What are the most common types of leadership?

By: Jacob Given, Edited by: Mitch Jacobson

Published: April 17, 2025

What makes a great leader, and how do different leadership styles impact organizational success? Learn more about leadership styles and why they matter.

Why does leadership style matter?

Leadership style plays a significant role in an organization's work environment, influencing both employee morale and productivity. Great leaders can foster trust, collaboration, and engagement from their whole team. On the other hand, poor or inconsistent leaders can cause confusion and contribute to low morale.

Every manager should study leadership. Great leadership benefits every employee, team, and organization. Employees who work in an environment where they feel valued and respected are more likely to feel satisfied with their jobs. Additionally, teams tend to be more efficient and innovative with flexible leaders who nonetheless provide accountability.

Great leaders can improve a company's operations with their leadership, while poor managers who play a significant part in employee turnover can cost an organization time and money.

Top 10 types of leadership

Understanding different leadership styles can help you engage in more effective team management, contributing to an organization's success. Here is a list of common leadership styles, as well as their potential benefits and pitfalls:

Authoritarian

Authoritarian leadership is a top-down, unilateral style of management. Authoritarian leaders make decisions without input from their teams and often use fear and intimidation to keep employees aligned. Authoritarians may spend little time on deliberation with others, especially those below them, which ensures a quick and efficient decision-making process.

Although an authoritarian leadership style may fit certain emergency situations, it tends to produce more harm than good. Without input from employees, leaders can make unpopular decisions and sow an atmosphere of distrust, leading to adverse outcomes like low morale and high turnover. Additionally, if a leader often employs fear and intimidation, employees may be less willing to communicate to management about problems in the organization.

Hierarchical

Hierarchical leadership emphasizes the specific role of individual employees, encouraging each member of the organization to remain focused on their prescribed responsibilities. Hierarchical leaders tend to stress respect for rules and policies. With a well-organized team, hierarchical leaders can enable employees to remain focused on their core tasks.

Many workers appreciate the theoretical objectivity and impartiality of a hierarchical leader. With an emphasis on rules and institutional norms, hierarchical leaders can set clear expectations and leave comparatively little room for uncertainty.

On the other hand, hierarchical leadership can stifle innovative thinking, since employees under a hierarchical leader may not feel empowered to solve new problems on their own. Additionally, hierarchical organizations often struggle with flexibility and change at scale, making it difficult to adapt to new challenges.

Mission-driven

Mission-driven leaders focus on the overarching goal of the organization and find ways to align their teams to accomplish that goal. Though mission-driven leaders bring a vision and overall framework to the table, they can empower their teams to solve problems within that shared framework, seeking to balance employee autonomy with a shared objective.

Mission-driven leaders can help workers recognize the importance of their labor for the success of the organization, potentially giving each role a sense of meaning. Many employees find this leadership style intrinsically motivating.

Although this leadership style has its merits, it also presents some drawbacks. For example, while a mission-driven leader can encourage employees to innovate within their role, they may not be receptive to pushback on the organization's overarching strategy. Additionally, with a focus on the larger aims of the organization, a mission-driven leader may not address or even understand more intricate problems that their teams face.

Pacesetting

Leaders who take a pacesetting approach tend to push themselves and their teams toward the highest levels of achievement. With high expectations and a relentless focus on results, pacesetters aim to cultivate a culture of continuous improvement.

Pacesetting tends to work best with teams that already have a high level of competency and drive. In these settings, pacesetters can inspire their teams toward maximum achievement, leading by example.

However, some pacesetters may go too far, pushing for perfection and micromanaging "underperformers." If a pacesetter pushes teammates past their limits, they may suffer from low morale, frustration, and burnout.

Supportive

Supportive leaders focus on the emotional and interpersonal wellbeing of their team. They get to know their employees on a personal level and try to do their best to cultivate a positive environment, making sure each individual feels welcome in the workplace.

While supportive leadership goes a long way toward creating a healthy work culture, it may not work for everyone. For example, some workers may wish to keep their personal lives to themselves and may find supportive leadership intrusive. Additionally, supportive leadership may struggle to sufficiently challenge workers or provide a clear roadmap for success, potentially leading to confusion, frustration, and exasperation.

Democratic

A democratic leadership style focuses on collaborative decision-making at every organizational level. Many workers find democratic leadership invigorating because it gives them a direct say in the overall direction of their workplace.

Democratic leaders help their teams claim ownership of their decisions, potentially creating a sense of collective empowerment. By valuing each team member's input, democratic leaders can foster a culture of trust and openness, which can lead to increased engagement and performance.

Democratic leadership has its drawbacks though. Reaching consensus on an issue requires a great deal of time and energy, especially in large organizations. In situations that call for quick decisions, democratic leadership may not be ideal.

Coaching

Some leaders prefer one-on-one coaching. Leaders who engage in coaching seek to understand the individual motivations and desires of their team members and to help them integrate their work life with their personal goals. Coaches can also provide timely, individual feedback and positive reinforcement.

While an individualized approach helps leaders tailor their guidance to the unique strengths and weaknesses of each team member, coaching also has its drawbacks. For example, this one-on-one leadership style can consume a lot of time, especially on larger teams, and depends on the buy-in of team members. Additionally, leaders may not have the resources and training to coach individuals with strong personalities.

Service

Also called "servant leadership," leaders who emphasize service aim to prioritize their team's needs over their own. By engaging in service, leaders can model strong positive values for their team. When leaders demonstrate care, team members often reciprocate, potentially creating a positive feedback loop and a positive work environment.

However, service-focused leadership can backfire if implemented incorrectly. For example, servant leaders may have trouble managing their own time, attention, and resources while focusing on the issues of their team members. Additionally, some team members may grow dependent on the service and care that such leaders provide.

Hands-off

Hands-off leaders take a passive approach to management, providing minimal oversight and input. Team members make independent decisions and generally have complete authority to complete their work as they see fit. With a hands-off approach, leaders attempt to "get out of the way" as much as possible.

Hands-off leadership may work for teams with exceptional skill, experience, and motivation. That said, the leadership style presents many drawbacks. Hands-off leaders do not provide much structure or cohesion for their teams, which can lead to confusion or frustration. Additionally, leaders who refuse to communicate more than the minimal requirements of a given project may find dissatisfaction with the results.

Transactional

Sometimes, leaders need to use extrinsic motivation to help their teams achieve goals. Transactional leadership focuses on rewards and punishments to achieve the desired outcomes. Rewards may include bonuses, promotions, or verbal praise, while punishments may include write-ups, suspension, or termination.

This approach relies on clearly defined goals and agreed-upon consequences for meeting or failing to meet such goals. For employees who require extrinsic motivation, transactional leadership can prove effective.

However, while transactional leadership may work for some teams in the short term, it tends to lose effectiveness over the long term. Ultimately, without an intrinsic sense of meaning and purpose, workers may become apathetic toward external rewards. Additionally, transactional leaders who overemphasize punishments tend to harm team morale.

What are the marks of a successful leader?

A successful leader empowers their team to achieve aggressive goals. However, there is more to successful leadership than high performance. Successful leaders empower their teams to take ownership of their roles and responsibilities, leading to higher job satisfaction and lower turnover rates.

Here are a few characteristics of successful leadership:

• Concern for employee morale and wellbeing
• Willingness to collaborate with team members
• Emotional intelligence and empathy
• Transparent decision-making
• Cultivating a culture of ownership
• Ability to balance long- and short-term goals

Get started on edX

Understanding different leadership styles can help you unlock your potential as a leader. Explore edX executive education programs that can help you deepen your leadership skills and knowledge.