The Emotionally Intelligent Leader

There are four fundamental types of emotional intelligence, that all of us have to a greater or lesser degree, called emotional capabilities. [3] These capabilities are the building-blocks for a more specific set of skills and attributes, called emotional competencies. It is these emotional competencies that can have a real impact on how you perform at work. In a study on leadership styles headed by Goleman in 2000, a set of emotional competencies relating to leadership were identified. Goleman categorized these according to the emotional competencies referred to above.

They are:

Different combinations of these competencies result in different styles of leadership; an authoritative leader, for instance, will tend to be strong in the competencies of self-confidence, empathy and change catalyst. A good leader will, however, be able to pick and mix between these capabilities at will, and might use several of the six identified leadership styles in any one week.

Many managers may find the range of emotional competencies listed above rather daunting. The good news is that expanding one’s repertoire of competencies is entirely possible, in a way that increasing one’s IQ is not. Adapting your leadership style isn’t easy, but it is certainly achievable.

The Six Leadership Styles

Below is a description of the six leadership styles according to the concept of emotional intelligence. Each is accompanied by a case study as an illustration of the style in practice. You need to become familiar with the distinctions between these styles so that you can learn how to apply the right styles at the right time.

Leadership style

What the manager would say

Emotional Intelligence competencies

Coercive

“Don’t ask questions. Just do it!”

drive to achieve, initiative, self-control

Authoritative

“This is what I see. I want you to see it too, and I’ll need your help to get us there.”

self-confidence, empathy, catalyzing change

Affiliative

“Okay guys, let’s work together on this.”

empathy, building relationships, communication

Democratic

“What do you think?”

collaboration, team leadership, communication

Pace-setting

“Come on, keep up!”

conscientiousness, drive to achieve, initiative

Coaching

“How about doing it like this?”

empathy, developing others, self-awareness

How the Styles Compare

This diagram [4] shows how the different styles compare to each other in terms of their impact on working atmosphere. This encompasses the impact of these styles on flexibility, responsibility, standards, rewards, clarity, and commitment in the working environment.

As you can see from the diagram, not all of the six styles actually have a positive impact. Two, in particular, the coercive style and the pace-setting style, both have quite the opposite effect. The most strongly positive is the authoritative style. This isn’t surprising: authoritative leaders are capable of taking people along with them by sharing their vision and encouraging people to move towards it. The least successful, the coercive style, usually results in the opposite, with the leader discouraging, demotivating or alienating his/her people, rather than helping them to improve.

1. The Coercive Leader

This is the least effective of all the styles listed. Coercive leaders are inflexible, demanding, alienating, and demotivating. Their actions often result in very low staff morale. It can be appropriate during a genuine emergency, or when a short, sharp shock is required, but should be used with great care, and never for very long.

The Coercive Leader – Case Study

On Friday morning, Ed got a phone call from the duty manager at the factory. A balcony had given way and fallen onto the main assembly line. The line had been cleared but was currently out of action awaiting an assessment from the safety manager. It emerged that the safety manager was on leave that day, leaving his deputy in charge, and the line could not be restarted until the safety manager had given it the all-clear. The alternative was to have the line assessed by the firm’s official maintenance team, but they were unusually stretched this week and warned that it would be several hours before they could send somebody out. Aware of the impact even a day’s delay would have on the business, Ed knew he had to act. He phoned the safety manager’s mobile and ordered him back to the factory. The manager protested; he had booked the leave weeks ago, it was his wife’s 50th birthday and they had just set off for a weekend break in the Cotswolds. Ed felt bad, but insisted, explaining the impact the manager’s sacrifice would have on the company and awarding him two days’ extra leave the following week. Emotional blackmail was more than implicit in what Ed had to say to the manager, but he didn’t care; there was too much at stake. Within an hour, the safety manager had returned to the factory, a considerably irritated wife in tow, and by midday the factory was running once again at full output.

2. The Authoritative Leader

The authoritative style is, overall, probably the most effective. Authoritative leaders are visionaries, able to garner commitment to that vision, and then to step back and let people get on with achieving it in the most appropriate way for them. This flexibility encourages innovation and creative thinking amongst everyone.

This is a versatile approach to leadership and is particularly suited when things are not going too well, and when the leader needs to get his/her people motivated and enthused about a new vision. Leaders should be careful, however, not to use this style when they are plainly less experienced or more junior than the group for whom they are working. They should remember that it is an authoritative style, not a domineering one, that will be effective.

The Authoritative Leader – Case Study

Daniel had been working in the community health sector for five years and was recently promoted to his first management position, leading a small team of health workers and support staff at a health center in a deprived London suburb. Soon after his arrival, Daniel met individually with each member of staff, introducing himself and trying to get a feel for their skills and personalities and the general culture of the organization. Nobody wanted to elaborate, but it was obvious that Daniel’s predecessor had kept an uncomfortably tight rein on her staff’s activities. Now that somebody else was in charge, Daniel sensed a distinct glow of optimism about the place. He realized that this was something he could build on and set about drafting a vision and plan for the center. Daniel felt that the services currently offered by the center were tired, restrictive and pedestrian. A look at the visitor numbers seemed to confirm this impression; they had been in continual decline for the past four years, despite a sharp increase in the demand for health services in the area over the same period.

A week later he held a buffet lunch in his office for all the staff. People were tense, but excited and eager to hear what their new manager had to say. Daniel set out his vision for the health center. “I’ve got a lot of new ideas,” he explained, “but my guess is, all of you do too. And you’ve been working here a lot longer than I have. So I want to involve you, and I want you all to understand why I believe things need to change. There’s going to be some big changes, and some of these you’ll like, some you won’t. But if we’re really going to make this work, it’s the small changes that are going to make the difference. And that’s something we can’t achieve unless all of us decide we want to make a difference.”

In the three months following the meeting, the health center underwent a transformation. Empowered and inspired, members of staff now fully understood the potential value of their own contributions. New initiatives were formed, old ones completely redesigned. And with it, visitor numbers began to rise and the center became a local talking point. The local council, impressed by Daniel’s progress, increased their funding. The health center was quickly a very different place to the one that Daniel had discovered when he arrived on his first day at work.

3. The Affiliative Leader

The affiliative leader puts his/her people before the work that needs to be done, aiming to build loyalty and togetherness as a priority. Strong communication, trust, empathy, innovation and freedom to experiment are all evident within the workforce when the affiliative leader is in charge.

The affiliative style is a good all-round approach, but it is most helpful for increasing team togetherness, improving communication or restoring trust. It often works best when used with another style, as its emphasis on praise can fail to address poor performance. This approach can also, on its own, fail to give clear direction.

The Affiliative Leader – Case Study

Joanna came back from holiday to a changed office. The last time she had seen her team was at the pub, and everyone had seemed to be getting on well. But today there was none of the usual Monday morning chattering, and everyone was unmistakably avoiding each other’s gaze. Something had happened, that was clear.

At lunchtime, with the atmosphere as tense as ever, Joanna asked her assistant if she’d like to walk with her to the sandwich shop. Never one to hold back, Francesca started to fill her boss in on what had been going on in her absence as soon as they got out of the office.

She explained that one of the team had accused another of stealing a diamond ring that had been left in the women’s toilets. Just about everyone in the team instinctively took sides, and the disagreement escalated to encompass completely unrelated topics, several of which were work-related. So, although everyone appeared to be getting along fine, this seemed to be the trigger causing all the underlying tensions to surface.

The next day, Joanna called everyone together. “I don’t know exactly what’s been going on while I’m away,” she began, “but I know enough to know that it’s got to stop. For one thing, everyone’s miserable at the moment. And for another, your work is suffering.” Joanna felt as if she was addressing a bunch of schoolchildren.

“You’re like a bunch of school kids I’ve just caught fighting in the playground,” she said. “Now when I got involved in a fight as a kid, there was one thing I hated more than anything (apart from losing, obviously), and that was being made to make up with the other person. But that’s what I want you to do now. I’m going to split you into groups, and I want you to talk about what’s been going on over the past week, why, and what you can do to set things right again. And if you start to disagree again, I want you to stop talking and come to me. Does everyone agree that this is worth doing?”

Joanna helped facilitate the discussion in each group and her humorous, light-hearted yet no-nonsense approach was respected by everyone. Being forced to talk about what had been happening very quickly made a difference to the way the team worked. Joanna made the group come to terms with their differences, and in the process helped bring to light a number of issues within the group that they were then able to deal with.

4. The Democratic Leader

The democratic leader will gather people’s ideas and support, and allow employees a say in decisions. This builds trust and commitment, enables flexibility in how employees work, and maintains high morale. It works best when the leader is uncertain about which direction to take and is willing to listen to, and benefit from the ideas and guidance of other employees.

The approach is less likely to work where employees lack the competence, knowledge or experience to offer sound advice. It can sometimes lead to something of a rudderless ship, with everyone holding a different view on what should happen and nobody strong enough to make a decision and run with it. Weak leaders can sometimes hide behind this style, allowing them to procrastinate or blame the absence of consensus for a lack of firm action. It can be particularly inappropriate in times of crisis, where building consensus is usually very difficult.

The Democratic Leader – Case Study

Monica Caldini, warehouse manager for an electronics repair company, has something of a reputation for not doing as she is told. But, although certain members of senior management do not exactly approve of everything she does, she certainly gets results.

For a start, while operatives in every other warehouse have tough targets on the number of customer call-outs they make, and are under continual pressure to reduce the length of each call-out, Caldini asks just two things – that when her operatives leave the customer they know that they have done everything they can for them; and that they use it as an opportunity to get feedback about the product. And where the other warehouse operatives have to religiously follow standard manuals, Caldini’s operatives are encouraged to use their own expertise and initiative.

All this considerably reduces the number of call-outs each operative can make. But without the pressure to fix the problem and move on to the next call-out, the quality of the repair tends to be far better, resulting in substantially fewer return call-outs. The freedom that each operative has to do the repairs means that they get to build up real relationships with their customers.

Moreover, instead of formal training, Caldini encourages her operatives to talk about the work over free coffee and doughnuts. Next to the coffee machine is a ‘problems and solutions board’ for operatives to write on.

Caldini also insists that the whole team has lunch together once a week to share experiences. If somebody has a good idea about how working practices can be improved, Caldini uses this lunch to develop the idea and allows everyone to comment on it. If it is popular, Caldini will ensure it is put in place.

Caldini feeds back information about the products her team services to the research and development departments of the respective companies, resulting in securing a number of new repair contracts.

5. The Pace-Setting Leader

The pace-setting leader sets high personal performance standards and expects others to meet them also. Those who cannot measure up are likely to find themselves being replaced. The pace-setter does not trust their team to work in their own way or to take the initiative. The result is that the pace-setting style can destroy a positive work environment, as employees feel they will never be good enough and their morale falls. Flexibility and responsibility also disappear.

However, the approach can work well if team members are self-motivated, skilled and only require a minimum of coordination and direction. Teams of accountants, lawyers, researchers and technicians, for example, will often respond well to this style.

The Pace-Setting Leader – Case Study

When Steven joined the firm as director of Shared Services, everyone seemed to think he was a nice guy. He was friendly and approachable, didn’t seem to make unreasonable demands of people, and had a good idea about what needed to change in the department. What was also apparent was that Steven had apparently limitless energy, and was also in the office when everyone arrived and still there when the last person left. He didn’t take lunch breaks either, and when the staff gathered informally in the canteen for their regular Friday afternoon tea and biscuits, Steve remained upstairs, talking down the phone or sending frantic emails to suppliers.

Two months ago, Steven called the department together for a meeting in which he spelled out some major changes to how Shared Services was to operate. The timescales he was talking about were tight, some would – and did – say utopian. Quite soon, everyone realized why. They were based on everyone simultaneously adopting Steven’s style of working.

Early on in the change process, Steve fired two managers for not meeting their targets. They were quickly replaced, but their less experienced replacements soon began to flag. Morale rapidly began to plummet, and at lunchtime the staff canteen was filled with small groups of department members sharing their woes.

The biggest problem was not the targets, though. It was that Steve just told his people what he wanted and then left them to it. When managers sought guidance from Steve on specific issues, the response was always the same: “I’m too busy to worry about that. You work it out yourself.” Staff felt as if they were expected to work out how to meet his demanding targets simply by osmosis.

Yet Steve wasn’t really for a laissez-faire approach at all. In fact, he was remarkably keen to keep his finger in as many pies as possible, jumping in on individual projects and rubbishing the tactics used by individual managers. And, occasionally, as deadlines approached and Steve got nervous, he would intervene and add other people’s projects to his constantly growing to-do list. As Steve grew more stressed, so his behavior became ever more demanding and erratic.

6. The Coaching Leader

This style of leadership is the least often used of all the styles, possibly because many leaders do not see the personal development of individuals as a high priority. This is a shame, because the dialog that results from a coaching style makes people feel listened to, aids their understanding of how their work fits the bigger picture, and has a strong impact on motivation. Leaders who coach help individuals to both identify their strengths and weaknesses, and link them to career goals.

Coaching leaders are only successful, though, when their team members want to be coached, and welcome the leader’s attempts to help them achieve their best. Coaching is a skill, and as such will not work if it is applied clumsily or inexpertly, or if it is simply imposed on people without their consent.

The Coaching Leader – Case Study

Angela Ball, client manager, had had enough. After three months of unexplained absences, missed deadlines and formal warnings, one of her assistants, Paulo, had really overstepped the line. He had told a valued customer that his order must have been lost in the post, despite the fact that it had been sent registered mail and been signed for. When the customer complained, Angela went to see Paulo, only to find the order form sitting in his in-tray.

Unsure what else to do, Angela went to see her manager, Serge, to inform him that she was going to have to let Paulo go. “Before you do,” said Serge, “arrange a meeting for the three of us to have a chat.” Serge got Paulo to arrive for the meeting a few minutes before his boss and explained the reason for wanting to speak to him. He wanted to understand why Paulo had been behaving how he had been, and what could be done to address this. Paulo was clearly nervous, but he was also calm and attentive. Serge made clear to him that this was no ordinary disciplinary meeting. It was not about reprimand, it was about coming to an understanding. When Angela arrived, Serge began to discuss with Paulo how he felt about his job, and why he did not appear to be fully contributing. The discussion was fruitful, and both Angela and Paulo appeared to feel at ease discussing their respective frustrations; Paulo at the job, Angela at her inability to motivate Paulo. The neutrality of the setting helped, certainly, but it was Serge who really helped move things along. He treated both Angela and Paulo with equal respect and was careful not to take sides. Together the three of them came to an agreement, and Paulo seemed to have really listened to what was said. Serge asked Angela to stay behind briefly. Together they discussed how she had handled Paulo’s absences and performance issues. Angela gave examples of things she had said, and listened carefully to Serge’s words of advice.

The change in Paulo, while not complete, was nonetheless striking. His attendance improved dramatically, but when things started to go awry again a month later, Angela felt comfortable discussing the issue with him. She was delighted at the success of this tactic, and felt that Serge’s intervention had been valuable for both her and Paulo alike.