In my work, I have encountered very different expectations in different companies. I would like to share some observations about management styles and consider how they should be chosen.
When auditing organisations, I repeatedly hear categorical demands addressed to managers: “You must be gentler,” “You must be tougher,” “A good manager must…” and so on. These formulations may sound convincing, but how well do they reflect reality, the particular team and the company? Will a leader be effective if they simply accept the style imposed on them instead of choosing an approach based on the circumstances and their own experience?
Let us begin with the fundamentals, organise what we know about management styles and identify which patterns of leadership behaviour can improve team performance. The work of Barbara Kellerman and William Simon, along with material published by Entrepreneur, provides useful context.
How is leadership classified?
Management research describes several leadership models. Kurt Lewin’s classification distinguishes three styles:
- laissez-faire;
- democratic;
- authoritarian.
Theory X and Theory Y contrast employees assumed to be unmotivated and in need of close control with ambitious employees who generally require only periodic guidance.
The full-range leadership model identifies:
- laissez-faire leadership;
- transactional leadership;
- transformational leadership.
The Blake–Mouton managerial grid describes several characteristic approaches:
- country-club management;
- authority-compliance management;
- middle-of-the-road management;
- team management;
- impoverished management.
Not all of these models are equally common in business practice. In day-to-day management, six broad styles appear most often.
Authoritarian or dominant style
This style can be summarised as: “Do what I tell you.” An authoritarian manager builds a rigid hierarchy and reserves final decisions for themselves, often giving little weight to other views.
The approach can be effective when difficult decisions must be made quickly, major organisational change must be implemented or tighter operational control is temporarily required. Many researchers nevertheless argue that authoritarian leadership delivers positive results only for a limited period. If the manager does not change style at the right moment, the method quickly exhausts itself.
Frequently cited examples include:
- Howell Raines, executive editor of The New York Times from 2001 to 2003. During his tenure the newspaper produced notable reporting and won Pulitzer Prizes, but his treatment of staff was widely described as severe. He expected instructions to be followed, discouraged initiative and divided journalists into “stars” and everyone else.
- Albert J. Dunlap, a former CEO of Sunbeam. During the company’s financial crisis, Dunlap dismissed about 11,000 employees—roughly 40 per cent of the workforce. Accounting indicators and the share price improved for a time, but the mass layoffs left a lasting mark on the company’s reputation.
- Henry Ford, founder of Ford Motor Company. He built much of his industrial system around strict authority and personally reviewed candidates’ backgrounds and conducted interviews.
Democratic style
The defining feature of democratic leadership is joint discussion of important issues. Team members can express their views and participate in decisions. A democratic manager is also willing to delegate meaningful authority and deliberately supports a collaborative atmosphere.
This style is especially suitable for teams of capable professionals who understand their field and do not require constant supervision. Well-known business leaders are often described as using democratic elements, including Mark Zuckerberg, Muhtar Kent, Steve Jobs and Indra Nooyi. In practice, however, most leaders combine several styles rather than following only one.
Paternalistic style
Paternalistic leadership shares some features with the authoritarian style. The manager asserts authority, keeps the situation under control and expects a high level of commitment. At the same time, they treat employees as a community for which they bear personal responsibility—sometimes explicitly as a “family.”
Such a leader creates comfortable working conditions, considers employees’ needs, listens to opinions, makes concessions where appropriate and encourages worthwhile ideas. The model is flexible and can be combined with other approaches. It is particularly common in parts of Asia, where family and collective values have traditionally influenced both culture and business.
Leaders frequently associated with paternalistic elements include Lee Kun-hee, Henry Ford, Dhirubhai Ambani and José Mourinho.
Laissez-faire leadership
The French expression laissez-faire literally suggests allowing people to act. A leader using this approach sets relatively few detailed requirements and gives employees considerable freedom to organise their work at a comfortable pace. The team makes many decisions independently, while the manager readily delegates authority.
The approach can work well with autonomous specialists and individual contributors who can remain productive without frequent contact with a manager. It is particularly characteristic of creative and expert work. Steve Jobs, Warren Buffett and Queen Victoria are sometimes cited as examples, although each led in a different context and used other styles as well.
Transactional style
Transactional management organises work around a clear exchange: performance is rewarded, usually financially or through advancement, while underperformance has defined consequences. An employee might lose access to a promotion or receive more limited responsibility until their results improve.
A manager who relies heavily on this style is sometimes called passive because immediate indicators and results matter more to them than the long-term development of employees’ capabilities. Bill Gates is frequently mentioned in discussions of this model, though such labels inevitably simplify a long and varied leadership career.
Transformational style
Here the leader is an important source of motivation and acts as an initiator of change. They inspire through a clear message, meet employees to discuss current questions and share their own perspective and experience.
A transformational leader strengthens optimism and confidence and uses behaviour, emotion and personal example to mobilise the team. The approach often includes individual work with colleagues: the manager studies each person’s potential and creates opportunities for development, with particular attention to creativity and innovation.
Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, Richard Branson and Jeff Bezos are commonly presented as examples of transformational leadership.
Which style should a manager choose?
Prominent managers normally use several methods and emphasise a particular style according to the situation. Research and practice both support this adaptive approach. In my experience, responding to actual conditions is more effective than blindly following instructions from above—especially because the manager remains accountable for the result. For the most senior leader, adaptability also prevents stagnation and supports more productive work with the team.
Apple offers a familiar example. In the company’s early period, Steve Jobs gave talented employees considerable freedom to experiment. As the market changed sharply in the 1990s and business moved online, many technology companies came under pressure and Apple approached a crisis. Jobs responded with a much more authoritarian style and, by many accounts, went too far.
He left the company after a confrontation with the board. When he returned years later, his management approach had changed: he listened more carefully, used more collaborative decisions and delegated important authority to leading design and operations specialists. The point is not that one label explains Apple’s history, but that changing circumstances demanded a different balance of direction, expertise and autonomy.
Another line of research argues that several styles are particularly valuable in the digital economy. Deloitte, for example, has described the talent champion: a leader who actively develops employees’ capabilities, recognises creative potential and brings talented people into meaningful work.
Talent champions understand which skills the organisation needs and help employees acquire them. They also pay close attention to corporate culture, working conditions and the quality of the team’s overall employee experience. Managers with democratic, transformational or paternalistic tendencies may all act as talent champions because each of these approaches can place serious emphasis on human potential.
An interesting finding
One of the most striking findings, in my view, came from a 2018 study by researchers at Binghamton University. They examined how leadership style affected employee performance and observed leaders in both business and military settings.
In both groups, high performance was associated with paternalistic leadership. The researchers linked this result to a productive combination of discipline and care. The leader sets demanding standards and closely follows collective work, yet also demonstrates concern for employees and helps them develop.
The practical conclusion is important: an effective manager must think not only about targets, but also about the wellbeing and development of the team.
Conclusion
Research and international practice do not produce one universally correct style. They offer descriptions and evidence that a manager can compare with the real situation, the maturity of the team, the urgency of the task and the risks involved.
During audits, I have seen companies that relied only on a soft management style. Problems accumulated because there were no clear standards for the team’s work. Any attempt to understand the situation and restore order was then criticised as excessive control or pressure. Gentleness without clarity and accountability was not humane management; it was avoidance.
For my own work, I have concluded that a paternalistic foundation is often the most useful: clear expectations and personal responsibility combined with genuine concern for people. Depending on the situation, requirements and controls can then be relaxed or tightened.
I recommend examining this model, testing it thoughtfully and, above all, choosing a style in response to evidence rather than to slogans about what a “good” manager is supposed to be.
