Leadership that Gets Results by Daniel Goleman

Reflection Essay

“Leadership that Gets Results” by Daniel Goleman

The article corroborates that elements of emotional intelligence (E.I.), six leadership styles, and organizational climate are interrelated. The author has given ample examples of how one leadership style changes the way business practices are shaped, people’s (employees’) behavior, and changes business performance. The article exhibited correlations in tabular form where authoritative leadership style was found the most effective, followed by affiliative, democratic, and coaching styles. Soft skills are cultivators of emotional intelligence, considered key human capital elements (Johar, 2018). Soft skills that are personal attributes helping to interact and coordinate with people efficaciously are essential for motivating employees with cognitive and leadership strategies across all the departments and hierarchy levels (Sadq, 2019). The business domain’s dependence relies on the leader’s emotional transition to release their stress and help them in certain emotional states. The communication of a particular leadership style, such as roaring orders to the employees and creating a working environment of terror, displays the communication style of a coercive leader. It confuses the employees and is not conducive to employee engagement or retention for a long time. Undoubtedly, the author has clarified with examples that emotional intelligence, six leadership styles, and organizational climate are interrelated.

However, the case does not seem compelling for certifying its position that leadership traits and emotional intelligence are based on the leader’s personality. The article does not guarantee that a certain leader who does not have control over his emotions, like self-awareness, is more coercive than any of the six leaders. The article does mean to propose that people with relatedness with people and concerns for their issues, for example, influence doing things with the employees. The employees find more connectivity in the leaders and are easily able to communicate with such leaders. Again, there is a lack of proof whether the same affiliative leader possesses an actual emotional intelligence trait of “social skill” or whether he is doing it just for the sake of “getting things done.” Since the article showed that different leadership styles are used in different situations, an affiliative leader might have used this particular style as he thought it might work. His emotional intelligence was not necessarily higher for the social skills quadrant, and he would use the same style in other companies in his future career progression. There is a possibility that “situations” in a company and the behavior or perceptions of employees of the leader might be the shapers of the leadership style. For instance, in the example of Tom for an authoritative leadership style that the author elucidated, it is conceivable he might have used the democratic style that could have worked. Regardless of the cons of the democratic style that it takes more time in meetings and gathering opinions from people, there is still a likelihood that one situation that worked once successfully might not work in another situation.

Further, the example author gave for coercive leadership where sales and profits were falling, and the new CEO adopted a coercive leadership style to make things right instantly and on a short-term basis is similar to Joan’s situation mentioned. Joan’s leadership utilized fluid leadership with all styles in certain situations. One could assume that here coercive leadership might have produced results. It was the same situation for Joan where the division was in a deep crisis when she was appointed as the general manager, and profits were not gained for the last six years. Joan might have used a coercive or short-term result-oriented style to get the company back on track. However, it is emphasized again that the “situation” and possibly not the leader’s emotional intelligence could have come in handy. It could be inferred that her switching from one leadership style to another was the need of the time and circumstances that allowed her to transform her personality to be forceful at one point and lenient at the other.

This inference certainly does not negate the importance of emotional intelligence and its four traits for leadership styles. Research has suggested that controlling one’s emotions and regulating emotional intelligence might not be as easy for one leader as compared to others. Leaders with high emotional intelligence scores could be good at building self-image and working on weaknesses that could assist them in managing diversity (Fannon, 2018). Construing a certain situation and responding to it appropriately is the trait that comes from emotional intelligence. Again, it is the “situation” that drives the behavior of the leaders regarding how they should tackle complex situations.

Image Symbolization Used by Goleman

Goleman used an image of a golf bag with multiple clubs in it since the bag has a variety of clubs with different styles. It is done for the fulfillment of different purposes. For example, the golf club ‘driver’ is used for hitting the golf ball at long distances in contrast to the “wedge,” mainly for hitting at a shorter distance (Honest Golfers, 2022). The same stands true for leadership styles that the author has mentioned could be used in a “fluid leadership” manner, as illustrated by Joan’s example towards the end. Selecting a certain leadership style in the beginning when she came as a new general manager to a food and beverage company where mingling with people and listening to their concerns showed her affiliative leadership style.

Depending upon the nature and personality traits, more closely related to emotional intelligence would be the leader’s swinging style of those clubs that are needed at certain times (Boddy, 2012, p. 107). Each club has a different scope that the leader can avail to make his personality shine and get results from his followers. Moreover, it should also be comprehended that each leader with specific personality traits of his own and emotional intelligence with variations would be able to swing his golf clubs in his style, entirely different from another leader. It solely relies on experimentation and leadership techniques combined with emotional intelligence attributes to motivate the employees to work diligently for reaching to goals.

Primary Leadership Style

My primary leadership style is affiliative with a tint of authoritative style. I often utilize an affiliative style with some authority when the need arises. This is why most of my personality consists of compassion for people. I understand their problems and want to keep them encouraged and motivated for the company’s goals. I try to sympathize with them by sometimes stating the problems I similarly faced in the past. This gives them the fulfillment that they are not alone and someone else has also been through a related issue, especially their leader. However, I know that the affiliative style lacks the focus on giving feedback with the aim of correction (Goleman, 2000). It is when I use a mix of authoritative styles. I give them direction, point out their mistakes, and do not criticize them. Rather I try to encourage them and motivate them to do better next time.

The impact of my primary leadership style, which is a combination of 90% affiliative style and 10% authoritative, is positive. Employees know they can come up to me and talk to me about their issues. They look up to me and are aware that I am there for them to solve their issues. It also enhances my conflict management and decision-making skills that, further add to the performance of my company. Delegating with command and giving the employees flexibility to steer their working direction according to their comfort levels enhances their productivity.

In my opinion, the least preferred style is coercive since employees of the current generation have changed attitudes, different from those of the past decade. Over ten years, the dimensions of the workforce have changed primarily due to recession, Covid-19, and changed discernments of employment (Milligan, 2017). Employees of today’s generation like participation and feel attached to the company when their views are acknowledged (Long, 2017). They liked giving opinions and feeling included. They prefer working in a control-free environment, which is not what coercive leadership entails.

I need to incorporate a more authoritarian style in my repertoire since it states the outcomes that need to be achieved but gives the employees a free hand to adopt any working style. This is expected to instigate their innovativeness and take risks on the road to experimentation.