Leadership - What Really Matters: A Handbook on Systemic Leadership (Management for Professionals)

independently; and lastly, the extent to which the manager succeeds in motivating
those he or she leads (see Heinen 1998, p. 227).

2.1.3.3 Styles of Leadership with EQ

Still another factor can be used to differentiate between leadership styles: the
emotional intelligence of the managers. Daniel Goleman has made exciting findings
on this topic that I would like to review here, as I believe they are state-of-the-art
with regard to the topic of leadership styles. After interviewing more than 400
upper-level managers, Goleman identified 6 main styles of leadership. He also
demonstrated that successful managers do not lead with a particular style, but are
able to be flexible in utilizing different styles that call on them to activate various
aspects of their emotional intelligence (see Goleman 2000, pp. 27–38).
The first of the six styles, theauthoritarianstyle, is in most cases ineffective, as
it harms the working climate and effectively “paralyzes” the employees. They do
not feel any sense of responsibility, as they only carry out instructions and do not
work on their own initiative. Therefore, their commitment steadily declines. There
are however situations in which quick decisions and consistent “follow-through”
are needed; one scenario would be the threat of a hostile takeover. In such cases, the
authoritarian style of leadership might be a good option.
Secondly, there is theauthoritativestyle of leadership. “Authoritative leaders
are visionaries; they motivate the people by clearly showing them how their work
contributes to the realization of the company’s broader vision. Those who work
for such leaders know that their work counts, and why” (Goleman 2000, p. 30).
The manager provides the frameworks and goals, but does not limit the freedom

despotic

superior decides

and gives

instructions

superior decides

but tries to

convince others

of the validity his

decisions before

giving

instructions

superior decides,

but allows his

decisions to be

questioned in

order to obtain

their acceptance

the person in

charge informs

those in

subordinate

position of his

intentions, but

allows these to

express their

opinions before

reaching a final

decision

the person in

charge presents

the problem and,

surveying

solutions agreed

upon in a mutual

process, decides

in favour of the

one that seems

best to him

the group arrives

at a decision

after the person

that holds

responsibility has

revealed the

problem and

determined the

limits within

which decisions

can be made

the group

decides, while

the person in

charge acts as a

coordinator in all

directions

patriarchal participatory democratic

authoritarian style of leadership cooperative style of leadership

range of decision for the person in

charge

range of decision for the group

Fig. 2.2 Leadership styles (Source: Thommen and Achleitner 2001)

50 2 Occupation or Calling: What Makes for Good Leadership?