Search form

Learn about the different styles of leadership, determine which is appropriate for your organization, and how to choose and develop a leadership style.


  • What is leadership style?

  • Why pay attention to leadership style?

  • What are some conceptions and methods of leadership?

  • What are some ways of looking at leadership style and what are their effects on an organization?

  • How do you determine what is an appropriate style?

  • How do you choose and develop a leadership style?

Leadership styles are the ways in which a leader views leaderships and performs it in order to accomplish their goals. This chapter provides a guide for understanding what different styles look like, which ones are more and less effective, and how you can develop or change your style to come closer to the ideal you aspire to.

What is leadership style?

According to John Gardner, in On Leadership, "Leadership is the process of persuasion or example by which an individual (or leadership team) induces a group to pursue objectives held by the leader or shared by the leader and his or her followers." If we accept that definition, then leadership style is the way in which that process is carried out.

Leaders' styles encompass how they relate to others within and outside the organization, how they view themselves and their position, and - to a very large extent - whether or not they are successful as leaders. If a task needs to be accomplished, how does a particular leader set out to get it done? If an emergency arises, how does a leader handle it? If the organization needs the support of the community, how does a leader go about mobilizing it? All of these depend on leadership style.

Much of the material in this section looks at individual leaders, but leadership can be invested in a team, or in several teams, or in different people at different times. Many - perhaps most - organizations have several levels of leadership, and thus many leaders. Regardless of the actual form of leadership, however, leadership style is an issue. Whether you're the leader of a large organization or a member of a small group that practices collective leadership, the way that leadership plays out will have a great deal to do with the effectiveness and influence of your work.

Why pay attention to leadership style?

The style of an organization's leadership is reflected in both the nature of that organization and its relationships with the community. If a leader is suspicious and jealous of power, others in the organization are likely to behave similarly, in dealing with both colleagues and the community. If a leader is collaborative and open, this behavior is likely to encourage the same attitudes among staff members, and to work collaboratively with other organizations.


We've all known and seen different types of leaders. (We'll look more closely at some specific styles later in this section.) One of the enduring images of the 20th century is that of hundreds of thousands of Germans wildly cheering their Fuhrer in Leni Riefenstahl's brilliant and terrifying 1930's Nazi propaganda film "Triumph of the Will." Franklin Roosevelt comforted a nation paralyzed by economic depression by explaining that "We have nothing to fear but fear itself." John Kennedy electrified a generation with his exhortation to "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."

All of these are representations - for various purposes - of great motivational leaders working their magic through their speeches. Our concept of leadership tends to linger on such examples, but there are other kinds of leaders as well. Gandhi sitting and spinning in a dusty Indian courtyard; John Lewis and other Freedom Riders being brutally beaten in Mississippi; Vaclav Havel refusing to take revenge on the former Communist bureaucrats of Czechoslovakia; Nelson Mandela sitting in prison on Robben Island - these also are pictures of leadership.

Conceptions of leadership

The leadership style of an organization may be concerned with less dramatic issues than these examples, but it nonetheless has profound effects on the people within that organization, and on everything the organization does. Styles have to do with a leader's - and organization's - ideas of what leadership is and does. Possible conceptions include:

  • Exercising power. Leadership is a matter of pursuing one's own ends. Asserting power over others is an end in itself, and symbolizes one's position as a leader.
  • Task orientation. Leadership is getting the job done - that's all that matters.



Methods of leadership


  • Pure exercise of power. "My way or the highway." If you don't do what the leader demands, no matter how unreasonable, you're gone. The leader's decisions are not open to question or discussion, and no one else gets to make decisions.
  • Political scheming. The leader plays people off against one another, creates factions within the organization, cultivates "allies" and isolates "enemies," and builds up (through favors or overlooking poor performance) personal debt which can be cashed in when needed, in order to manipulate people and events as he wishes.


  • Using relationships. The leader develops strong positive relationships with all or most of the people in the organization, and uses these relationships to steer people in particular directions. People do what they're asked because of their relationships with the leader, rather than for reasons connected to the tasks themselves.

In Sicily, a young archeologist was the dig supervisor, given the task of negotiating with and organizing local workmen for a dig. The workmen, most of them nearly twice the supervisor's age, saw the job as an opportunity to make some money without doing much work (and had been given to understand as much by the local mafioso who recruited them).

The supervisor surprised them by speaking their dialect, and by treating them with respect. But the biggest surprise was that, after explaining carefully what needed to be done and how, he didn't stand over them or tell each person what to do. Instead, he simply turned away and went to work. The older men, impressed and embarrassed, started to work as well. They were surprised once more when they realized that the young archeologist was willing to do any job, no matter how hard or dirty, and that - although they were farmers, accustomed to labor - they couldn't outwork him no matter how they tried. Contrary to their original expectations, they worked hard for the time they were employed...without the supervisor ever giving orders.

  • Charisma. Some leaders are charismatic enough to simply pull others along by the power of their personalities alone. They may, in fact, advocate and accomplish wonderful things, but they do it through people's loyalty to and awe of them.

Alexander the Great was only 18 when he succeeded his murdered father as King of Macedonia, and only 32 when he died, but he was able in the short time in between to conquer much of the known world. His personal magnetism was such that his soldiers - who knew him well, and fought beside him - thought him immortal, and followed him for years through battle after battle, and through one unknown country after another. As he lay dying, his whole army - 50,000 men - filed past to say goodbye personally to the leader they loved and revered. That's charisma.


Various combinations of these and other methods.

The combination of the leader's and organization's conception of leadership and the leader's way of leading does much to define leadership style. In addition, the characteristics of the leadership are almost always reflected in the relationships within and among the staff, participants, Board, and others related to the organization, as well as in its policies, procedures, and program. We'll return to this idea in more detail when we examine specific styles later in this section.

There are also other factors that come into play in defining leadership style. In some organizations, for instance, leaders are expected to shake things up, and to foster and support change. In others, they are expected to sustain the status quo. In some, they are expected to be proactive, and assertive; in others, more passive. All of these elements - concepts of leadership, methods of leading, attitude toward change, assertiveness - combine with personalities and individual experience in different ways to create different styles of leaders.

There are a number of theories about leadership style, many involving a continuum - two opposite styles with a number of intermediate stops between them. We'll try here to present four styles that summarize many of the existing theories, and to show how they interact with another, all-embracing way of looking at leadership style.



Four leadership styles:


It's also important to remember that people can be either effective or ineffective in any of these categories. An autocratic leader might simply, through his behavior, serve to strengthen the very forces that he's trying to squash. A managerial leader may be an excellent or a terrible manager. Adopting a certain style doesn't necessarily imply carrying it off well.


1. Autocratic. Autocratic leaders insist on doing it all themselves. They have all the power, make all the decisions, and don't often tell anyone else about what they're doing. If you work for an autocratic leader, your job is usually to do what you're told.

An autocratic leader often maintains his authority by force, intimidation, threats, reward and punishment, or position. Although he may or may not have a clear vision, and may or may not be steering the organization in the right direction, he's not concerned with whether anyone else agrees with what he's doing or not.

Autocratic leadership allows quick decision-making, and eliminates arguments over how and why things get done. At the same time, however, it may reduce the likelihood of getting a range of different ideas from different people, and can treat people badly, or as if they don't matter. If, as is often true, the leader is concerned with his own power and status, he'll be looking over his shoulder, and moving to squelch any opposition to him or his ideas and decisions. Innovation or the use of others' ideas is only permissible if it's part of the leader's plan.

Effects on the organization. Autocratic leaders often leave fear and mistrust in their wake. Others in the organization tend to copy their protection of their position, and their distrust of others' ideas and motives. Often, autocratically -led organizations are not particularly supportive of personal relationships, but much more keyed to chain-of-command. Everyone has her own sphere, and protects it at all costs. Communication tends to go in only one direction - up - as a result of which rumor can become the standard way of spreading news in the organization.

At its best (and there are decent autocratic leaders - see the box directly below ), autocratic leadership provides a stable and secure work environment and decisive, effective leadership. All too often, however, it can sacrifice initiative, new ideas, and the individual and group development of staff members for the predictability of a highly structured, hierarchical environment where everyone knows exactly what he's supposed to do, and follows orders without question.

Although the above paints a pretty bleak picture, many autocratic leaders are not hated and feared, but rather esteemed, and even loved. It depends on their own personalities - like anyone else, they can be nice people, or highly charismatic, or even willing to listen to and act on others' ideas - on the organization itself (in the military, most soldiers want someone firmly in charge), on the quality of their decisions, and on the needs of the people they lead. If they're generally decent and not abusive, make good decisions for the organization, and fulfill the parent-figure or authority -figure image that most people in the organization are looking for, they can be both effective and well-respected.

2. Managerial. The leader who sees herself as a manager is concerned primarily with the running of the organization. Where it's going is not at issue, as long as it gets there in good shape. She may pay attention to relationships with and among staff members, but only in the service of keeping things running smoothly. Depending upon the nature and stability of the organization, her main focus may be on funding, on strengthening the organization's systems and infrastructure (policies, positions, equipment, etc.), or on making sure day-to-day operations go well (including making sure that everyone is doing what he's supposed to).

If she's efficient, a managerial leader will generally be on top of what's happening in the organization. Depending on the size of the organization and her management level, she'll have control of the budget, know the policies and procedures manual inside out, be aware of who's doing his job efficiently and who's not, and deal with issues quickly and firmly as they come up. What she won't do is steer the organization. Vision isn't her business; maintaining the organization is.

Effects on the organization. In general, a well-managed organization, regardless of its leadership style, is a reasonably pleasant place to work. Staff members don 't have to worry about ambiguity, or about whether they'll get paid. As long as oversight is relatively civil - no screaming at people, no setting staff members against one another - things go along on an even keel. Good managers even try to foster friendly relationships with and among staff, because they make the organization work better.

On the other hand, good management without a clear vision creates an organization with no sense of purpose. The organization may simply act to support the status quo, doing what it has always done in order to keep things running smoothly. That attitude neither fosters passion in staff members, nor takes account of the changing needs (and they do change) of the target population or the community. The organization may do what it does efficiently and well...but what it does may not be what it should be doing, and it won't be examining that possibility any time soon.

Obviously, the leader of any organization - as well as any other administrator - has to be a manager at least some of the time. Many are in fact excellent managers, and keep the organization running smoothly on a number of levels. The issue here is the style that person adopts as a leader. If she sees management as her primary purpose, she's a managerial leader, and will have a very different slant on leadership than if her style is essentially democratic, for instance.

3 Democratic. A democratic leader understands that there is no organization without its people. He looks at his and others' positions in terms of responsibilities rather than status, and often consults in decision-making. While he solicits, values, and takes into account others' opinions, however, he sees the ultimate responsibility for decision-making as his own. He accepts that authority also means the buck stops with him. Although he sees the organization as a cooperative venture, he knows that he ultimately has to face the consequences of his decisions alone.

Democratic leadership invites the participation of staff members and others, not only in decision-making, but in shaping the organization's vision. It allows everyone to express opinions about how things should be done, and where the organization should go. By bringing in everyone's ideas, it enriches the organization's possibilities. But it still leaves the final decisions about what to do with those ideas in the hands of a single person.

Some models of democratic leadership might put the responsibility in the hands of a small group - a management team or executive committee - rather than an individual.


What a democratic leadership doesn't necessarily do - although it can - is establish staff ownership of the organization and its goals. Although everyone may be asked for ideas or opinions, not all of those are used or incorporated in the workings of the organization. If there is no real discussion of ideas, with a resulting general agreement, a sense of ownership is unlikely. Thus, democratic leadership may have some of the drawbacks of autocratic leadership - a lack of buy-in - without the advantages of quick and clear decision-making that comes with the elimination of consultation.


A collaborative leader has to let go of the need for control or power or status if she is to be effective. Her goal is to foster the collaborative process, and to empower the group - whether the staff and others involved in an organization, or the individuals and organizations participating in a community initiative - to control the vision and the workings of the organization. She must trust that, if people have all the relevant information, they'll make good decisions...and she must make sure that they have that information, and provide the facilitation that assures those good decisions.


David Chrislip and Carl E. Larson, in Collaborative Leadership - How Citizens and Civic Leaders Can Make a Difference, equate collaborative leadership not only with servant leadership, but with transformational (see below) and facilitative leadership as well. They identify four characteristics of the collaborative leader:




Collaborative decision-making can be democratic - based on a majority vote after discussion - or dependent on arriving at consensus, with a range of possibilities in between. Consensus decision-making is particularly difficult, in that it requires everyone to agree before a decision can be made. A single determined individual can derail the process indefinitely. Even at its best, a consensus process can take inordinate amounts of time, and try the patience of all involved. It's not impossible to employ, but it takes real commitment to the ideal of consensus, and enormous patience. In practice, true consensus decision-making is most often used in collective organizations, which are significantly different from collaborative ones, and often involve everyone in leadership.

Styles of leadership




Combining the two views of leadership style

These two ways of looking at leadership style are not mutually exclusive: in fact, it's easier to look at leadership in the context of both. Assuming, as almost all leadership theorists do, that transformational is either better than, or a necessary addition to, transactional leadership, what elements go into creating a transformational leader? What styles are transformational leaders likely to employ, and how?

Elements of transformational leadership

The transformational leader conceives of leadership as helping people to create a common vision and then to pursue that vision until it's realized. She elicits that vision from the needs and aspirations of others, gives it form, and sets it up as a goal to strive for. The vision is not hers: it is a shared vision that each person sees as his own.

Martin Luther King's overwhelming "I Have A Dream" speech derived its power not only from the beauty of his oratory, but from the fact that it crystallized the feelings of all those citizens, of all races, who believed that racism was a great wrong. In that speech, King spoke with the voices of the hundreds of thousands who stood before the Lincoln Memorial, and of millions of others who shared in his vision. That speech remains as the defining moment of the Civil Rights struggle, and defined King - who had already proved his mettle in Birmingham and elsewhere - as a transformational leader.




Fidel Castro initiated and has maintained desperately-needed land, education, health, and other reforms in Cuba, for which he is still revered by much of the island's population. He also eliminated any vestige of political freedom, imprisoned and executed dissenters and political opponents, and was at least partially responsible for destroying much of Cuba's economic base in the name of ideological purity. As with the four styles described earlier, there is no guarantee that either a transactional or transformational leader will be an effective one.


How do you determine what is an appropriate style?


In an emergency, no one would suggest sitting down and making a group decision about what to do. There has to be decisive action, and one person has to take it as soon as possible. As long as it's clear who that person is, there should be no question about the philosophical issues involved. By the same token, it's counter -productive to make decisions about how people should do their jobs without at least consulting those people about what might work best. Good leaders usually have a style that they consciously use most of the time, but they're not rigid. They change as necessary to deal with whatever comes up.

There are at least two other factors that have to be considered when choosing a leadership style. The first is that leadership style - at least at the beginning - must, to at least some extent, be consistent with what people in the organization expect. You can try to change their expectations and perceptions of how an organization should be run - that's part of leadership - but you have to start by meeting them at least halfway, or you'll never get close enough to talk about it.

If you're trying to turn a system that's been autocratic into a collaborative one, you have to accept that most people in the system not only won't welcome the change, and that some won't even understand what you're suggesting. You also have to accept that they've probably developed their own methods of getting around the rigidity of the system that they'll continue to use, even if the system is no longer rigid. It can take a long time just to get your ideas across, and longer to help people overcome their suspicions and break old habits. A few may never be able to. You need patience, and the willingness to act occasionally in ways you'd rather not.

In the second story at the beginning of this section, the school principal was on the side of the angels: he was trying to be a collaborative, transformational leader who would inspire and support teachers to become the best educators they could, and who would make the school into a model of excellence, learning for all, and collegiality. The problem was that the teachers expected something entirely different. They wanted someone to tell them what to do, and then leave them alone to do it. They saw the principal's plans as just another way to trick them into doing things they didn't want to do, and to get them to work longer hours. The more he tried to explain how what he was asking was for their benefit, the more they resisted - they'd heard that line before.


Finally, your style needs to be consistent with the goals, mission, and philosophy of your organization. As mentioned earlier - and in numerous places elsewhere in the Community Tool Box - an organization cannot remain faithful to its mission if its internal structure is at odds with its guiding principles. An organization dedicated to empowerment of the target population, for instance, must empower its staff as well. For most grass roots and community-based organizations, this consistency would mean using some variation of a democratic or collaborative style.

How do you choose and develop a leadership style?

What kind of leader do you want to be? Perhaps even more important, how would you be most effective as a leader? What kind of leadership style would be of the most benefit to your organization, and would allow you to be the best leader you could be? The leadership styles described in this section aren't the only ways to look at leadership. As we've already discussed, most real leaders use a combination of styles, and there are others that haven't really been touched on here.


Start with yourself.

Use what you know about your own personality, and about how you've exercised leadership in the past. Neither of these has to determine what you choose now - people can change, especially if they believe that what they've done before was ineffective or inconsistent with their values - but it's important to be honest with yourself about who you are. That honesty has two aspects.



Some questions you might ask yourself to start:

  • How great is my need to be in control? (When you're in a car, are you uncomfortable if you're not driving, assuming the driver is competent? Would you let someone else order for you in a restaurant? If you were teaching a class, would it be a lecture? Would you follow tangents that were interesting to class members? Is there a right way to do most everything? If your answers to these questions are yes, no, yes, no, and yes, you probably have a pretty high need to be in control of things.)
  • How willing am I to trust others to do their jobs? (Are you uncomfortable delegating work, so that you just try to do it yourself? Do you tell people exactly how to do things, even when they have experience doing them? Do you think supervisors should spend a lot of their time checking the work of those they supervise? "Yes" answers to these questions could mean that you don't have much confidence in others.)
  • How good are my people skills? (Are you comfortable with other people? Do people seem to comfortable with you? When you're with others, do you spend most of your time talking? Listening? About even? Do people seek you out for help or advice? Do you consider yourself a good judge of people, and has that been borne out by your experience? Do you try to consider others' needs and feelings in any decision?)

These few questions are obviously just a beginning, but they should help you think about some important leadership issues. If you have a high need for control, for instance, it doesn't mean you can't be a collaborative leader, but it does mean that you'll have to learn some new behavior, and perhaps a whole new way of looking at things. If you're not well-organized, it doesn't mean you can't be a good manager, but you'll have to find strategies to keep you on top of everything.


Think about the needs of the organization or initiative.

A community coalition almost has to have collaborative leadership, or it will fall apart amid turf issues and accusations of discrimination. An organization that responds to situations where it has to act quickly - an emergency medical team, for example - may need more decisive and directive leadership. Some groups may have an impassioned vision, but don't have the practical skills - financial management, scheduling, etc. - to achieve it.


Observe and learn from other leaders.

Think about how leaders you've worked for or with exercised leadership. What were their styles, and were they effective? How did they handle different kinds of situations? How did what they did make you and others feel? Try to watch others in action, and talk to them about how they see what they do. What do you like about how they operate? What don't you like? What can you incorporate into your own style?

Find a mentor. If there's a leader whom you particularly admire, and that person is accessible (Nelson Mandela might have trouble fitting you in), talk with her about leadership issues - about how she perceives what she's doing, how she'd handle particular situations and why, etc. Most people, especially if they're good leaders and conscious of what they do and why, welcome the opportunity to help others develop their own leadership skills.

Use the research on leadership.

There are lots of resources available on leaders and on both the theory and practice of leadership. Many are included at the end of this section, and there are hosts of others you can find yourself. They 'll give you a lot more ideas about leadership styles, and help you refine your own thinking about what leadership is and what kind of leader you'd like to be.

Believe in what you're doing.

If you've thought it through carefully, and believe in the way you practice leadership, that will be projected to others. If you believe in yourself, they'll believe in you, too.

Be prepared to change.

Although this may seem at odds with some of the above, it is probably the most important element to good leadership. No matter how well you're doing, it's not perfect - it never is, and never will be. Be prepared to find for yourself or hear from others the negative as well as the positive, to consider it carefully and objectively, and to make corrections if necessary. That way, you can not only become a good leader, but continue to be one.

In Summary


Leadership style depends on the leader's and organization's conception of what leadership is, and on the leader's choice of leadership methods. Depending how those fit together, a leader might adopt one of a variety styles, each reflected in the way the organization operates and the way its staff members relate to one another. Some (very stereotyped) possibilities:

  • Autocratic - totally in control, making all decisions himself
  • Managerial - concerned with the smooth operation, rather than the goals and effectiveness, of the organization
  • Democratic - consulting with others, encouraging equality within the organization, but making final decisions herself
  • Collaborative - sharing leadership, involving others in all major decisions, spreading ownership of the organization.



Phil Rabinowitz

Online Resources

The Center for Creative Leadership

The Center for Strategic Management

Chapter 10: Empowerment in the "Introduction to Community Psychology" addressed the different levels of empowerment, how to contribute to power redistribution, and ways to take action to make changes in communities.

Connective Leadership and Achieving Styles

Emerging Leader

The Greenleaf Center for Servant-Leadership

Idea Bridge

The Leadership Challenge

Leadership styles and problem solving - deBono's Six Hats

The Pew Civic Entrepreneur Initiative

Power and Leadership Practices by the Superintendent: What Do They Mean to Leaders and Followers?

Spokes: Resources for Non-profits

Style of Management and Leadership

Transformational Leadership

Print Resources

Bass, B. (1995). Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. New York, NY: Free Press.

Burns, J. (1985). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper Collins.

Chrislip, D. & Carl E.  (1995). Collaborative Leadership - How Citizens and Civic Leaders Can Make a Difference. San Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers.

Gardner, H. (1996).  Leading Minds: An Anatomy of Leadership. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Gardener, H. (1998).  Extraordinary Minds. New York, NY: Basic Books, 

Gardner, J. (1993). On Leadership. New York, NY: Free Press.

Greenleaf, R. (1983).  Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 

Macchiavelli, N. (1998). The Prince. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Wheatley, M.  (2001). Leadership and the New Science: Discovering Order in a Chaotic World. Barrett-Koehler Publishing.