There is no best leadership style: diagnose the situation, then choose the behaviour

Leadership advice often starts with identity: what kind of leader are you? Collaborative, decisive, supportive, visionary. The question is appealing because it offers a simple answer. It is also limiting. A decisive leader can be invaluable in a crisis and damaging when a team needs to explore. A participative leader can build ownership and still fail when an emergency needs immediate direction. A supportive leader can rebuild confidence and still let poor performance drift for months.

Decades of research on leadership did not produce a single style that consistently works best. Attention shifted instead to context: the task, the people, the authority available, the pressure and the systems around the work. The useful lesson for a business owner or manager is not any particular model. It is a discipline: diagnose the situation before choosing how to lead.

This article explains why the same behaviour helps in one situation and harms in another, a simple way to diagnose what a situation needs, why changing the system often matters more than changing your style, how inspiration and operating discipline work together, and why leading and managing cannot be separated.

Leadership is a set of behaviours, not a personality

It helps to think of leadership as a range of behaviours a person can choose from, rather than a fixed style:

These are not alternatives to choose between once. They work together. A team can have excellent relationships and still fail because priorities are unclear. It can have strong task discipline and still be overtaken by change. It can be consulted constantly and never decide anything. It can run smoothly inside while starved of support from outside.

Combinations matter

Behaviours interact, and some combinations fail:

• Monitoring without problem-solving feels like surveillance.
• Vision without planning remains an aspiration.
• Consultation without real decision space creates frustration.
• Delegation without capability creates avoidable risk.
• Support without expectations can become indulgence.
• High expectations without support can become exhaustion.

The question is which behaviours to combine, in what order and with what intensity, for the situation in front of you.

Diagnose before you act

Six questions help diagnose what a situation needs:

1. Task: how clear, new, interdependent and consequential is the work?
2. Capability: how experienced, skilled and confident are the people?
3. Relationship: is there enough trust for honest challenge, feedback and delegation?
4. Authority: who can actually decide, allocate resources and remove obstacles?
5. Environment: how much time pressure, uncertainty and outside dependence is there?
6. System: which policies, incentives, information flows or habits are producing the current result?

The answers point to the response:

This is not a formula. It is a way to stop leading by habit.

Change the system, not just your behaviour

Diagnosis often reveals that the problem is not how people are being led but the conditions they work in. Suppose a team keeps missing decisions. The cause might be low capability, but it might equally be unclear authority, conflicting instructions from two managers, missing information or a history of being blamed for mistakes. Each cause needs a different response:

• More coaching helps only if capability is the constraint.
• More direction helps only if clarity is missing.
• More consultation helps only if knowledge is spread across people and there is time.
• More pressure makes things worse if people already know what to do but lack the means.

So ask two questions together: how should I change my behaviour? and how should I change the system? Clarifying roles, removing an obstructive rule, fixing an incentive, providing information or redesigning a task often has a more lasting effect than any change in leadership style. A leader who keeps compensating for a broken system becomes indispensable while the business stays fragile. The standardise the routine, not the thinking article looks at how good systems free leaders to focus on genuinely uncertain problems.

Consistent in principle, flexible in method

Changing behaviour with the situation is not the same as being unpredictable. People should understand why a leader is becoming more directive during a crisis or stepping back as a team matures. Consistency belongs in principles: integrity, fairness, respect and accountability. Method can and should change.

It also helps to explain the shift: “This week I’m going to be much more hands-on because we have a deadline we can’t miss; once we’re through it, I’ll step back again.” That keeps trust intact while behaviour changes.

Leadership changes across the life of a project

The same team may need different leadership at different stages. At the start, people may need purpose and help with uncertainty. During detailed planning, specialist knowledge matters, so participation helps. During steady delivery, a capable team benefits from delegation. In a crisis, direction increases. At the end, recognition, reflection and handover matter. A leader who uses one approach throughout will be right some of the time.

Inspiration needs an operating system

Transformational leadership focuses on purpose: helping people see why something matters and committing beyond narrow self-interest. Transactional leadership focuses on clear expectations, agreed exchanges, monitoring and consequences. It is tempting to treat the first as superior. In practice, businesses need both.

For any significant initiative, check four conditions:

• Meaning: can people explain why the outcome matters beyond pleasing the boss?
• Clarity: are roles, priorities, standards and decision rights clear?
• Capability: do people have the skills, time, resources and information?
• Reinforcement: do measures, rewards and daily routines support what leaders are asking for?

If meaning is weak, more control produces compliance but not commitment. If clarity or capability is weak, more inspiration produces frustration rather than results. And if leaders praise one behaviour while the business rewards another, the rewards will win.

Leading and managing are one job

It is common to describe leadership as setting direction and inspiring people, and management as planning, organising and controlling, and to imagine that senior people should do the first and delegate the second. In a small business especially, they cannot be separated.

Leadership sets the direction and builds commitment. Management turns that direction into resources, roles, decisions, measures and corrections. Management then produces evidence about what is actually happening, which may show that the direction needs to change. When the two stay connected, the business adapts. When they separate, it either executes efficiently against outdated priorities or keeps changing direction without building anything reliable.

For each significant initiative, check five things:

1. Direction: what outcome, and why does it matter?
2. Design: what roles, processes and capabilities are needed?
3. Allocation: what money, people and attention are committed, and what is displaced?
4. Control: what evidence will show progress and whether assumptions still hold?
5. Adaptation: who can change, pause or stop it when evidence changes?

An initiative strong only on direction is rhetoric without management. One strong only on design and control may be well managed but pointed nowhere in particular.

A worked example

This is an illustration. An electrical contracting business with 25 staff promotes its best technician to supervisor. He is skilled, hands-on and directive, and he leads the way he likes to work: detailed instructions, frequent checks, decisions made by him.

Six months later, the results are mixed. Apprentices are thriving and making fewer mistakes. But two experienced electricians are frustrated at being told how to do work they have done for years, and one is talking about leaving. Meanwhile, the business’s new solar and battery work is stalling, because the supervisor is trying to direct work that nobody, including him, fully understands yet.

The owner sits down with the supervisor and works through the diagnosis for each group:

• Apprentices: unclear tasks, low experience. Structure and close feedback are exactly right. Keep doing it.
• Experienced electricians: clear tasks, high capability. Delegate with clear boundaries. Agree the outcome, the standard and the check at the end, and step back.
• Solar and battery work: high uncertainty, decisions mostly reversible. Involve the two electricians who have done the training, run small trials and review together weekly.

The owner also looks at the system. Experienced electricians had no clear authority to make decisions on site, so the supervisor felt he had to approve everything. A simple job brief is introduced, stating the outcome, the standard and what the leading hand may decide without asking. And the owner notices a contradiction in their own leadership: a recent push to put “customers first” while the weekly report still praised only the number of jobs completed. The report is changed to include callbacks and customer feedback.

Three months later, the experienced electricians are staying, the solar work has a working method and the supervisor says he is less stretched, because he is no longer the bottleneck for every decision.

How this applies to a small Australian business

In small businesses, owners and supervisors often lead the way they were once led, or the way that comes naturally. Practical steps:

• Diagnose before acting: task, capability, relationship, authority, environment and system.
• Use the full range of behaviours: task, relationship, change, participative and external.
• Change the system where it is the real cause, not just your style.
• Explain changes in approach so people understand them.
• Check meaning, clarity, capability and reinforcement for each significant initiative.
• Keep leading and managing connected, especially direction, allocation and control.
• Support newly promoted supervisors with coaching on when to direct and when to delegate.

The leadership as influence, not position and delegating without losing control articles cover related skills.

Signals worth watching

• Capable people waiting for instructions.
• Inexperienced people left without enough structure.
• Leaders becoming more controlling whenever pressure rises.
• Consultation slowing decisions that someone is authorised to make.
• Motivational messages covering for missing resources.
• Leaders praising one behaviour while the business rewards another.
• Every decision passing through one person.

Common mistakes

• Treating a style as an identity.
• Applying one approach to every person and situation.
• Coaching people around a broken system instead of fixing it.
• Confusing support with avoiding hard conversations.
• Relying on inspiration without clear roles and resources.
• Separating strategy from the work of making it happen.

Frequently asked questions

Isn’t it inauthentic to change how I lead? Not if your principles stay the same. Being authentic means being honest and consistent in values, not using the same behaviour regardless of what people need.

How do I know if I am over-directing? Watch for capable people waiting for instructions, checking everything with you or disengaging. Ask a trusted team member directly.

What if the team needs something I am not good at? Build the skill deliberately, or bring in someone who has it. A leader who is weak at participation, for example, can still create structured opportunities for others to contribute.

How quickly should leadership change as a team matures? Gradually, and openly. Agree what the next step in autonomy looks like and review it after a few weeks.

Do small businesses really need to think about this? Especially so. With fewer layers, the owner’s and supervisors’ behaviour has a direct effect on every job, and a mismatch shows up quickly in mistakes, turnover and slow decisions.

What should I do when a team’s needs differ from person to person? Lead individuals as well as the team. One person may need close support on a new task while a colleague needs room to work independently. Be open about why you treat them differently, so it is seen as fair rather than as favouritism.

Questions to ask

• What is the real constraint here: task, capability, trust, authority, environment or system?
• Which of those can we change rather than simply adapt to?
• Which leadership behaviour do we overuse, and which do we neglect?
• Where are we relying on inspiration to cover unclear roles or missing resources?
• Do our rewards and reports reinforce what we say matters?
• Who in our business is a bottleneck because others lack authority to decide?

Bringing it together

There is no single best leadership style, because leadership is an intervention in a situation that keeps changing. Diagnose before acting, draw on the full range of behaviours, change the system when it is the real cause, keep principles consistent while adapting methods, and make sure inspiration is backed by clear roles, capability and reinforcement. Lead and manage together, so direction and evidence stay connected. The aim is not to find the style that feels most natural, but to develop the judgement to know what the situation needs.

---

Source: KEVOS notes, drawing on teaching material on contingency and situational leadership, path-goal theory, leadership behaviour categories, and transformational and transactional leadership. Examples and figures in this article are illustrations.