primary and secondary types. Compare them with feedback and situations where another approach produced a better result.

Directive: be precise, calm and proportionate. It can provide clarity in crisis, safety events or deliberate non-compliance, but routine use suppresses voice and learning.

Visionary: explain where the group is going, why it matters and which boundaries apply. Pair inspiration with resources, milestones and listening so the vision can be executed.

Affiliative: acknowledge emotion, repair relationships and create belonging. Combine it with clear standards so kindness does not become avoidance.

Participative: seek relevant knowledge and genuine input, state which parts are open to influence and close the decision at an agreed point. Consultation without decision rights creates cynicism.

Pacesetting: demonstrate a standard when modelling is useful, then step back and let people practise. Pair it with coaching and sustainable workload rather than expecting everyone to copy an expert’s pace.

Coaching: ask, listen, challenge and give specific feedback so the person becomes more capable and independent. Direct instruction remains appropriate when risk is high or essential knowledge is missing.

Review a current leadership challenge: purpose, urgency, competence, motivation, trust, risk and decision ownership. Choose a dominant style, identify the likely downside and add a balancing behaviour. Afterward, ask what happened and extend the repertoire deliberately.

Leadership flexibility does not mean inconsistency or manipulation. Values, fairness and expectations should remain stable while behaviour adapts to legitimate needs.

Top practical tip

Name the situation, choose the style that fits it and add one counterbalancing behaviour to manage that style’s predictable downside.

Top pitfall

Do not turn questionnaire totals into employee labels or selection scores. Context, culture and observed impact matter more than a self-report profile.

Further reading

Goleman, D. (1996) Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. Goleman, D., Boyatzis, T. and McKee, A. (2002) Primal Leadership: Learning to Lead with Emotional Intelligence. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.