For decades, leadership has been considered to be a vital part of an organization’s competitive potential. There is a significant amount of research regarding various leadership styles that led to creating several classifications of their distinct properties. For example, Daniel Goleman’s analysis focuses on emotional intelligence as the basis of any differences in leadership approaches (Goleman 79). These styles are derived from the ways leaders impact the workflow of their respective organizations. The textbook by Schermerhorn and Bachrach, in turn, discusses the classic leadership model that takes two essential scales into account. This essay provides a comparison and contrast between the leadership styles as defined by Goleman and by the classic model from Schermerhorn and Bachrach’s textbook.
It is essential to outline the exact parameters that each model considers to be vital for every type of leadership it recognizes. Daniel Goleman’s leadership styles define a leader’s vision as a result of his or her personal qualities and social skills. These parameters create a notion of emotional intelligence that defines a leader’s potential to impact the effectiveness of an organization (Goleman 81). The author outlines the six key factors that stem from a leader’s qualities as the following: flexibility, responsibility, standards, rewards, clarity, and commitment (Goleman 80). His model provides an opportunity for a leader to analyze what aspects of emotional intelligence are lacking in the chosen approach and correct the course of an organization by putting effort into expanding emotional capabilities (Goleman 89). This approach provides the most utility for those who seek to evaluate a leader’s overall ability and impact.
The version of the leadership model from the textbook appears to be less complex. Schermerhorn and Bachrach review leadership behaviors depending on the primary concern of a leader (Schermerhorn and Bachrach 289). This approach recognizes four different leadership styles: an autocratic style, a human relations style, a laissez-faire style, and a democratic style (Schermerhorn and Bachrach 290). They are defined by the degree of concern of a leader for his or her employees and tasks (Schermerhorn and Bachrach 290). The authors clarify that these approaches are not static and can prove to be either detrimental or beneficial for an organization depending on a given situation (Schermerhorn and Bachrach 290). This model appears to be more readable and more readily applicable.
It is necessary to consider how Goleman’s styles relate to the classic model of leadership. There is a definite shift in focus between these two approaches, as there are only two styles that can be defined as task-oriented in Goleman’s model, while four of them are more people-oriented (Drzewiecka and Roczniewska 163). As the optimization of task execution is the goal of every organization, it is an essential parameter that can not be set aside. The six factors that Goleman takes into consideration focus primarily on the relationship between a leader and employees. Drzewiecka and Roczniewska argue that “the repertoire of leadership behavior should be wide and flexible” to cover all potential emerging crises (168). Therefore, these models must be viewed in tandem to ensure that no factors are left unexplored.
Even though there are similar styles between the two models, the majority of the definitions differ. For example, authoritative and autocratic styles from both sources relate to the end goal set by the leader, yet the coercive style can be seen as autocratic as well. Similarly, the human relations style and the affiliative style share similarities in their focus on building positive relationships that serve as the foundation for a company’s success. However, it can be argued that a coaching style has a similar function, which makes Goleman’s model more in-depth. The democratic style is shared between the models and has nearly identical descriptions. The pacesetting style and the laissez-faire style are somewhat unique and have their own place in this comparison. Both exemplify the leader’s work ethics, yet the first one focuses on the positive attitude, while the second one focuses on the negative attitude towards it.
Unlike the classic model, Goleman’s approach might be more complex, yet it appears to be a more valuable tool for an organization. The classical model lacks an in-depth explanation of relationship dynamics between a leader and a team. Emotions play an essential role in these interactions, and communication is highly a highly valued parameter that is given more attention in Goleman’s model. Both models recognize the importance of the situation as well as the leader’s qualities in the choice of the most suitable style.
In conclusion, while there are several crucial differences between each model, their styles share similar core concepts that define the way leaders apply their power. Goleman’s model excels at showing the impact of a leader’s attitude towards employees on their productivity. In turn, the classic model clearly defines the differences between task-oriented and people-oriented leaders. Styles from both models have similarities that are drawn from the parameters that define each approach. However, Goleman’s model does better with exploring the possible benefits of each style within a specific setting, as it allows for a better analysis of the leader’s impact. Moreover, it leaves enough space for further improvement without constraining leaders into a two-dimensional field. In the end, one’s ability to adapt his or her leadership style to different business situations provides the highest potential for an organization that aims to gain a competitive advantage through optimal management.
Works Cited
Drzewiecka, M., and M. Roczniewska. “The Relationship Between Perceived Leadership Styles and Organisational Constraints: An Empirical Study in Goleman’s typology.” European Review of Applied Psychology, vol. 68, no. 4-5, 2018, pp. 161-169.
Goleman, Daniel. “Leadership That Gets Results.” Harvard Business Review, vol. 78, 2000, pp. 78-90.
Schermerhorn, John R., and Daniel G. Bachrach. Management. 14th ed., Wiley, 2020.