7 Leadership Styles and When to use Them

There is an abundance of research conducted in the 20th century looking into leadership characteristics. This was primarily done in order to identify individuals who possess the admired traits with the intention of recruiting them into leadership roles. 

In fact, many sources claim that leaders possess certain traits that distinguish them from their follower colleagues. As common as this discussion is, research shows that this is not necessarily the case.

An example of  a study conducted by Stogdill in 1974 demonstrates some interesting insights, while also bringing to light the limitations of looking at isolated traits. 

Stogdill concluded that leaders will likely share these common traits: 

• Adaptable to situations
• Alert to social environment
• Ambitious and achievement-orientated
• Assertive
• Cooperative
• Decisive
• Dependable
• Dominant (desire to influence others)
• Energetic (high activity level)
• Persistent
• Self-confident
• Tolerant of stress
• Willing to assume responsibility

While it may be difficult to disagree that all of these traits are valuable and respected in a leader, these traits are in no way specific to leadership. In addition, this is only one study. If you were to accumulate every study’s conclusive list of traits, you’d find pretty much every positive adjective used to describe humans. 

While some appear more frequently than others, this is not enough to be considered concrete and conclusive. So, while leaders tend to share some common traits, the absence of such traits does not imply a lack of leadership capability either. 

Thus, to better describe ourselves and others with respect to leadership, we may choose to look at leadership styles instead.

Leadership styles are an academic evolution of leadership traits. Rather than looking at the individual and their characteristics, we look at how these traits manifest in their day-to-day managerial practice. 

While research in this area is still very much active, the common introductory style model to learn is the Tannenbaum-Schmidt Leadership Continuum. Though not without limitations in its applications, this model acknowledges nuance that trait leadership fails to.

The Tennenbaum-Schmidt leadership continuum (TSLC) is an attempt to categorise leadership styles differentiated by the degree of control exerted by the leader onto their followers.

Comprising of seven continuous categories, the TSLC may also be interpreted as a continuum of team autonomy – ranging from manager-centred leadership to employee-centred leadership at the extreme points. 

Though not without limitations, the TSLC is a practical illustration of the relationship between managerial authority and team autonomy.

The control extreme, telling is the execution of direct order-giving. When implementing this style, leaders formulate their plan and by decree, the team follows without any contribution or negotiation.

Most commonly practised in the military, organised crime and political dictatorships, the telling style can be reasonably considered retired from modern organisational leadership in the general sense. There are some; rare scenarios where a leader may need to defer to such a style in times of crisis.  

While leaders with this style may see short-term success, employees who wish to exercise their own problem solving and decision making skills will soon become disenchanted as a consequence of their lack of autonomy, as discovered by Regina Ekiyor and Edwin Dapper in 2019.

While primarily still a top-down approach, the selling style occurs when leaders make their team aware of the justification of their plan(s). 

The goal of the selling style is to utilise the traits of charisma and persuasion in order to convince team members that the plan the leader has formulated is valid. 

This style is particularly useful in cases where ideas are innovative or disruptive whereby subordinate compliance may not be achieved through the telling style alone.

The suggesting style is where team members are first introduced to decision making. The leader will formulate several potential plans and present them to their team. Then, through discussion and conflict, the team forms a consensus around which plan is the most preferred. 

Though this may seem to be allowing a high degree of autonomy, the discussion is still heavily regulated by the leader. So, this style can be particularly useful when there are several appropriate courses of action that could be taken. 

In a sense, leaders are exposing  the decision making process to the whole team. This can be particularly rewarding whereby less experienced employees begin to develop their leadership skills. 

This style can also be executed by the team members themselves, whereby they put forward suggestions to the leader. 

In both instances however, the final decision is made by the leader.

The equilibrium of autonomy and authority, the consulting style is considered the most commonly practised style in modern organisations. 

Leaders executing this style utilise the skills and expertise of others (typically as executives) and consult them on decisions. 

While this style may appear to offer the same level of autonomy as the suggesting style, they differ in the frequency to which the team is consulted. The suggesting leader will need to be opportunistic when deciding to execute the style. Whereas, a consulting leader will practise this as a fundamental and frequent part of day-to-day operations. 

Thus, it can be said that a leader with the consulting style has a much clearer influence on the broader culture of the organisation.

The joining style is best differentiated by the role the leader plays in team discussions. Here, the team is directly involved in the formulation of the plan and the leader takes on a slightly quieter voice in doing so. 

However, the leader must still maintain a degree of authority in ensuring there are clear and communicated parameters within which the plan must be formulated around. 

It can be said that the hierarchy is somewhat flattened in this case, yet the leader is still expected to take full responsibility for the outcome of the plans. 

This style can be truly influential because of the freedom endowed onto the employees. This style allows for each team member to contribute and collaborate. 

It’s no coincidence that this style is what is typically practised by mentors and coaches. The goal is to extract the very best of each team member and consolidate the output in the execution of the plan.

The delegating style is only possible when there is a high degree of competence and trust present between the leader and his team members. 

This style is practised when leadership and decision making is directly passed on to team members. This style comes with a considerable amount of risk given the leader is still responsible for the decisions of their team. 

This style can sometimes be practised out of necessity whereby the leader is simply overloaded by workload. This forces the leader to delegate to team members; before competence and trust has been truly tested. 

This is the least optimal position to be in, for both leader and team members. The passing of leadership should never be premature. 

The autonomy extreme, the abdicating style is when the leader essentially steps away from all decision making. Responsibility lies with the team, and thus the success or failure of the organisation does also. 

This style can be observed when a company founder passes control onto their team whereby they then become purely the face of the brand.

Needless to say, this is not an appropriate style for day-to-day management. In fact, this style, like the telling style, is essentially retired from modern organisational leadership and should be avoided.

While the TSLC provides a much more in-depth articulation and description of leadership styles, it does fail to acknowledge several key applications and nuances when applied to modern; day-to-day leadership practice.

Leadership requires a versatile approach to decision making. Different scenarios sometimes call for a leader to practise different styles depending on the situation. The TSLC fails to acknowledge this. 

For example, if we have a leader who can generally be said to fall within the consults style, this may not be the optimal approach in times where tight; potentially unachievable deadlines are in place. There is simply insufficient time to consult his team. Thus, in the name of ensuring the team achieves their deliverables in time, the leader must consciously elect to change from his natural style to that of telling.

It is in fact possible to execute two styles while managing the same situation. Very rarely should your position on the continuum be stagnant. 

For example, if you have a team member who is likely to miss an upcoming deadline and requires additional support from you, then the telling style may be the most appropriate. However, it is your duty as a leader to ensure there isn’t a deeper meaning to their perceived laziness. 

Here, you need to take a more pastoral approach. The joining style is likely the most appropriate here whereby they may need “coaching” on a personal issue. 

So, we have the telling style addressing the issue of productivity, and the joining style addressing their poor wellbeing simultaneously.

The key to leadership is knowing when to utilise which style. This may not come naturally to you, and that’s very common. 

Over time, as your experience and exposure to situations grows, the appropriate course of action will become clearer.  However, until then, just being aware of when you are executing a style, or changing your style in response to a stimulus, can help develop the language you need in order to reason with your own actions. 

The goal is to get better at identifying these scenarios and adjusting your style accordingly.