Our research set out to gain a more

Our research set out to gain a more molecular
view of the links among leadership and
emotional intelligence, and climate and performance.
A team of McClelland’s colleagues
headed by Mary Fontaine and Ruth Jacobs
from Hay/McBer studied data about or observed
thousands of executives, noting specific
behaviors and their impact on climate.
1
How did each individual motivate direct reports?
Manage change initiatives? Handle crises?
It was in a later phase of the research
that we identified which emotional intelligence
capabilities drive the six leadership
styles. How does he rate in terms of selfcontrol
and social skill? Does a leader show
high or low levels of empathy?
The team tested each executive’s immediate
sphere of influence for its climate. “Climate” is
not an amorphous term. First defined by psychologists
George Litwin and Richard Stringer
and later refined by McClelland and his colleagues,
it refers to six key factors that influence
an organization’s working environment:
its flexibility—that is, how free employees feel
to innovate unencumbered by red tape; their
sense of responsibility to the organization; the
level of standards that people set; the sense of
accuracy about performance feedback and aptness
of rewards; the clarity people have about
mission and values; and finally, the level of
commitment to a common purpose.
We found that all six leadership styles have a
measurable effect on each aspect of climate.
(For details, see the exhibit “Getting Molecular:
The Impact of Leadership Styles on Drivers of
Climate.”) Further, when we looked at the impact
of climate on financial results—such as return
on sales, revenue growth, efficiency, and
profitability—we found a direct correlation between
the two. Leaders who used styles that
positively affected the climate had decidedly
better financial results than those who did not.
That is not to say that organizational climate is
the only driver of performance. Economic conditions
and competitive dynamics matter enormously.
But our analysis strongly suggests that
climate accounts for nearly a third of results.
And that’s simply too much of an impact to ignore.
The Styles in Detail
Executives use six leadership styles, but only
Daniel Goleman
is the author of
Emotional Intelligence
(Bantam, 1995)
and Working with Emotional Intelligence
(Bantam, 1998). He is cochairman of
the Consortium for Research on Emotional
Intelligence in Organizations,
which is based at Rutgers University’s
Graduate School of Applied Psychology
in Piscataway, New Jersey. His article
“What Makes a Leader?” appeared in
the November–December 1998 issue of
HBR. He can be reached at goleman@
javanet.com.
Leadership That Gets Results
harvard business review • march–april 2000 page 4
four of the six consistently have a positive effect
on climate and results. Let’s look then at
each style of leadership in detail. (For a summary
of the material that follows, see the
chart “The Six Leadership Styles at a Glance.”)
The Coercive Style. The computer company
was in crisis mode—its sales and profits were
falling, its stock was losing value precipitously,
and its shareholders were in an uproar. The
board brought in a new CEO with a reputation
as a turnaround artist. He set to work chopping
jobs, selling off divisions, and making the
tough decisions that should have been executed
years before. The company was saved, at
least in the short-term.
From the start, though, the CEO created a
reign of terror, bullying and demeaning his executives,
roaring his displeasure at the slightest
misstep. The company’s top echelons were decimated
not just by his erratic firings but also by
defections. The CEO’s direct reports, frightened
by his tendency to blame the bearer of
bad news, stopped bringing him any news at
all. Morale was at an all-time low—a fact reflected
in another downturn in the business
after the short-term recovery. The CEO was
eventually fired by the board of directors.
It’s easy to understand why of all the leadership
styles, the coercive one is the least effective
in most situations. Consider what the
style does to an organization’s climate. Flexibility
is the hardest hit. The leader’s extreme
top-down decision making kills new ideas on
the vine. People feel so disrespected that they
think, “I won’t even bring my ideas up—
they’ll only be shot down.” Likewise, people’s
sense of responsibility evaporates: unable to
act on their own initiative, they lose their
sense of ownership and feel little accountability
for their performance. Some become so resentful
they adopt the attitude, “I’m not going
to help this bastard.”
Coercive leadership also has a damaging
effect on the rewards system. Most highperforming
workers are motivated by more
than money—they seek the satisfaction of
work well done. The coercive style erodes
such pride. And finally, the style undermines
one of the leader’s prime tools—motivating
people by showing them how their job fits
Self-Management
? Self-control: the ability to
keep disruptive emotions
and impulses under control.
? Trustworthiness: a
consistent display of
honesty and integrity.
? Conscientiousness: the ability
to manage yourself and
your responsibilities.
? Adaptability: skill at adjusting
to changing situations
and overcoming obstacles.
? Achievement orientation:
the drive to meet an internal
standard of excellence.
? Initiative: a readiness to
seize opportunities.
Self-Awareness
? Emotional self-awareness:
the ability to read and
understand your emotions
as well as recognize
their impact on work
performance, relationships,
and the like.
? Accurate self-assessment:
a realistic evaluation
of your strengths and
limitations.
? Self-confidence: a strong
and positive sense of
self-worth.
Emotional Intelligence: A Primer
Emotional intelligence– the ability to manage ourselves and our relationships effectively–
consists of four fundamental capabilities: self-awareness, self-management, social awareness,
and social skill. Each capability, in turn, is composed of specific sets of competencies. Below
is a list of the capabilities and their corresponding traits.
Social Awareness
? Empathy: skill at sensing
other people’s emotions,
understanding their
perspective, and taking
an active interest in their
concerns.
? Organizational awareness:
the ability to read the
currents of organizational
life, build decision networks,
and navigate
politics.
? Service orientation: the
ability to recognize and
meet customers’ needs.
Social Skill
? Visionary leadership: the ability to take charge
and inspire with a compelling vision.
? Influence: the ability to wield a range of
persuasive tactics.
? Developing others: the propensity to bolster
the abilities of others through feedback
and guidance.
? Communication: skill at listening and at sending
clear, convincing, and well-tuned messages.
? Change catalyst: proficiency in initiating new
ideas and leading people in a new direction.
? Conflict management: the ability to de-escalate
disagreements and orchestrate resolutions.
? Building bonds: proficiency at cultivating and
maintaining a web of relationships.
? Teamwork and collaboration: competence at
promoting cooperation and building teams.
Leadership That Gets Results
harvard business review • march–april 2000 page 5
into a grand, shared mission. Such a loss,
measured in terms of diminished clarity and
commitment, leaves people alienated from
their own jobs, wondering, “How does any of
this matter?”
Given the impact of the coercive style, you
might assume it should never be applied. Our
research, however, uncovered a few occasions
when it worked masterfully. Take the case of a
division president who was brought in to
change the direction of a food company that
was losing money. His first act was to have the
executive conference room demolished. To him,
the room—with its long marble table that looked
like “the deck of the Starship Enterprise”—
symbolized the tradition-bound formality that
was paralyzing the company. The destruction
of the room, and the subsequent move to a
smaller, more informal setting, sent a message
no one could miss, and the division’s culture
changed quickly in its wake.
That said, the coercive style should be used
only with extreme caution and in the few situations
when it is absolutely imperative, such as
during a turnaround or when a hostile takeover
is looming. In those cases, the coercive
style can break failed business habits and shock
people into new ways of working. It is always
appropriate during a genuine emergency, like
in the aftermath of an earthquake or a fire.
And it can work with problem employees with
whom all else has failed. But if a leader relies
solely on this style or continues to use it once
the emergency passes, the long-term impact of
his insensitivity to the morale and feelings of
those he leads will be ruinous.
The Authoritative Style. Tom was the vice
president of marketing at a floundering national
restaurant chain that specialized in
pizza. Needless to say, the company’s poor
performance troubled the senior managers,
but they were at a loss for what to do. Every
Monday, they met to review recent sales,
struggling to come up with fixes. To Tom, the
approach didn’t make sense. “We were always
trying to figure out why our sales were
down last week. We had the whole company
looking backward instead of figuring out
Getting Molecular: The Impact of Leadership Styles on Drivers of Climate
Our research investigated how each leadership style affected the six
drivers of climate, or working atmosphere. The figures below show
the correlation between each leadership style and each aspect of climate.
So, for instance, if we look at the climate driver of flexibility, we
see that the coercive style has a -.28 correlation while the democratic
style has a .28 correlation, equally strong in the opposite direction.
Focusing on the authoritative leadership style, we find that it has a .54
correlation with rewards—