Leadership is a big, vague, amorphous topic. We can write about great leaders at great length. But practically speaking, how do you become one?

    A good start is to focus on leadership styles. Daniel Goleman, who popularized the notion of 'emotional intelligence,' has described the following six different styles that leaders use to motivate others.

    Our view is these are not mutually exclusive. You don't need to adopt one and ignore the others. Rather, the best leaders move among these styles, using the one that meets the needs of the moment. Think of them all as part of your management repertoire.

    Visionary. This style is most appropriate when an organization needs a new direction. Its goal is to move people towards a new set of shared dreams. 'Visionary leaders articulate where a group is going, but not how it will get there - setting people free to innovate, experiment, take calculated risks,' writes Goleman.

    Coaching. This one-on-one style focuses on developing individuals, showing them how to improve their performance, and helping to connect their goals to the goals of the organization. Coaching works best with employees who show initiative and want more professional development. But it can backfire if it's perceived as 'micromanaging' an employee, and undermines his or her self-confidence.

    Affiliative. This style emphasizes the importance of team work, and creates harmony in a group by connecting people to each other. It's particular valuable when you need to improve team harmony, increase morale, and repair communication or repair broken trust in an organization.' But it has its drawbacks. An excessive emphasis on group praise can allow poor performance to go uncorrected, and lead employees to believe that mediocrity will be tolerated.

    Democratic. This style draws on people's knowledge and skills, and creates a group commitment to the resulting goals. It works best when the direction the organization should take is unclear, and the leader needs to tap the collective wisdom of the group. The consensus building approach can be disastrous in times of crisis, however, when urgent events demand quick decisions.

    Pacesetting. In this style, the leader sets high standards for performance. He or she is obsessive about doing things better and faster, and asks the same of everyone. But Goleman warns this style should be used sparingly, because it can undercut morale and make people feel as if they are failing. 'Our data shows that, more often than not, pacesetting poisons the climate,' he writes.

    Commanding. This is the classic model of 'military' style leadership - probably the most often used, but the least often effective. Because it rarely involves praise and frequently employs criticism, it can undercut morale and job satisfaction. Still, in crisis situations, when an urgent turnaround is needed, it can be an effective approach.

    Note that what distinguishes each leadership style above is not the personal characteristics of the leader, but rather the nature and needs of those who are being led. As James MacGregor Burns argued in his path-breaking 1978 book, Leadership: 'Leadership over human beings is exercised when persons with certain motives and purposes mobilize, in competition or conflict with others, institutional, political, psychological and other resources so as to arouse, engage and satisfy the motives of followers.'

    Unlike 'naked power wielding,' he writes, 'leadership is thus inseparable from followers' needs and goals.'

    The good leader, in other words, must understand what motivates those he or she wishes to lead.

    "领导力"是一个宏大、模糊而虚无的话题，我们可以为优秀的领导者写出连篇累牍的传记。但讲点实在的，你自己怎样才能成为一名优秀的领导者呢？

    首先最好是关注领导方式。推广了"情商"概念的戈尔曼（Daniel Goleman）,曾把领导者用以激励他人的方式归为后面说到的六类。

    本文作者Alan Murray所撰写的管理学书籍。我们的观点是，这些方式并非相互排斥。你不需要采用一种而忽略其他。相反，最优秀的领导者不会总是选择某一种方式，而是哪种方式能满足当下的需要，就采用哪种方式。你要把这些方式当成自己整个管理艺术的一部分。

    愿景式（Visionary）.当一个组织需要有新的方向时，这种方式最为合适。它的目的是鼓动人们朝着一系列新的共同愿景而前进。戈尔曼写道，愿景式领导者为团队指明前进目标，而不是到达目标的方式，这让人们能够充分地创新、历炼、承担可能的风险。

    辅导式（Coaching）.这种一对一的方式侧重的是人员的培养，教他们学会怎样提升绩效，并帮助他们把个人目标与组织目标结合起来。在显示出主动性、希望在专业上进一步提升的员工身上，辅导发挥的作用最大。但如果被视为一种婆婆妈妈的管理方式，可能会适得其反，并损伤员工的自信心。

    亲和式（Affiliative）.这种方式强调团队协作的重要性，并在人与人之间建立一种纽带，形成一个和谐的团体。当你需要在组织中增进和谐、提高士气并修复沟通或受损的信任关系时，这种方式尤其有用。但它也有缺点。过分倚重对团队的表扬，可能会放任低劣的绩效得不到改正，并让员工相信他们是可以碌碌无为的。

    民主式（Democratic）.这种方式充分发挥团队的知识和技能，共同形成目标，并树立一种实现目标的共同意志。当组织的前进方向不明确、领导者需要利用团队的集体智慧时，这种方式最为有效。但在危机时刻，紧急事件需要有迅速决策，这种建立共识的方式可能带来灾难性的后果。

    标杆式（Pacesetting）.根据这种方式，领导者制定出很高的绩效标准，对更好、更快有着一种执着的追求，并要求人人都像自己一样。但戈尔曼警告说，这种方式应当少用，因为它可能打击士气、让人产生挫败感。他写道，我们的数据显示，标杆式领导行为多半会损害氛围。

    命令式（Commanding）.这是"军事化"领导方式的典型，或许是用得最多、但奏效机会最少的方式。由于很少涉及表扬，并不断地采取批评方法，它有可能打压士气和工作满意度。但在危机情形下需要紧急扭转局势时，这可能是一种有效的办法。

    要注意到，区分上述不同领导方式的，不是领导者个人的性格特点，而是受领导者的禀性和需求。正如伯恩斯（James MacGregor Burns）在1978年的开创性着作《领导论》（Leadership）中所言：当拥有特定动机或意图的人们调动制度、政治、心理或其他方面的资源，并与其他人产生竞争或冲突时，便有领导人类的行为进行，目的是激发、调动并满足追随者的动机。

    他写道，领导力与"赤裸裸地行使权力"不同，领导行为与追随者的需求和目标密不可分。

    换句话说，好的领导者必须懂得，哪些东西能够激励他/她希望带领的那些人。