Comments like "we do this because I say so" may sound outdated, but they keep showing up in subtler forms. This can be associated with the type of leadership Goleman called coercive. Yet, can it really be considered leadership in today's context?
"I'm in charge here" is a phrase that, even today, hasn't disappeared; it has simply evolved into subtler comments and behaviors disguised as "we're a family." It can be associated with a type of leadership that Goleman calls "authoritative" or "coercive". For Goleman, in fact, this style is as valid as any other, but especially in moments of crisis. And this is where I start to doubt: is every leadership style really valid? Or can it even be called leadership?
I honestly don't see any benefits. In the short term, there will be immediate obedience, but at the cost of generating fear, resentment, and zero commitment; and in the long term it can erode trust, limit innovation, and drastically lower team motivation and self-esteem. What's more, it makes any possible change very difficult and makes the process of rebuilding that trust much more complex.
It may seem "effective" in crises because it puts out fires, but it doesn't solve the root problem. We've seen it in emergency crises: what works is trust, clear coordination, collaboration, and communication. Not coercion and blame.
This leads me to think that Goleman's styles are not timeless; they reflect a way of thinking from the late '90s and early 2000s, when it was still assumed that "leading" could include imposing or controlling if circumstances required it.
In a real crisis, does authority or collaboration work better? Can a coercive style be considered true leadership today?
Comments (4)
Log in to your Scrum Manager area to comment
Jorge Sánchez López ★★★
9 Jan 2026 17:14I'm very aligned with what you're saying, especially that idea that “I'm the one in charge here” hasn't disappeared, it has just become more subtle… and therefore harder to point out. When control is disguised as “we're a family,” the damage tends to be greater, not smaller.
The nuance you bring up about Daniel Goleman's leadership styles strikes me as key. Something being described or classified doesn't automatically make it valid today. And that's where I think you're right to question it: are we talking about leadership or about managing fear with good manners?
The supposed effectiveness of the coercive style in a crisis tends to fall apart quickly. Yes, it produces immediate obedience. But it also produces silence, resentment, and disconnection. And that bill doesn't arrive “maybe”: it arrives for sure, just later, when you need trust, judgement, and commitment… and they're not there.
Moreover, in the real crises I've seen work out—the real ones, not the ones in the boardroom—what makes the difference isn't imposition, but clarity, coordination, and trust built beforehand. Without that, authority gets left alone very quickly.
Your final question opens an uncomfortable but necessary debate: perhaps the problem isn't choosing between authority or collaboration, but reviewing what we still call leadership today. Because if leading doesn't help others think, decide, and act better, maybe we aren't leading, just giving orders.
Marta, excellent reflection, you're not seeking to please, but to make people think. And that today is already a lot.
Estoy muy alineado con lo que planteas, sobre todo esa idea de que el “aquí mando yo” no ha desaparecido, solo se ha vuelto más sutil… y por eso más difícil de señalar. Cuando el control se disfraza de “somos una familia”, el daño suele ser mayor, no menor.
El matiz que introduces sobre los estilos de liderazgo de Daniel Goleman me parece clave. Que algo esté descrito o clasificado no lo convierte automáticamente en válido hoy. Y ahí es donde creo que haces bien en dudar: ¿hablamos de liderazgo o de gestionar el miedo con buenas formas?
La supuesta eficacia del estilo coercitivo en una crisis suele confundirse con rapidez. Sí, genera obediencia inmediata. Pero también silencio, resentimiento y desconexión. Y esa factura no llega “quizá”: llega seguro, solo que más tarde, cuando ya necesitas confianza, criterio y compromiso… y no están.
Además, en las crisis reales que he visto funcionar —las de verdad, no las de despacho— lo que marca la diferencia no es la imposición, sino la claridad, la coordinación y la confianza construida antes. Sin eso, la autoridad se queda sola muy rápido.
Tu pregunta final abre un debate incómodo pero necesario: quizá el problema no sea elegir entre autoridad o colaboración, sino revisar qué seguimos llamando liderazgo hoy. Porque si liderar no ayuda a que otros piensen, decidan y actúen mejor, quizá no estemos liderando, solo dando órdenes.
Marta, excelente reflexión no buscas agradar, sino hacer pensar. Y eso hoy ya es mucho.
Automatic translation · View original
Marta Berné ★★
12 Jan 2026 11:25Thanks Jorge! It's a topic that deserves a good discussion. Although I still hold that, as you say, we may need to revisit what we mean by leadership these days. Goleman's models are very useful, but in my opinion they're outdated (which is only natural, considering how much has changed since then).
¡Gracias Jorge! Es un tema que da para hablar. Aunque me mantengo en que, como dices, quizás hay que revisar a qué llamamos liderazgo a día de hoy. Los modelos de Goleman son muy útiles, pero en mi opinión están desfasados (normal, teniendo en cuenta lo que ha llovido desde entonces).
Automatic translation · View original
Jorge Sánchez López ★★★
12 Jan 2026 11:33I don't like "outdated". I prefer to say "evolved" and "adapted" to our current moment. What do you think?
Desfasados no me gusta prefiero decir evolucionados y adaptados a nuestro momento actual, ¿qué te parece?
Automatic translation · View original
Marta Berné ★★
15 Jan 2026 13:58As you prefer :D "Outdated" in this case isn't meant as something negative. It's normal that they aren't up to date, considering the year they were being talked about. Time passes for everyone and everything!
Como prefieras :D "Desfasados" en este caso no lo digo como algo negativo. Es normal que no estén actualizados, teniendo en cuenta en qué año se hablaba de ellos. ¡El tiempo pasa para todos y para todo!
Automatic translation · View original