There are many forms of leadership, but the best known are transactional leadership (managing through agreements, reward and correction), transformational leadership (inspiring from a vision), situational leadership (adapting your style to the employee), servant leadership (putting your people's growth first) and responsible leadership (sustainable performance with engaged people, with an eye for society). No single style is always the best. Good leaders know which style fits which moment.
Leadership is a broad concept and occurs at all levels of society. The best-known leaders are of course world leaders. But there are countless leaders in business too, and a teacher or a coach is also a leader. The concept is described in various ways, but it really comes down to one thing: leadership is a process in which an individual influences a group of people to achieve a certain goal. Every leader gives that their own interpretation.
That this interpretation matters is shown by Gallup research: according to their research, the manager accounts for around 70 per cent of the differences in engagement between teams. Gallup In this article, we list the most important styles.
Transactional leadership
Perhaps the oldest form of leadership is transactional leadership. Here, people are led on the basis of reward and correction. It is a businesslike form of leadership in which it is important that clear agreements are made in advance: what performance is expected, what is offered in return and what happens if the goal is not reached.
Every leader can give this their own interpretation. One is actively involved and monitors progress along the way; another is more passive and only steps in when the goals are in danger of not being met. The most effective variant is the constructive one: the leader gives feedback along the way and rewards what goes well.
Transactional leadership has a somewhat old-fashioned image, but that is not entirely fair. A large meta-analysis by Judge and Piccolo, based on 87 sources, showed that rewarding on the basis of clear agreements is almost as strongly related to the outcomes studied as transformational leadership. On a number of points, it even scored better. What does score badly is laissez-faire: not being there when you are needed. Judge & Piccolo, 2004
Transformational leadership
A more modern form is transformational leadership. Where transactional leadership revolves around the business agreement, the focus here is on the psychological contract. The leader motivates their people with inspiration, a mission and a vision. There is a lot of attention for the person, and the leader challenges employees to get the best out of themselves.
So it is not leadership based on money or performance pay, but on intrinsic motivation. Think of the director who, during a reorganisation, not only explains what is changing but above all why, and who gives people the feeling that they are contributing to something bigger. Charisma can help, but it is not a requirement.
In Judge and Piccolo's meta-analysis, transformational leadership had the strongest relationship with the outcomes of all the styles studied. It did, however, overlap strongly with rewarding on the basis of clear agreements. So in practice, the two styles go well together. Judge & Piccolo, 2004
Situational leadership
Situational leadership resembles transformational leadership in a way, but is slightly different. Here you adapt your leadership style to the competence and willingness of the employee or team. This theory was developed by Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard and is applied in many organisations.
There are four levels of leadership:
- Directing: clear instruction for those who are still unsure or inexperienced.
- Coaching: explaining and thinking along.
- Supporting: the employee can do it; you give trust and support.
- Delegating: the employee takes over themselves.
The aim is for an employee to grow along this scale, by giving them suitable tasks that build their qualities and self-confidence. A related theory is that of Prof. Dr. Bas Kodden, who argues that leadership is parenting in reverse: with professionals, you actually start by giving room and only step back to a more directive style when necessary.
Servant leadership
Servant leadership is not a new idea. The term comes from Robert Greenleaf, who published an essay on it in 1970: The Servant as Leader. According to Greenleaf, the servant leader is servant first and leader second. They put the needs and growth of their people first and share power rather than accumulating it. The test is simple: do those you lead grow as persons, becoming healthier, wiser, freer and more autonomous? Greenleaf Center
Servant leadership doesn't mean you do everything for your people. It is about creating the conditions in which they can grow themselves. Research supports this approach: in a meta-analysis by Hoch and colleagues, servant leadership, more than ethical and authentic leadership, added something on top of transformational leadership in explaining a range of outcomes. Hoch et al., 2018
Responsible leadership
A recent form is responsible leadership. Prof. Dr. Bas Kodden defines it as follows: responsible leaders are leaders who, by giving direction to engaged followers, achieve sustainable performance that contributes positively to social and ethical issues. Leiders.nl
That definition contains three things. Giving direction, so being clear about the goal. Engaged people, so energy and dedication rather than just satisfaction. And sustainable performance, in the short and long term. Think of a safe working environment, less absenteeism and burnout, attracting and retaining employees and being open to new ideas. You can measure how far a team or organisation has come in this with the Responsible Leadership Scale.
The debate about leadership
There is a lot of debate about the most effective form of leadership. We wrote earlier about the Great Man Theory. That theory holds that leaders are born with certain traits and that these cannot be learnt. A similar theory is charisma theory, which sees leadership mainly as a matter of personality and the need for power.
These are fairly traditional theories that don't fit today's leaders. The research into the styles above shows precisely that it is about behaviour, and behaviour can be learnt. We therefore believe that the right way of leading can be learnt. Start with yourself: which style do you use most often, and does it really suit the people and the situation you are facing now?
