The relational leader can struggle to lead beyond the relationships he/she can maintain.

The visionary leader has the least trouble as long as he/she can communicate the vision clearly. I have seen them struggle here being a Van Gogh or Picasso in a Rembrandt world.

The administrative leader may get so entrenched in systems and processes that they lose the larger question of “What do we do next and how many resources do we apply to it?”

I don’t know if I would separate out innovative leaders as a true style. Mintzberg (in Drucker’s Leading for Innovation) deems “innovation” by its very definition does not mean doing an old thing a new way. That is merely “adaption.” (Example: a wenkal engine is still a gas powered engine, not innovative, just adaptive.)

Most people we would deem great adaptive leaders are also managerial/systems types with merely a different methodology. Most innovators are really visionaries. In that sense, I don’t see it innovative as a separate “style.” (Plus, our egos also always want to deem ourselves innovative,when most of us are just good adapters.)

James McLeans last blog post..What is the difference?