In addition to overall leadership theories and their evolution, there is an even more specific category that is well studied, types of leadership styles. The type of leadership present candetermine the organizational success of an agency. It is affected by many variables such as personal paradigms, professional development opportunities, level of education, years of experience, communications systems, and organizational structures.
The best educators recognize their own dominant needs and find a balance between their own type of leadership style and the developmental, emotional, and professional needs of both children and adults in their programs. When you understand your type of style, you can “manage differences in how you deal with people, with other types of leadership styles more effectively. You are also able to navigate your own professional growth opportunities, strengths and challenges” (Creighton University Staff, 2024, para. 6). Knowing your type of leadership stylecan help you make an impact, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that one type of style is better than another (Creighton University Staff).
There are many theories on the different types of leadership styles. The following section zooms in and takes a closer look at the details of some the common types.
Great Man Theory
The discussion of whether leadership is a behavior, a trait, or a skill has been ongoing. It began with an emphasis on identifying the qualities of “great men.” Much of this theory was developed in the 19th century and is linked to the work of the historian Thomas Carlyle (1841), who commented on the great men or heroes of history saying, “The history of the world is but the biography of great men” (p. 47).
According to the Great Man Theory, a leader is inherently gifted with unique qualities such as superior intellect and leadership abilities, that capture the imagination of the masses and have had a decisive impact on history. The main assumptions were that “powerful leaders are born and not made and that they possess beneficial inherited traits; and they can arise when there is a great need” (Junega, 2025, para 4). All others had to be “led,” and one’s destiny could not be changedbecause it was innate (Germain, 2008).
Leadership Traits Theory
The Leadership Traits Theory was derived from the Great Man Theory. Trait Theory still emphasizes inherent personality traits and leadership was thought to be a matter of birth, but it added positive traits such as integrity, moral courage, and humility. The emphasis is now on identifying the personal qualities, traits, and abilities that distinguish effective leaders and effective leadership (Germain, 2008).
The Trait Theory approach focuses exclusively on the leader, not the traits of the people being led. In essence, the trait approach is concerned with what traits leaders exhibit and who has those traits. “It does not lay out a set of hypotheses or principles about what kind of leader is needed in a certain situation or what a leader should do, given a particular set of circumstances. Rather, this approach emphasizes that having a leader with a certain set of traits is crucial to having effective leadership. It is the leader and her or his personality that are central to the leadership process” (Germain, 2008, p. 2).
Bunny Trail Footnote 4: Earlier leadership was considered as a quality associated mostly with males; therefore, the theory was named as the great “man” theory and many of the traits cited as being important for effective leaders are often seen as more typically masculine traits. However, with a significant shift in contemporary research and with the emergence of many great women leaders, the name was changed to the Great “Person” Theory (Junega, 2025).
Research indicates that the possession of certain traits alone does not guarantee leadership success; however, research indicates that there is an association between having certain personality traits and being an effective leader (Germain, 2008). According to Kirkpatrick & Locke (1991), there is evidence that effective leaders are different from non-leaders in six key traits.
Six Key Leadership Traits:
1. Drive: A strong motivation to achieve goals, persist through challenges, and take initiative.
2. The Desire to Lead: A strong motivation to achieve goals, persist through challenges, and take initiative.
3. Honesty and Integrity: A commitment to ethical behavior, transparency, and keeping promises.
4. Self-confidence: A belief in one’s own abilities and decisions, even in uncertain or difficult situations.
5. Cognitive Ability: The capacity to think critically, analyze information, and solve complex problems.
6. Knowledge of the Business: An understanding of the organization’s operations, goals, and the environment in which it functions (Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991).
Data emerged from this research that points to the important role of various personality traits in the leadership process (Germain, 2008).
Lewin’s Leadership Style Framework Theory
Kurt Lewin's (Lewin, Lippitt, & White, 1939) early work in the late 1930s laid the foundation for understanding different leadership style approaches with his identification of autocratic, democratic, and laissez-faire leadership styles.
• Autocratic Leadership: (Also called authoritarian leadership) The leader makes decisions unilaterally, with little to no input from group members.
o Clear, top-down direction
o Strict rules and expectations
o Little collaboration or shared decision-making
o Quick decision-making
o Effective in crisis or time-sensitive situations
o Creates low morale
o Lacks creativity or engagement from team members
• Democratic Leadership: (Also called participative leadership) The leader involves group members in decision-making, encouraging collaboration and input.
o Shares leadership and group discussion
o Encourages creativity and ownership
o Focuses on consensus-building
o Creates high morale and team satisfaction
o Promotes creativity and diverse perspectives
o Can be slower in urgent situations
o Risk of indecision if consensus is difficult
• Laissez-faire Leadership (French for “let do” or “let them be”) The leader provides minimal guidance and allows group members to make their own decisions and manage their own work.
o High autonomy and independence
o Leader acts more as a resource than a director
o Encourages self-motivation and innovation
o Works well with highly skilled or experienced teams
o Lack of direction or structure
o Can result in confusion or lack of accountability
o Can feel like neglectful leadership
Lewin’s leadership theory was groundbreaking because it was one of the first to use empirical research to show how leadership style directly influences group behavior, motivation, and productivity. His theory provided a foundational framework that continues to shape how educators, managers, and leaders understand the relationship between leadership behavior and team dynamics.
Transformational Leadership Theory
In the mid 1970s, Burns (as cited in Sergiovanni, 2001) identified two different leadership styles, transformational and transactional. His work marked a turning point in leadership theory by shifting the emphasis to motivation, ethics, and shared vision. He noted that transformative leadership focuses on higher-order, more intrinsic moral motives and needs and is a process where leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of morality and motivation in pursuit of common goals. Furthermore, transactional leadership focuses on extrinsic motives and needs, where leaders and followers exchange needs and services to accomplish independent goals and objectives.
Today, these two leadership style categories, Lewin’s Leadership Style Framework and Transformational Leadership Theory, have merged and grown into ten common leadership styles: coaching, visionary, servant, autocratic, laissez-faire, bureaucratic, democratic, pacesetter, transformational, and transactional.
The 10 Common Styles of Leadership 
1. Coaching Leadership: This style focuses on the individual growth and development of each team member, providing support, guidance, and opportunities for skill enhancement. Coaching leaders prioritize creating a collaborative and empowering environment, helping employees unlock their full potential and maximize performance.
2. Visionary Leadership: This style is also known as authoritative leadership, this style involves a leader articulating a clear and compelling vision for the future, inspiring and motivating their team to work towards it. Visionary leaders often act as mentors, providing guidance and feedback while building trust and confidence in their teams.
3. Servant Leadership: This style prioritizes the needs of their team and the community, focusing on the well-being and development of others. This style emphasizes empathy, listening, and fostering a culture of trust and inclusion, empowering employees to thrive and contribute meaningfully.
4. Autocratic Leadership: This style involves a single leader making decisions with little or no input from the team or subordinates. Autocratic leaders prioritize efficiency and rapid decision-making, often in situations requiring immediate action or in highly regulated industries.
5. Laissez-faire Leadership: This style gives employees a high degree of autonomy and independence, trusting them to manage their own work and make decisions. The word laissez-faire is French and means “allow to do.” This style of leadership can foster creativity and individual initiative, but may lack direction, engagement, or accountability if not properly managed.
6. Bureaucratic Leadership: This style emphasizes strict adherence to rules, policies, and procedures within a structured hierarchy. Bureaucratic leadership promotes efficiency and consistency, particularly in regulated industries or large organizations with clearly defined roles and responsibilities.
7. Democratic Leadership: This style is known as participative leadership. It emphasizes collaboration, teamwork, and actively involving all members in the decision-making process. Democratic leaders foster transparency, encourage open communication, and value diverse perspectives, leading to higher employee engagement and satisfaction.
8. Pacesetter Leadership: This style sets high performance standards and leads by example. Leaders hold their team accountable for meeting those goals. This style can be effective in motivating high-performing teams in fast-paced environments, but may risk lowering morale if not balanced with appropriate support.
9. Transformational Leadership: This style focuses on inspiring and motivating employees to go beyond their self-interests and work towards the betterment of the team and organization. Transformational leaders empower employees, encourage adaptability, and prioritize long-term growth and innovation.
10. Transactional Leadership: This style motivates employees through incentives and consequences, setting clear expectations and monitoring performance against specific goals. Transactional leadership thrives in structured environments and is often used in roles with repetitive tasks and measurable outcomes, such as sales (Palmer, 2023).
It is important to remember that many leaders use a blend of these 10 styles depending on the specific situation, team, and context. Flexibility is key.
Sergiovanni’s Three Mindscapes of Leaderships 
In The Principalship: A Reflective Practice Perspective, Sergiovanni (2001) introduces three leadership mindscapes: mystics, neats, and scruffies. These distinct approaches help educatorsreflect on their dominant approach and incorporate elements of the others to lead more wholesomely and effectively. Sergiovanni argued that effective educational leadership requires awareness of all three mindscapes:
• Mystics: Reflective, purpose-driven; they bring vision, intuition, and moral grounding.
• Neats: Orderly, system-focused, data-oriented; they bring clarity and structure.
• Scruffies: Situational, adaptable, community-focused; they bring flexibility, context, sensitivity, and responsiveness.
Mystics approach school administration through intuitive, holistic insight. They see their role as craft-like, emphasizing moral imagination, deep values, and personal judgment rather than data-driven metrics. Mystics rely on intuition and principled vision, viewing leadership as an art grounded in moral purpose.
Neats operate with an applied-science mindset, valuing structure, organization, and evidence-based practices. They emphasize systems, procedures, and measurable outcomes, using rational analysis to solve problems. Neats prefer technical precision and standardized methods, seeing leadership as management grounded in data.
Scruffies embrace a craft-like, pragmatic approach, which is flexible, adaptive, and good with the immediate, real-world messiness of schools. They prefer hands-on problem-solving over rigid frameworks. Scruffies balance between intuition and structure, valuing context, relationships, and practical judgment as they navigate unpredictable daily challenges.
The 3Rs of Leadership Style 
The 3Rs of ECE are important (previously discussed in Chapter 3); and to expand on this concept, we shall examine Biddle’s (2012) 3Rs of Leadership. The two concepts are very similar, but not exactly the same.
The Leadership 3Rs
• Relationship Building: Seeks to build strong relationships with students, parents, and colleagues
• Reciprocal Learning: Everyone is on a learning journey that must be encouraged, supported, and respected.
• Reflective Practice: A practice of regular reflection is imperative to becoming a "reflective educator" and strong leader (Biddle, 2012).
The 3Rs of Early Childhood Education (See Chapter 3)
• Respectful: Respects all- People, animals, nature, and people’s belongings
• Responsive: Seeks to be responsive to the needs of others
• Reciprocal Relationship building: Technically we have 4Rs here. Relationships should be equal, bidirectional, and reciprocal
The 3Rs of Leadership with Colleagues Requires
• Valuing vulnerability more than power or control
• Being comfortable with uncertainty
• Relinquishing the idea that there is one right answer
• Risk taking and experimentation over prescription
• An emphasis on learning together rather than on figuring things out in isolation
• A shared commitment to community (Biddle, 2012).
Theory of Learned Needs
McClelland’s Theory of Learned Needs, also known as the Three Needs Theory, categorized motivational needs and how they might influence behavior. He proposed that people are motivated by three primary needs: achievement, affiliation, and power (Marotz & Lawson, 2007).
1. Need for Achievement: “I want to succeed.”
• Leadership Implications
▪ Leaders can set high standards, focus on goals, love a challenge, and seek continuous improvement
▪ They may push for innovation, excellence, and data-driven assessments
▪ Often aligns with transformative leadership, which tends to motivate staff to exceed expectations
▪ The risk is that they may focus too much on outcomes and overlook the relational aspects, which are crucial
2. Need for Affiliation: “I want to be liked and belong.”
• Leadership Implications
▪ Leaders can emphasize teamwork, teambuilding, positive relationships, and a collaborative culture
▪ The focus on creating supportive and inclusive environments.
▪ Aligns well with servant leadership or democratic leadership, where relationship building is key.
▪ The risk is that they may avoid conversations or conflict to preserve harmony.
3. The need for Power: “I want to influence and lead.”
• Leadership Implications
▪ Leaders tend to be driven to organize, direct, and influence others, either personally (personal power) or organizationally (institution power).
▪ The focus can be on effective advocacy, policy leadership, and system-wide reform
▪ Can align with a authoritative leadership (clear vision and direction) or instructional leadership (focused on outcomes)
▪ The risk is being overly dominant and may alienate team members or overlook collaborations
McClelland (McClelland &. Burnham, 1976, as cited in Marotz & Lawson, 2007) suggested that:
• Individuals with a high need for power seek status, social recognition, and influence over others and that these qualities were needed to be an effective leader.
• Individuals who are high achievers are reluctant to delegate tasks to other workers, preferring instead to maintain control of decisions and outcomes; and when work or work environments no longer provide an adequate challenge, they are likely to leave the job.
• Individuals with a high need for affiliation do not make effective leaders or supervisors because they find it difficult to give critical feedback, often show favoritism, and are reluctant to enforce the rules or policies (pp. 38-39).
While his ideas are used primarily to assess work performance, McClelland conducted other studies that centered on how motivation affected one’s health, and how an individual’s drive to succeed can cause stress, high blood pressure, or abnormal hormone levels. This demonstrated that internal factors, such as a motive, can cause a physical response” (Serhat, 2021, para. 4).
Toxic Leader Theory
The opposite of a good leader is a toxic or bad leader. While one hopes not to have toxic leaders at work- it happens. Educators can learn “what not to do” by looking at this type of style. Marcia Lynn Whicker (1996) coined the term “Toxic Leaders” in her publication Toxic Leaders: When Organizations Go Bad. She described these leaders as ones who abuse power and leave their organizations and followers in worse condition than they started. Barbara Kellerman (2004) furthered this theory and developed a model to identify seven bad leadership traits.
Seven Types of Toxic Leaders
1. Incompetent: Lacks the ability, knowledge, or will to lead effectively and achieve results.
2. Rigid: Unwilling or unable to adapt to new ideas, feedback, or changing circumstances.
3. Intemperate: Lacks self-control and behaves recklessly, often to the detriment of the organization.
4. Callous: Shows a disregard for the needs and well-being of others; emotionally indifferent.
5. Corrupt: Engages in unethical or dishonest behavior for personal gain.
6. Insular: Disregards the interests, values, or welfare of those outside their own group or circle.
7. Evil: Commits or enables harm intentionally, often causing serious moral, psychological, or even physical damage to others.
While confronting toxic leadership can be uncomfortable, it is essential for educators to recognize these traits to safeguard their own well-being and create healthier work environments. Awareness of toxic dynamics allows professionals to set boundaries, seek support, and advocate for cultures that prioritize mental health, ethical behavior, and mutual respect.
