The practice of “leadership”—influencing behavior to achieve a desired result—encompasses a broad skillset we can apply daily across many and varied situations. Seen in that light, leading can be broken down into several different styles—not one effective in all situations.
Good leaders recognize that different scenarios and settings call for different leadership styles, styles that can be consciously learned and employed.
Most of us have a default leadership style we’re most comfortable with, and we tend to use that style even in settings where another style might work better. For that reason, it’s essential that we develop a range of leadership styles, including the ones that don’t come naturally to us. We must also hone our ability to read situations and identify the style that would be most effective. And we must develop the facility to shift from one style to another as needed.
A tall order? Yes. And for most of us, a lifelong challenge. We never attain perfection, but we improve over time. It all starts with acknowledging that different situations call for different leadership styles.
The leadership literature offers several models for categorizing leadership styles. It doesn’t matter greatly which model you adopt; it’s more important that you use a model or at least adopt the underlying thinking. I personally like the style set outlined by Daniel Goleman, which I explore in my book, All Physicians Lead.
In Goleman’s construct, there are six basic leadership styles:
- Commanding. The leader makes all the decisions and tells everyone what to do.
- Pacesetting. The leader leads by example, setting the pace for the rest of the team and expecting them to match it.
- Visionary. Team members are invited to buy into the leader’s vision.
- Democratic. A participatory form of leadership in which all team members have a say.
- Affiliative. The leader values relationships primarily and focuses on creating a positive work environment.
- Coaching. The leader takes a developmental approach, helping team members improve their skills.
None of these styles work uniformly in all situations.
Think about running a code in the ICU, for example. You don’t have time to build relationships or poll people’s opinions. The patient may be dying, and you just need to save their life as efficiently as possible. A commanding rather than a democratic style makes sense here. On the other hand, if you’re new in the outpatient clinic and you’re getting to know the team, a relationship-based (affiliative) style might be the perfect approach.
A commanding style is often the most comfortable one for physicians. The pace and urgency of the work, along with a shortage of resources and an overload of patients, can create a constant feeling of time pressure. And if you’re the physician in charge, the easiest way to deal with time pressure may be to make decisions and move on. However, the commanding style has many drawbacks if overused. People don’t like to work with autocrats, and you will very likely miss out on valued input.
Learning about leadership styles is not just an academic exercise. It gives you real tools to examine your behavior and lead more effectively.
“Oh, I was using a democratic style when I should have been more visionary.” Or, “I was using a pacesetting approach, and that probably wasn’t the best way to manage the team in that situation.” It also gives you terminology to use with your team and colleagues so that you all speak the same language.
When trying to develop new leadership styles, it’s helpful to ask others how they perceive you. You may think you’re being democratic, but they may tell you, “We don’t feel comfortable interrupting you or dissenting from your decision.” This is vital information to learn.
It takes intentionality to learn different leadership styles and then to become skilled at applying them. But think of it this way. What you’re really doing is diagnosing a situation and trying to figure out what medicine—i.e., leadership style—is appropriate based on that diagnosis. We all can understand that process.