Golemans and Classic Leadership Styles

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

For decades, leadership has been considered to be a vital part of an organizations 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 Golemans 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 Bachrachs textbook.

It is essential to outline the exact parameters that each model considers to be vital for every type of leadership it recognizes. Daniel Golemans leadership styles define a leaders vision as a result of his or her personal qualities and social skills. These parameters create a notion of emotional intelligence that defines a leaders potential to impact the effectiveness of an organization (Goleman 81). The author outlines the six key factors that stem from a leaders 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 leaders 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 Golemans 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 Golemans 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 companys success. However, it can be argued that a coaching style has a similar function, which makes Golemans 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 leaders 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, Golemans 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 Golemans model. Both models recognize the importance of the situation as well as the leaders 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. Golemans model excels at showing the impact of a leaders 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, Golemans model does better with exploring the possible benefits of each style within a specific setting, as it allows for a better analysis of the leaders impact. Moreover, it leaves enough space for further improvement without constraining leaders into a two-dimensional field. In the end, ones 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 Golemans 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.

Click Here To Order Now!

Golemans and Classic Leadership Styles

Works Cited