Situational Leadership: 6 Styles & How To Use Them

We have to be able to adapt to a new situation. It’s another form of the definition of intelligent behavior.” ― Hasso Plattner

Leadership shares similarities to cooking. Now hear me out, many start cooking by following a recipe. They'll follow that recipe because they know it "works". In the same way, new leaders will generally adopt a single leadership style they are comfortable with or believe works - a default style if you will.

In this article, I want to explore situational leadership and its application in practice. I will explain why it is so important, vital even, to be an effective leader.

Leadership Styles

Just like people have different personalities and characteristics, leaders have different leadership styles as well. A leadership style can be described as a leader's approach or method of leading - how they direct, how they inspire, how they mentor, etc.

Think of an actor's acting style. Jim Carrey's style is comedic, outlandish even. Similarly, Sigourney Weaver has a strong, heroinesque air about her. It helps them land the roles they want, and to perform them well. They are recognisable characteristics of the actor.

Like an individual's behaviour (or an actor's acting style), one's leadership style can evolve as we learn new things and have new experiences. What's important to realise is that while leaders have a default style or modus operandi, a leader must adapt their style according to the situation to be truly effective.

It's important because not all situations are the same, and not all people are the same. One needs to pick the right tool for the job. That means a leader needs to adopt the right style for a certain situation with a particular person or group of people. It sounds obvious, right? It does, but it's easier said than done - I'll explain why in a bit - and many leaders get stuck in their default modes.

The Six Styles

There are a few schools of thought on the subject of situational leadership but it's those of Daniel Goleman - the father of emotional intelligence - that I want to elaborate on. When I first encountered the piece he wrote in the Harvard Business Review on the subject, it had an immediate and lasting impact on me - very much a road to Damascus moment. I highly recommend reading it. I won't be digging into the specifics of Daniel's research in too much, but rather share my interpretation of it through my own experience applying it.

Daniel identified 6 styles:

Authoritative - The "take charge" style. Leads with authority and is explicit with direction, but not in dictation. It says, what to do, not how to do it.

Affiliative - A style that prioritises the team and team cohesion and harmony. This style puts the team first.

Coaching - Emphasises personal development and supporting others in their personal growth.

Coercive - This style is characterised by an autocratic approach. Very much the traditional command and control style.

Democratic - As you might imagine this style embodies the democratic process. Offering the opportunity for others to share their views and participate in decision making.

Pacesetting - The trailblazing style. The leader sets the standard and exemplifies them themselves.

Daniel's research measured the influence of each of the styles on the team or organisation (or the climate as he refers to it).  He found that only 4 of the 6 styles consistently had a positive impact. The coercive and pacesetting styles had an overall negative impact making them more appropriate for tactical application rather than default styles.

To help understand the benefits and drawbacks of each, I've compiled the following table:

Adapt Your Style

So we know there are these six styles. And we know that we may utilise one of them most of the time. Now we need to learn how to adapt our style to the situation. To do so we must be able to identify what style is called for in what situation. Identifying the situation and adapting to it on the fly is the real challenge but I'm hoping I can help with that here.

I am going to elaborate on the styles and provide some examples of when you might consider applying them. With that understanding, I hope that you can begin to hone that intuition as you look for the signs and triggers where you might look to switch. I want to stress this is guidance and should be treated as such. There are no hard and fast rules here and I would encourage everyone to seek and use what works for them.

Affiliative

A style that values people over performance. The nurturing of relationships goes a long way to fostering trust and respect with your team. The loyalty gained through this style can be invaluable.

An affiliative style can help greatly in the "forming" phase of team development or with new team members. It helps build trust and rapport which ultimately translates to greater cohesion in the team as a whole. So perhaps this is a style you can use when forming a new team or onboarding a new team member.

It can also be used as a default style, though I would recommend doing so only in mature, high performing teams which have influential members (think technical leaders or thought leaders) in them. This is because it helps mitigate the biggest drawback of this style where poor performance can be overlooked as a sacrifice to maintain team cohesion and high engagement.

Authoritative

This is a great default style, particularly for more traditional organisation structures. It aligns with a traditional leader's role of articulating the vision and providing direction and allows the team to work out how to get there.

The key here is the forward focus. Keeping the team's eye on the prize is what makes this style work. The team is unlikely to achieve the goal if that goal is not clear.

Sometimes it's necessary to reframe a team's perspective if they've become stuck in one particular frame of mind. In situations like these, an authoritative style helps the team break free and rally around a common goal. Consider a team that has maybe been struggling with system operational issues and is stuck in that break-fix mode. It can be difficult for individuals in that position to stick their heads above the tactical water to look for the strategic shore in the distance. A leader with an authoritative style can help by articulating the benefit of addressing the root causes for the most problematic issues and providing a high-level plan to help do so before letting the team forge ahead in executing the plan.

Coaching

This is one of the more obvious styles. It is the style one might adopt when someone in the team is struggling with something. If that someone is also a leader and having trouble providing constructive feedback to one of their reports, for example, one could adopt a coaching style and talk through the situation and options with them.

Another great - and possibly most valuable - opportunity is to adopt this style when someone has made a mistake or done something wrong. When that happens you have three choices - do nothing, punish or coach. Doing nothing doesn't help, they're more likely to repeat the mistake. Punishing doesn't necessarily help them learn to do better next time, damages their confidence and the relationship with that person. Coaching though... helps them improve, nurtures the relationship with them, and boosts their confidence.

Coercive

While this style has proven to have a negative impact generally, there are situations where it is the right style to adopt. It's also easy to identify when to do so because there is really only one time - in an emergency.

When decisions absolutely have to be made quickly and both the team and the outcome depend on the unambiguous direction of the leader, a coercive style helps the leader be effective. It should be noted that these are generally tactical situations and relatively short-lived. Think of a system outage for example. The last thing you want is a team unsure of what to do or who should be doing what. When every second is important, there is no time to quorum up and vote on an approach, and certainly no time for assumptions of who might be doing what. The leader needs to assert control over the situation and provide clear instruction and coordination of the team to resolve the outage.

So it's clear: this is not an excuse to be a dick. Yes, it's an autocratic style, but that doesn't give anyone an excuse to treat people poorly.

Democratic

This is a great style to adopt when the team's goal is innovation of some kind or in anticipation of major change.

One of the most important traits of a democratic style is the empowerment of the team. The inclusion of them in decision making, particularly when it affects them and their future is incredibly powerful. This is particularly helpful in the early stages of team development when the team is defining its ways of working and establishing the standards and practices it will be using. Allowing the team to operate how they feel they will operate best builds trust and engagement.

Despite its obvious benefits in building cohesion, be wary of utilising it as a default style. Seeking consensus on too many things can rapidly lead to consensus block and a seemingly endless cycle of meetings, workshops and discussions to reach an agreement. If you see this start to occur, its time to step in... maybe adopt an authoritative style to break the deadlock and provide a course for the team to set sail on.

Pacesetting

Quite possibly the trickiest to implement well and one that should be wielded with care. While it can (and should) be used with any team, it's worth noting that high performing teams benefit especially from it.

Leaders should set examples, set the standard. Leading from the front is an outstanding way to develop respect and build trust with your team. Pacesetting has a role to play in that. By walking the walk, so to speak, and demonstrating a high standard, setting that example, you blaze a path for the team to follow.

Where it becomes problematic is when it becomes an obsession to the point where all that matters is the performance. Setting high standards is good, but they need to be realistic in the context of the team and the circumstances the team works in. I find demonstrating some pragmatism helps here. Set the standard, demonstrate how it can be achieved, but if the standard isn't met, ask why. If the team is generally struggling with it, perhaps the standard itself needs adjustment. If an individual is struggling to meet it, maybe it's an opportunity to engage a coaching or affiliative style and support them.

If the team is feeling overwhelmed by the expectations or if the leader is micromanaging the team, it's time to switch out of pacesetting mode. Empathy is the key to preventing this style from going wrong.

The Wrap

With practice and experience, identifying the situation and appropriate style will become less conscious and more second nature. It's not uncommon I adopt several styles through the course of a single meeting in response to the discussion. I might start with my default style (a 70/30 mix of affiliative and authoritative) to set the scene and intent, shift to a democratic to encourage some idea sharing, maybe switch to coaching briefly to help someone that might be having difficulty with the problem, then move into a stronger authoritative style to ensure we end the meeting with a decision or action.

The key takeaway is: leadership style is not a one size fits all thing, the best leaders are able to adapt their style to the needs of the situation.