Management fashion has a direct impression on an organization or workforce’s environment and monetary efficiency and… the simplest leaders combine and match kinds.
In 2000, psychologist Daniel Goleman—finest identified for popularizing the idea of emotional intelligence—revealed an article within the Harvard Enterprise Overview (HBR) titled “Leadership That Gets Results,” by which he outlined six concrete management kinds that vowed to take “the thriller out of efficient management.”
The kinds emerged from a survey by consulting agency Hay/McBer of 1000’s of executives that tied into Goleman’s personal emotional intelligence analysis. Within the article, Goleman asserted that management fashion has a direct impression on an organization or workforce’s environment and monetary efficiency and that the simplest leaders combine and match kinds: “They use most of them in a given week—seamlessly and in several measure—relying on the enterprise state of affairs.”
By cellphone from his Goleman Consulting Group workplaces in New York in 2025, the creator reiterates the identical message. “The very best leaders have entry to a number of kinds and use them as wanted,” Goleman says. “Some leaders are caught in a single or two kinds. In the event that they’re the worst kinds, those which have a damaging impression, then individuals’s efficiency is often decrease.”
Understanding the 6 management kinds
What are these six distinct kinds? Within the authentic HBR article, they’re outlined as “coercive” leaders demanding instant compliance, “authoritative” leaders mobilizing individuals towards a imaginative and prescient, “affiliative” leaders creating emotional bonds and concord, “democratic” leaders constructing consensus via participation, “pacesetting” leaders anticipating excellence and self-direction and “teaching” leaders growing individuals for the longer term.
In a nutshell, in keeping with the unique analysis, catchphrases for leaders of the six kinds is perhaps: “Do what I let you know” (coercive); “Include me” (authoritative); “Individuals come first” (affiliative); “What do you suppose?” (democratic); “Do as I do, now” (pacesetting); and “Do this” (teaching).
Since their introduction, the kinds have been tailored extensively and utilized to just about each trade. A wide range of methodologies and coaching could be discovered on-line for figuring out, teaching and training management kinds. Nearly all appear to construct on and/or come again to the unique six laid out by Goleman.
Adapting kinds
“Many managers mistakenly assume that management fashion is a operate of character reasonably than strategic alternative,” Goleman wrote in 2000. “As an alternative of selecting the one fashion that fits their temperament, they need to ask which fashion finest addresses the calls for of a selected state of affairs.”
He presents an instance at present of how a pacesetter would possibly adapt their fashion to suit the second. “You is perhaps a visionary leader in a hospital,” he describes. “As an alternative of beginning a gathering with individuals speaking concerning the numbers, which is a downer, you begin the assembly by reminding folks that our mission is a noble one, which helps individuals get higher. That’s the visionary chief.”
“Nonetheless,” he provides, “a visionary chief might also be an ER doctor, and within the ER, you actually should be sort of ‘command and management.’ Somebody must take cost. It’s a must to triage; you need to determine shortly easy methods to deal with individuals coming in. So, you employ a unique fashion in main in that context.
“Individuals typically misunderstand this literature and suppose that they’re ‘one fashion’ or one other, when the truth is the very best leaders exhibit 4 or extra kinds as wanted,” Goleman says.
How emotional intelligence suits into the equation
Emotional intelligence performs a key position. “For those who had been excessive in self-awareness, you’ll know what your management kinds are typically,” he provides. “And when you’re excessive in empathy additionally, you’d be higher capable of match a selected fashion to a selected state of affairs.” As well as, if leaders are extra conscious of their very own strengths and limitations, Goleman factors out, they’d know to encompass themselves with individuals on their workforce who’ve complementary strengths. “I believe the very best leaders, for instance on the high of organizations, have this skill.”
You’ll find myriad quizzes and assessment tools online for figuring out your personal management kinds. However Goleman provides which you could intuit this from these round you: “I additionally suppose that typically, whether or not it’s emotional intelligence or management fashion, you do higher to ask individuals who know you effectively, who work with you day in and time out, whether or not you’re good at self-awareness or whether or not you’re a visionary chief than to attempt to determine it out your self, due to self-deception.”
The unique analysis underscored that only a few leaders “have all six kinds of their repertory,” however by exploring the emotional intelligence competencies concerned in every fashion, “They’ll work assiduously to extend their quotient of them.”
Professionals and cons
“Having the ability to swap among the many authoritative, affiliative, democratic and training kinds as circumstances dictate creates the very best organizational local weather and optimizes enterprise,” the HBR article suggested.
Goleman factors out now that even the dubbed “damaging” kinds (learn: coercive and pacesetting) have their place. “There’s a context by which even what are normally probably the most damaging kinds could be fairly optimistic,” he says. “So, for instance, what we name the ‘pacesetter’ fashion, which regularly turns individuals off, in sure contexts when there’s an emergency, like within the ER, or if for instance one firm takes over one other firm, then the pacesetter or the ‘command and management’ (typically referred to as the ‘coercive’ fashion) in a disaster could be crucial. It’s very conducive to have somebody in cost.”
Different writers have tried to pinpoint cons of the “optimistic” kinds, reminiscent of that longer-term approaches would possibly lose sight of shorter-term considerations, some approaches could be too time-consuming or some would possibly presuppose that different workforce members be open to the identical course of.
How you can use management kinds
The HBR analysis summarized eventualities for when every fashion would work finest:
Coercive: “In a disaster, to kick begin a turnaround, or with downside staff”
Authoritative: “When modifications require a brand new imaginative and prescient, or when a transparent route is required”
Affiliative: “To heal rifts in a workforce or to inspire individuals throughout disturbing circumstances”
Democratic: “To construct buy-in or consensus, or to get enter from useful staff”
Pacesetting: “To get fast outcomes from a extremely motivated and competent workforce”
Teaching: “To assist an worker enhance efficiency or develop long-term strengths”
Types may match higher in sure industries. “I keep in mind after I gave a chat within the monetary sector,” Goleman remembers. “The thought of the ‘pacesetter’ was challenged as a result of in that context of their enterprise group, it appeared like a valued management fashion. And it might be, significantly as a result of it’s very aggressive to get a place there and to maintain it, so which means persons are each motivated and competent. If the individuals in your workforce are motivated and competent, then you definitely is usually a ‘pacesetter’ and have a profitable workforce.” He provides that this is also utilized to the tech sector, for instance.
“I believe it’s helpful to know that in sure contexts one fashion is extra relevant than the opposite, and… to know whether or not you possibly can manifest that fashion or not. Leaders have to know that, and I believe coaches might help them.”
“Like parenthood, management won’t ever be a precise science,” Goleman wrote in 2000. “However neither ought to or not it’s an entire thriller to those that follow it.”
This text initially appeared within the Might 2025 challenge of SUCCESS+ digital magazine. Photograph by Drazen Zigic/iStock.com
