Below is a 30-minute speech on “Styles of Leadership” that’s built from (and aligned with) what consistently shows up in top-ranking pages: clear definitions, the “big frameworks” (Lewin + Goleman), practical “when to use which style,” pros/cons, examples, and a simple self-check. I also used Goleman’s original HBR article (PDF) data points to keep it grounded.
Opening (0:00–2:30)
Good morning/afternoon everyone.
Let me start with a simple picture.
Imagine you’re driving a car with only one gear.
It doesn’t matter if that gear is “fast” or “slow”—eventually you’ll struggle. You’ll burn fuel. You’ll stall on hills. You’ll scare your passengers. And you’ll blame the road… when the real issue is you’ve got one gear for every situation.
That’s what leadership looks like when someone believes,
“I have one leadership style… and that’s just who I am.”
Real leadership is more like driving with multiple gears—and knowing when to shift.
Today I’m speaking about Styles of Leadership. Not as theory. Not as textbook stuff. But as something you can actually use tomorrow morning—at work, in a team, in a community group, even at home.
Because leadership isn’t only about “being in charge.” Leadership is how you direct, motivate, guide, and manage people—especially when things get messy.
And here’s the big truth I want you to remember from this talk:
There is no single “best” leadership style for all situations. The best leaders adapt—based on the team, the task, and the moment.
So in the next 30 minutes, we’ll do three things:
- Understand what “leadership styles” actually mean (in plain language).
- Explore the most common leadership styles—with examples, pros, cons, and when to use them.
- End with a simple “style-switching” method you can use immediately.
Alright. Let’s start.
1) What is a leadership style? (2:30–5:00)
A leadership style is basically your pattern—your usual way of behaving when you’re leading.
- How you make decisions
- How you communicate
- How you handle mistakes
- How you motivate people
- How much freedom you give
- How much control you keep
Some leaders lead like a drill sergeant.
Some lead like a coach.
Some lead like a friend.
Some lead like a visionary.
Some lead like a system manager.
And most of us? We don’t choose our style intentionally. We absorb it.
We copy what we’ve seen.
We repeat what worked once.
Or we overuse what feels comfortable.
But comfort is not always competence.
That’s why many top leadership sources repeat the same message:
know your default style—then learn to expand your options.
2) The “classic three” leadership styles (Lewin) (5:00–9:00)
Let’s talk about the oldest, simplest framework that still shows up in top results: Kurt Lewin’s leadership styles.
Lewin’s research famously describes three main styles:
- Autocratic (Authoritarian)
- Democratic (Participative)
- Laissez-faire (Delegative)
A) Autocratic leadership
This is: “I decide. You follow.”
Autocratic leaders give clear direction:
what to do, when to do it, how to do it.
When it works best:
- emergencies
- high-risk decisions
- when the leader has the most expertise
- when speed matters more than discussion
The danger:
People can feel controlled, unheard, and eventually… they stop thinking. They just wait for orders.
I’ll say it bluntly:
Autocratic leadership can deliver fast results, but it can also kill ownership.
B) Democratic leadership
This is: “Let’s discuss. Then we decide.”
Democratic leaders ask for input and involve the team in decisions.
When it works best:
- when creativity matters
- when you want buy-in
- when the team is skilled and you need shared thinking
The danger:
It can be slow. Meetings can multiply like mosquitoes after rain.
Democratic leadership is powerful—but only if you still lead.
Democracy is not “no direction.” It’s “shared direction.”
C) Laissez-faire (Delegative) leadership
This is: “You’re capable. Run with it.”
The leader steps back and gives the team freedom.
When it works best:
- highly skilled teams
- creative work
- when people are self-motivated and responsible
The danger:
If the team lacks clarity or skills, it turns into confusion. People argue, work gets duplicated, and nobody knows who’s accountable.
So Lewin’s framework is like the “starter pack.”
But modern leadership goes deeper—especially in emotional intelligence and motivation.
That brings us to the next big framework.
3) Goleman’s 6 emotional leadership styles (9:00–18:00)
A lot of top-ranking leadership content now heavily features Daniel Goleman’s six leadership styles, because they connect leadership to emotional intelligence and the “climate” of a team.
The six styles are often described as:
- Coercive / Commanding
- Authoritative / Visionary
- Affiliative
- Democratic
- Pacesetting
- Coaching
And here’s the interesting part:
Goleman’s research looked at how each style correlates with team “climate” factors like flexibility, rewards, clarity, and commitment—and found authoritative (visionary) had the strongest overall positive impact, with affiliative, democratic, and coaching also strong—while coercive and pacesetting tended to be negative if overused.
Let’s go one by one.
1) Coercive / Commanding (“Do what I say.”)
This is the harsh cousin of autocratic.
It’s direct. It’s forceful. It’s top-down.
Good for:
- a real crisis
- stopping dangerous behavior
- turning around a failing situation fast
Bad for:
almost everything else.
If commanding becomes your daily personality, people stop bringing you ideas. They bring you excuses.
2) Authoritative / Visionary (“Come with me.”)
This is not authoritarian. It’s different.
Visionary leadership is about:
- setting a clear direction
- painting the “why”
- letting people find the “how”
It’s the leader saying:
“Here’s where we’re going. Here’s why it matters. Now let’s move.”
Why it’s powerful:
Because humans can handle hard work if the purpose is clear.
And in Goleman’s data, this style shows the strongest overall positive effect on climate.
3) Affiliative (“People come first.”)
Affiliative leaders focus on harmony, relationships, and belonging.
They praise. They support. They reduce conflict.
Good for:
- healing a team after stress
- rebuilding trust
- improving morale
Risk:
If you only do affiliative leadership, performance problems may never get confronted. The team becomes “comfortable”… and stuck.
So affiliative is like oil in a machine.
Necessary. But not the engine.
4) Democratic (“What do you think?”)
Similar to Lewin’s democratic style: involvement and input.
Good for:
- complex decisions
- generating ideas
- building commitment
Risk:
Slow decision-making, and sometimes “false democracy” where everyone talks but nothing changes.
Read More: Top Universal Speeches.
5) Pacesetting (“Do as I do. Now faster.”)
This leader sets extremely high standards and expects everyone to match them.
Good for:
- short bursts
- highly capable teams
- when you need quick results and the team already knows what to do
Risk:
Over time, pacesetting can crush morale. People feel they can never catch up. Mistakes feel unsafe.
Goleman’s climate data shows pacesetting tends to have a negative overall impact when relied on heavily.
6) Coaching (“Try this. I’ll help you grow.”)
Coaching leadership is about long-term development:
- strengths and weaknesses
- feedback
- growth plans
- building future leaders
Good for:
- improving capability
- building confidence
- reducing dependency on the boss
Risk:
It takes time. In a crisis, coaching is too slow.
But in normal life? Coaching leadership is one of the healthiest styles you can build.
So if you remember nothing else from the Goleman section, remember this:
The best leaders don’t “pick one style.” They rotate styles like tools.
4) The “popular modern” leadership styles (18:00–26:00)
Now let’s cover the other leadership styles that keep showing up in top results—especially on sites like Indeed and IMD.
A) Transformational leadership
Transformational leaders inspire change.
They raise motivation, encourage innovation, and connect daily work to a larger mission. This style is widely listed among the most common modern styles.
Good for:
- change and growth
- innovation
- culture-building
Risk:
If it becomes only inspiration with no structure, teams can feel excited… but lost.
B) Transactional leadership
Transactional leadership runs on clear roles, rewards, and consequences.
It’s “If you do X, you get Y.”
This style is common in structured environments and shows up as a standard type in many modern lists.
Good for:
- routine operations
- compliance-heavy roles
- clear measurable performance
Risk:
People do the minimum for the reward. Motivation becomes external, not internal.
C) Servant leadership
Servant leadership flips the pyramid.
The leader’s job is to support the team—remove obstacles, protect them, help them succeed. This style is commonly featured in modern leadership explainers.
Good for:
- trust
- long-term loyalty
- strong culture
Risk:
If misunderstood, it becomes “I serve you” without accountability. Real servant leadership still expects standards.
D) Situational leadership
Situational leadership is the mindset:
leadership depends on the situation and the maturity of the team.
You may need to be directive with a beginner, and delegative with an expert. It’s widely referenced as one of the major styles/frameworks.
This is the style behind all style-switching.
It’s the skill of reading the room and adjusting.
E) Coaching leadership (again, because it matters)
Indeed and other sources often list “coach” as a top style because it focuses on strengths, motivations, feedback, and growth.
5) A simple way to choose the right leadership style (26:00–29:00)
Now I want to make this practical.
Here’s a simple decision filter you can use before choosing a style:
Step 1: Ask, “What’s the urgency?”
- If it’s a crisis: commanding/autocratic may be necessary short-term.
- If it’s normal operations: avoid living in crisis-mode.
Step 2: Ask, “How skilled is the team for this task?”
- Low skill / new task → more direction (autocratic/authoritative, coaching).
- High skill / proven track record → more freedom (delegative, democratic).
Step 3: Ask, “What’s the emotional climate right now?”
- Burnt out? → affiliative + coaching helps.
- Confused? → authoritative/visionary helps.
- Lazy or drifting? → clear standards, maybe short-term pacesetting (carefully).
Step 4: Ask, “What do we need most: results, learning, or alignment?”
- Results now → structured styles (transactional, selective pacesetting)
- Learning → coaching
- Alignment → visionary + democratic
That’s it.
Leadership becomes easier when you stop asking:
“What style am I?”
…and start asking:
“What does this moment need from me?”
Closing (29:00–30:00)
Let me end where I started—with that car metaphor.
If you drive only in first gear, you’ll move… but you’ll never go far.
If you drive only in fifth gear, you’ll stall the moment the road changes.
The goal isn’t to “choose the best style.”
The goal is to become the kind of leader who can shift.
- Be firm when safety is on the line.
- Be visionary when direction is missing.
- Be democratic when buy-in matters.
- Be affiliative when people are breaking.
- Be coaching when the future matters.
- Be delegative when the team is ready.
And most importantly—don’t overuse your favorite gear.
Because the best leaders aren’t the loudest, or the strictest, or the most loved.
The best leaders are the most aware—and the most adaptable. ([Mindtools][1])
Thank you.