What Other Leadership Styles Taught Me — And Why They Fell Short

larrywpittman
Dec 14, 2025
3 min read

Over the course of my life — from rural Florida to the military and into civilian leadership — I’ve been led by just about every leadership style there is.

Some were effective in the moment. Some were necessary in crisis. Some produced short-term results. And some taught me exactly what not to become.

Each style left a mark. Each taught me something. But none of them — standing alone — consistently built strong teams and developed future leaders the way servant and paternal leadership did.

This post isn’t about tearing other styles down. It’s about acknowledging their value… and their limits.

Autocratic Leadership: Clarity Without Connection

Autocratic leadership is command-and-control.Clear direction. Fast decisions. No debate.

I saw this style early in life and often in the military — especially when time, safety, or mission success demanded immediate action. In those moments, autocratic leadership works. There’s no room for discussion when lives or outcomes are on the line.

The problem comes when this style becomes a habit instead of a tool.

I’ve worked for leaders who defaulted to authority even when the situation didn’t require it. Orders were given without explanation. Questions were discouraged. Input was seen as defiance.

What I learned:

Autocratic leadership can drive compliance
But it rarely builds trust
And it almost never develops leaders

People may follow you — but they won’t grow under you.

Transactional Leadership: Structure Without Investment

Transactional leadership is built on rules, metrics, and outcomes:

Do this → get rewarded
Miss that → face consequences

I understood this style early. My upbringing taught responsibility. The Army refined it with standards, inspections, and accountability. There is value here — structure matters.

But transactional leadership has a ceiling.

I’ve seen leaders who ran tight, efficient operations where everyone knew the rules — yet no one felt connected to the mission or invested in the team.

What I learned:

Transactional leadership keeps systems running
But it doesn’t inspire loyalty
And it doesn’t prepare people to lead when the rules change

You get performance — not ownership.

Democratic Leadership: Inclusion Without Direction

Democratic leadership invites collaboration and shared decision-making. When done well, it can strengthen buy-in and surface great ideas.

I’ve worked for leaders who genuinely listened and valued input — and that mattered. People want to be heard.

But I’ve also seen democratic leadership stall teams when:

decisions dragged on
accountability blurred
leaders hesitated to lead

What I learned:

Inclusion matters
But leadership still requires responsibility
And not every decision needs a vote

Without clear direction, collaboration can turn into confusion.

Transformational Leadership: Vision Without Grounding

Transformational leaders inspire. They motivate. They paint a compelling picture of the future.

I’ve followed leaders like this — charismatic, driven, passionate. They could light a fire in a room. And in the right season, that energy was powerful.

But vision alone isn’t leadership.

When inspiration wasn’t paired with structure, consistency, and personal investment, teams burned hot and burned out.

What I learned:

Vision energizes
But people still need guidance
And motivation without mentorship fades

Inspiration must be anchored in relationship.

Laissez-Faire Leadership: Trust Without Presence

Laissez-faire leadership gives people freedom and autonomy. For mature, highly skilled individuals, this can work well.

I experienced this style later in my career, and at times I appreciated the trust. But I also saw where it failed — especially with developing leaders.

Hands-off leadership can quietly become absence.

What I learned:

Trust is essential
But presence matters
And growth requires engagement

People don’t need micromanagement — but they do need mentorship.

The Common Thread: What Was Missing

Every one of these styles has value.Every one has a place.

But each one, on its own, lacked something critical:

Personal responsibility for the growth of people.

That’s the difference.

Servant and paternal leadership don’t discard authority, standards, vision, or accountability — they integrate them into a relationship-centered approach.

They ask: