HBR's 10 Must Reads on Managing People 

Havard Business School

And perhaps most important, the research indicates that leaders with the best results do not rely on only one leadership style; they use most of them in a given week—seamlessly and in different measure—depending on the business situation. Imagine the styles, then, as the array of clubs in a golf pro’s bag. Over the course of a game, the pro picks and chooses clubs based on the demands of the shot. Sometimes he has to ponder his selection, but usually it is automatic. The pro senses the challenge ahead, swiftly pulls out the right tool, and elegantly puts it to work. That’s how high-impact leaders operate, too.

What are the six styles of leadership? None will shock workplace veterans. Indeed, each style, by name and brief description alone, will likely resonate with anyone who leads, is led, or as is the case with most of us, does both.

1. Coercive leaders demand immediate compliance.
2. Authoritative leaders mobilize people toward a vision.
3. Affiliative leaders create emotional bonds and harmony.
4. Democratic leaders build consensus through participation.
5. Pacesetting leaders expect excellence and self-direction.
6. And coaching leaders develop people for the future.

Many managers mistakenly assume that leadership style is a function of personality rather than strategic choice.

Research has shown that the most successful leaders have strengths in the following emotional intelligence competencies:

1. self-awareness
2. self-regulation
3. motivation
4. empathy
5. and social skill.

There are six basic styles of leadership; each makes use of the key components of emotional intelligence in different combinations

1. The coercive style. This “Do what I say” approach can be very effective in a turnaround situation, a natural disaster, or when working with problem employees. But in most situations, coercive leadership inhibits the organization’s flexibility and dampens employees’ motivation.
2. The authoritative style. An authoritative leader takes a “Come with me” approach: she states the overall goal but gives people the freedom to choose their own means of achieving it. This style works especially well when a business is adrift. It is less effective when the leader is working with a team of experts who are more experienced than he is.
3. The affiliative style. The hallmark of the affiliative leader is a “People come first” attitude. This style is particularly useful for building team harmony or increasing morale. But its exclusive focus on praise can allow poor performance to go uncorrected. Also, affiliative leaders rarely offer advice, which often leaves employees in a quandary.
4. The democratic style. This style’s impact on organizational climate is not as high as you might imagine. By giving workers a voice in decisions, democratic leaders build organizational flexibility and responsibility and help generate fresh ideas. But sometimes the price is endless meetings and confused employees who feel leaderless.
5. The pacesetting style. A leader who sets high performance standards and exemplifies them himself has a very positive impact on employees who are self-motivated and highly competent. But other employees tend to feel overwhelmed by such a leader’s demands for excellence—and to resent his tendency to take over a situation.
6. The coaching style. This style focuses more on personal development than on immediate work-related tasks. It works well when employees are already aware of their weaknesses and want to improve, but not when they are resistant to changing their ways.

The team tested each executive’s immediate sphere of influence for its climate. “Climate” is not an amorphous term. First defined by psychologists George Litwin and Richard Stringer and later refined by McClelland and his colleagues, it refers to six key factors that influence an organization’s working environment:
1. its flexibility—that is, how free employees feel to innovate unencumbered by red tape;
2. their sense of responsibility to the organization;
3. the level of standards that people set;
4. the sense of accuracy about performance feedback and aptness of rewards;
5. the clarity people have about mission and values; and finally,
6. the level of commitment to a common purpose.

Emotional intelligence—the ability to manage ourselves and our relationships effectively—consists of four fundamental capabilities: self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, and social skill. Each capability, in turn, is composed of specific sets of competencies. Below is a list of the capabilities and their corresponding traits.
1. Self-Awareness
a. Emotional self-awareness: the ability to read and understand your emotions as well as recognize their impact on work performance, relationships, and the like.
b. Accurate self-assessment: a realistic evaluation of your strengths and limitations.
c. Self-confidence: a strong and positive sense of self-worth.
2. Self-Management
a. Self-control: the ability to keep disruptive emotions and impulses under control.
b. Trustworthiness: a consistent display of honesty and integrity.
c. Conscientiousness: the ability to manage yourself and your responsibilities.
d. Adaptability: skill at adjusting to changing situations and overcoming obstacles.
e. Achievement orientation: the drive to meet an internal standard of excellence.
f. Initiative: a readiness to seize opportunities.
3.  Social Awareness
a.  Empathy: skill at sensing other people’s emotions, understanding their perspective, and taking an active interest in their concerns.
b. Organizational awareness: the ability to read the currents of organizational life, build decision networks, and navigate politics.
c. Service orientation: the ability to recognize and meet customers’ needs.
4. Social Skill
a. Visionary leadership: the ability to take charge and inspire with a compelling vision.
b. Influence: the ability to wield a range of persuasive tactics.
c. Developing others: the propensity to bolster the abilities of others through feedback and guidance.
d. Communication: skill at listening and at sending clear, convincing, and well-tuned messages.
e. Change catalyst: proficiency in initiating new ideas and leading people in a new direction.
f. Conflict management: the ability to de-escalate disagreements and orchestrate resolutions.
g. Building bonds: proficiency at cultivating and maintaining a web of relationships.
h. Teamwork and collaboration: competence at promoting cooperation and building teams.

The affiliative style’s generally positive impact makes it a good all-weather approach, but leaders should employ it particularly when trying to build team harmony, increase morale, improve communication, or repair broken trust. For instance, one executive in our study was hired to replace a ruthless team leader. The former leader had taken credit for his employees’ work and had attempted to pit them against one another. His efforts ultimately failed, but the team he left behind was suspicious and weary. The new executive managed to mend the situation by unstintingly showing emotional honesty and rebuilding ties. Several months in, her leadership had created a renewed sense of commitment and energy.
Despite its benefits, the affiliative style should not be used alone. Its exclusive focus on praise can allow poor performance to go uncorrected; employees may perceive that mediocrity is tolerated. And because affiliative leaders rarely offer constructive advice on how to improve, employees must figure out how to do so on their own. When people need clear directives to navigate through complex challenges, the affiliative style leaves them rudderless. Indeed, if overly relied on, this style can actually steer a group to failure. Perhaps that is why many affiliative leaders, including Torre, use this style in close conjunction with the authoritative style

However, the democratic style has its drawbacks, which is why its impact on climate is not as high as some of the other styles. One of its more exasperating consequences can be endless meetings where ideas are mulled over, consensus remains elusive, and the only visible result is scheduling more meetings. Some democratic leaders use the style to put off making crucial decisions, hoping that enough thrashing things out will eventually yield a blinding insight. In reality, their people end up feeling confused and leaderless. Such an approach can even escalate conflicts.
When does the style work best? This approach is ideal when a leader is himself uncertain about the best direction to take and needs ideas and guidance from able employees. And even if a leader has a strong vision, the democratic style works well to generate fresh ideas for executing that vision.
The democratic style, of course, makes much less sense when employees are not competent or informed enough to offer sound advice. And it almost goes without saying that building consensus is wrongheaded in times of crisis.

leaders must first understand which emotional intelligence competencies underlie the leadership styles they are lacking. They can then work assiduously to increase their quotient of them. 

How do you help employees charge themselves up [motivate them]? Enrich their jobs by applying these principles:
•  Increase individuals’ accountability for their work by removing some controls.
•  Give people responsibility for a complete process or unit of work.
•  Make information available directly to employees rather than sending it through their managers first.
•  Enable people to take on new, more difficult tasks they haven’t handled before.
•  Assign individuals specialized tasks that allow them to become experts.

Managers may initially fear that they’ll no longer be needed once their direct reports take on more responsibility. Employees will likely require time to master new tasks and challenges.
But managers will eventually rediscover their real functions, for example, developing staff rather than simply checking their work. And employees’ enthusiasm and commitment will ultimately rise—along with your company’s overall performance.

Most organizations promote employees into managerial positions based on their technical competence. Very often, however, those people fail to grasp how their roles have changed—that their jobs are no longer about personal achievement but instead about enabling others to achieve, that sometimes driving the bus means taking a backseat, and that building a team is often more important than cutting a deal.

At a minimum, you need to appreciate your boss’s goals and pressures, his or her strengths and weaknesses. What are your boss’s organizational and personal objectives, and what are his or her pressures, especially those from his or her own boss and others at the same level? What are your boss’s long suits and blind spots? What is the preferred style of working? Does your boss like to get information through memos, formal meetings, or phone calls? Does he or she thrive on conflict or try to minimize it? Without this information, a manager is flying blind when dealing with the boss, and unnecessary conflicts, misunderstandings, and problems are inevitable

The subordinate who passively assumes that he or she knows what the boss expects is in for trouble. Of course, some superiors will spell out their expectations very explicitly and in great detail. But most do not. And although many corporations have systems that provide a basis for communicating expectations (such as formal planning processes, career planning reviews, and performance appraisal reviews), these systems never work perfectly. Also, between these formal reviews, expectations invariably change.
Ultimately, the burden falls on the subordinate to find out what the boss’s expectations are. They can be both broad (such as what kinds of problems the boss wishes to be informed about and when) as well as very specific (such things as when a particular project should be completed and what kinds of information the boss needs in the interim).
Getting a boss who tends to be vague or not explicit to express expectations can be difficult. But effective managers find ways to get that information. Some will draft a detailed memo covering key aspects of their work and then send it to their boss for approval. They then follow this up with a face-to-face discussion in which they go over each item in the memo. A discussion like this will often surface virtually all of the boss’s expectations.
Other effective managers will deal with an inexplicit boss by initiating an ongoing series of informal discussions about “good management” and “our objectives.” Still others find useful information more indirectly through those who used to work for the boss and through the formal planning systems in which the boss makes commitments to his or her own superior. Which approach you choose, of course, should depend on your understanding of your boss’s style.
Developing a workable set of mutual expectations also requires that you communicate your own expectations to the boss, find out if they are realistic, and influence the boss to accept the ones that are important to you. Being able to influence the boss to value your expectations can be particularly important if the boss is an overachiever. Such a boss will often set unrealistically high standards that need to be brought into line with reality.

A commitment to an optimistic delivery date may please a superior in the short term but become a source of displeasure if not honored. It’s difficult for a boss to rely on a subordinate who repeatedly slips deadlines. As one president (describing a subordinate) put it: “I’d rather he be more consistent even if he delivered fewer peak successes—at least I could rely on him.”