To be honest, I have never really given much thought to defining leadership styles. Over the years, I’ve seen a number of styles that I liked, disliked, admired, and some that I loathed.
Recently, I worked on a project with a person whose approach felt very different from what I was used to. It really stood out and got me thinking about the different leadership styles I’ve seen over the years.
Looking back, I tried to categorize these leadership styles. And as I reflected on my experiences, three distinct types naturally emerged: Commanders, Leaders, and Managers:
To me, the Commander is like the captain on a ship or the commander of troops. It’s the decision-maker. Nothing happens without the knowledge and confirmation of the commander. Often enthroned by the hierarchy, it is the (only)one in power in the team.
A Leader, in contrast, doesn’t necessarily rule by title or hierarchy. They lead through vision and motivation. In the ideal case, people follow a leader on their own decision. A leader must inspire others by a vision for the future, values, motivation and empowerment.
A Manager, in contrast, focuses on structure, processes, and execution. Their role is to ensure smooth operations, meet deadlines and ensure efficiency.
Naturally, I have my own preference for the type of leader I enjoy working with, and this has also made me reflect on the kind of way I want to be perceived. Each of the styles has, of course, its own strengths and weaknesses. While writing this post, I did some research that introduced me to an interesting concept: Situational Leadership.
Situational Leadership reflects the reality of changing contexts.
What I mean is, it’s not just about adopting a preferred style – it’s about identifying the approach that best fits the situation: For example, in a crisis, a commander may be necessary to make quick decisions and maintaining control. In contrast, a leader might be more effective in long-term projects, where engagement, creativity, and shared vision are key. Meanwhile, a manager excels in executing structured processes or projects where meeting deadlines and staying methodical are the top priorities.
This brought me back to my initial thoughts about categorizing the leadership styles of people I’ve worked with. In most cases, I only saw them operate within their “standard context” – their default approach to leadership. Each of them might switch to another style if the context requires. While I didn’t always agree with the style used in specific situations, what ultimately matters is that the team is functioning well and remains satisfied.
And of course, context describes not only the tasks to be performed, but also the people. Some people feel more comfortable with a high degree of freedom, while others are happy with clear instructions. In my experience, it makes perfect sense to communicate if you prefer one style or the other (or even if you have serious problems with it). And this should go both ways: to the team and to the manager.
Adaptability doesn’t mean being inconsistent – it’s about to know which stlye is most appropriate for the context.
One thing to avoid, however, is changing styles (too often) within the same context. This is likely to cause a lot of confusion within the team. For example, if you’re constantly switching between commander and leader in a long-term project, the team won’t know how much autonomy they have, what their responsibilities are, or what’s expected of them in terms of decision-making freedom.
During my research on leadership styles, I came across lists outlining 6, 8, or even 15 distinct styles. While I didn’t conduct an exhaustive comparison, it seems to me that these more detailed styles are refinements of the broader categories I’ve described above.
In the end, leadership isn’t about sticking to one style but adapting to the context, the team, and the situation. Whether being a commander, leader, or manager, the key is flexibility and communication. The best leaders are likely defined not by their preferred style but by the positive impact they have on their teams and their outcomes.