In 1911, Frederick Taylor argued that there is no single best way of organizing every task: each one should be analyzed to find its own. We can ask the same about leading people. Is there one best way? No. But there is a best leadership style for a given situation, which makes style a tool to choose, not only a personality trait.
A quick map of leadership theories
Many theories try to define the excellent leader. Our learning design draws mainly on situational leadership: the leader chooses attitude and action according to the context. Kurt Lewin's framework from the 1930s laid the foundation with three macro-styles. Autocratic leadership decides without consulting the team, useful when speed matters and demoralizing over time. Democratic leadership involves the team in decisions, slow in emergencies but strong on satisfaction and productivity. Laissez-faire leaves freedom on how and when, with support available, rewarding for competent self-motivated people and counterproductive for everyone else.
Decades later, Daniel Goleman, Richard Boyatzis and Annie McKee described six distinct styles, and these are the ones our scenarios are built around.
Emotional intelligence first
Situational leadership requires emotional intelligence: recognizing our own emotions and those of others, naming them and using the information to guide thinking and behavior. Goleman's research found that executives lacking it were rarely rated as outstanding and their divisions underperformed by close to 20%. Its five components are self-awareness, self-regulation, social skill, empathy and motivation. Everyone is born with a general potential for it, and emotional competencies can be learned by study and practice, which is a founding premise of our method: a safe environment designed to practice these skills, situation after situation.
Each situation, its own style
Crisis. When fast change is needed or a serious problem arises with an employee, a commanding style is the most effective: many directives, little input sought, tight control, consequences made explicit. It works when tasks are straightforward, when the team needs clear direction and the leader has more information, when inaction has serious consequences, and with underperformers after other strategies have failed. It fails in complex situations and with highly skilled people, and leaders must drop it the moment the crisis is over.
Change. When a new direction or a turnaround is needed, a visionary style inspires and motivates towards a common goal: the leader says where everyone is going, not how. It relies on facilitation, on hearing individual perspectives and on a wide range of levers. It works when the leader believes in the vision and is confident, self-aware and empathetic. It fails if the leader is not seen as credible, and it is weaker with a team more expert than the leader.
Conflict and stress. When tension, conflict or trust problems appear, an affiliative style restores harmony: people before task, emotional challenges shared appropriately, good behavior rewarded. It works when the team needs direct assistance and when combined with coaching or visionary leadership. It fails where clear direction is needed, where the leader lacks empathy, or where performance is weak.
Growth. When someone needs to develop skills over the medium term or behaviors are misaligned, a coaching style connects personal goals to the organization's. The leader helps people see strengths and weaknesses against their aspirations, and gives ongoing support, challenge and feedback, sometimes trading short-term performance for development. It works when the person acknowledges a gap and is motivated to take initiative. It fails in crises and with people who want direction, not questions.
Consensus. When a new idea needs buy-in and the team's input, a democratic style focuses on listening and collaboration: decisions by consensus, meetings to surface concerns, negative feedback rare. It works with competent, engaged people and enough time. It fails in emergencies and with inexperienced or uninformed teams.
Results. When the focus is performance against high standards, a pacesetting style has the leader exemplify the standards and ask the team to work faster and better. It works with motivated, competent people who need little management and when quick results are required. It fails with people who need vision or development, and it burns teams out if overused.
Reading the context is the skill
A good leader is not always the same. The skill is reading the context and switching style, and leadership in any context is expressed in words and attitudes: it is within a situation that words gain their meaning.
This is why role play is among the most effective strategies for soft skills, and why the situation depicted in a scenario is part of the training. In Skillgym, each scenario is designed around a situation and the style that fits it, with a character whose personality and needs call for that style. The trainee converses freely, by voice or by text; the character reacts to what the trainee says according to who they are; a live coach suggests how to adjust. Practicing the most common and the most critical situations, with characters who respond differently to the same move, builds the familiarity that lets a leader recognize the situation at work and pick the style before it is too late.
If you want to try switching styles with characters who will tell you whether it worked, book a demo.