Daniel Goleman (2000) identified six distinct styles of leadership in his article Leadership that gets results. Many people view leadership styles as an aspect of an individual's personality, but Goleman emphasized the importance of understanding and using different styles of leadership based on the situation. The original six styles are Coercive, Authoritative, Affiliative, Democratic, Pacesetting, and Coaching. 

Leaders can improve their effectiveness by matching their leadership style to the situation. Styles such as coercive and pacesetting are generally viewed as negative, though situationally using these styles can overcome obstacles that would otherwise be insurmountable. 

Smith et al. (2017) surveyed a group of college instructors to determine if there was a dominant self-reported leadership style among online teaching instructors. 

Though their survey received few responses the results are still enlightening. Most respondents (72%) believed that they were transformational leaders while only a small number self-reported as authoritarian. 

Despite the disparity in reported leadership styles 91% of the respondents reported that their style was effective in the classroom. 

Vorontsova and Dahari (2024) performed an extensive literature review that included information on both leadership and educational leadership. Much like Goleman (2000) they found that effective school leadership required a variety of strengths. School leaders must balance their administrative duties with a collaborative, engaged environment. 

Vorontsova and Dahari insist that leadership is a dynamic process that requires constant assessment and application. Leadership skills should be developed as a resource for both school administration and faculty. Leadership skills extend beyond managerial functions and are a core component of school culture.