Leadership Style: Self-Assessment

Leadership Style: Self-Assessment

What is Your Dominant Leadership Style?

This leadership assessment tool offers insights into your natural leadership style and identifies areas for growth by evaluating behaviors, preferences, and decision-making tendencies. It covers a range of leadership styles including Autocratic, Democratic/Participative, Transformational, Transactional, and Laissez-faire. Each set of questions corresponds to a different leadership style. Answer the questions in each part of the assessment honestly to obtain an accurate reflection of your dominant leadership style. This asesment can serve as a guide to becoming a more adaptive, flexible leader capable of adjusting style to meet the diverse team needs.

Autocratic Leadership Style Assessment

Leadership Style Self-Assessment - Autocratic

1 / 5

I expect team members to follow my instructions without questioning my authority.

2 / 5

I prefer making quick, decisive choices without extensive consultation.

3 / 5

I give detailed instructions and closely monitor my team's work to ensure it is completed correctly.

4 / 5

I prefer to take full responsibility for outcomes and limit delegation to maintain control.

5 / 5

I believe it is important to make decisions quickly and with authority.

0%

Democratic-Participative Leadership Style Assessment

Leadership Style Self-Assessment - Democratic/Participative

1 / 5

I offer support and encouragement to help my team members succeed.

2 / 5

I motivate my team by clearly communicating the purpose and importance of our work.

3 / 5

I believe in making final decisions after considering input from my team.

4 / 5

I involve team members in decision-making processes to ensure their input.

5 / 5

I involve the team in setting goals and defining project direction.

0%

Transformational Leadership Style Assessment

Leadership Style Self-Assessment - Transformational

1 / 5

I motivate my team by clearly communicating the purpose and importance of our work.

2 / 5

I focus on the personal growth and development of my team members, inspiring them to achieve their full potential.

3 / 5

I encourage creativity and innovation among team members, allowing them to explore new ideas.

4 / 5

I enjoy setting a clear vision for my team and guiding them towards it.

5 / 5

I focus on long-term goals and vision rather than micromanaging day-to-day tasks.

0%

Transactional Leadership Style Assessment

Leadership Style Self-Assessment - Transactional

1 / 5

I use rewards and recognition to motivate my team when they meet objectives.

2 / 5

I monitor performance closely to ensure that tasks are being completed to the required standard.

3 / 5

I provide corrective feedback when tasks or projects do not meet expected outcomes.

4 / 5

I set clear expectations and provide specific rewards when goals are met.

5 / 5

I emphasize the importance of meeting deadlines and adhering to established processes.

0%

Laissez-Faire Leadership Style Assessment

Leadership Style Self-Assessment - Laissez-Faire

1 / 5

I delegate responsibility to team members and trust them to complete tasks independently.

2 / 5

I focus on long-term goals and vision rather than micromanaging day-to-day tasks.

3 / 5

I prefer to take a non-interventionist approach with my team.

4 / 5

I involve the team in setting goals and defining project direction.

5 / 5

I give team members the freedom to make decisions without involving me in every detail.

0%

Total Score Ranges for Each Style

Each leadership style has a total score range from 5 to 25:

  • High Score (20-25): This leadership style strongly aligns with your natural tendencies.
  • Moderate Score (12-19): You often use this leadership style but balance it with others.
  • Low Score (5-11): This leadership style is not a natural fit for you, but you might benefit from developing its characteristics depending on your leadership context.

Interpreting Your Total Score

Reflect on which style had the highest score and which had the lowest. This will help you understand your natural leadership tendencies.

The leadership style with the highest score is your dominant style, reflecting how you typically lead your team.

A balanced score across multiple styles indicates that you are an adaptive leader, adjusting your style depending on the situation and the needs of your team. For example, if you score moderately across transformational and transactional leadership, you likely balance motivating with vision and providing rewards based on performance.

Areas for Growth:

Low scores in a particular leadership style may indicate areas where you could develop new skills. 

    • Autocratic Leadership: If your score is low, you may consider being more directive in situations requiring clear leadership and decision-making authority.
    • Democratic Leadership: If your score is low here, consider seeking more input from your team and involving them in decision-making processes.
    • Transformational Leadership: If this is low, reflect on how you can better inspire your team with a clear vision and long-term goals.
    • Laissez-faire Leadership: If your score is low, look for opportunities to delegate tasks and allow your team more autonomy.
    • Transactional Leadership: If your score is low, consider establishing clearer expectations for your team and implementing a more structured reward and performance management system to drive accountability. Developing these practices may help you ensure that team goals are consistently met.

 

Actionable Insights

  • Leverage Strengths: Use the leadership style in which you excel to drive your team’s performance. If you score high in transactional leadership, continue to set clear goals and reward achievement, but consider integrating other styles to balance rewards with vision.
  • Balance with Other Styles: If you score moderately in several styles, consider how you can further develop flexibility. For example, if you balance transactional and transformational leadership, aim to inspire your team while also holding them accountable for results.
  • Team Engagement: Reflect on how your dominant leadership style affects team morale, engagement, and productivity. Adapt your style to meet your team’s unique needs.

 

Leadership Development and Executive Coaching

Contact Us

 

 

U.S. Women in Political Leadership: Gender & Partisan Perspectives

U.S. Women in Political Leadership: Gender & Partisan Perspectives

The United States Global Leadership

The United States has long been a global pioneer, shaping the world’s political, economic, and cultural landscapes. As the world’s largest economy and a hub of technological innovation, the United States has consistently set the pace for advancements in science, technology, and business. Its democratic principles and commitment to individual freedoms have made it a global beacon of hope and a global governance model.

Despite its leadership in many areas, the United States lags significantly in one crucial domain: gender parity in leadership, including political leadership. The disparity in political representation is particularly noteworthy in 2024, a year hailed as the largest global election year in history, with approximately 4 billion people heading to the polls in over 60 countries, including some of the world’s most populous economies.1 As the world continues to make strides toward electing female leaders, the United States lags behind other nations, raising critical questions about its role as a global pacesetter.

The 2024 U.S. Presidential Election: A Milestone for Women?

The 2024 United States presidential election marks a significant moment, with the Democratic Party nominating a female candidate for the second time in history. This follows the election of the first female vice president in 2020, signaling progress but underscoring the slow pace of change. The World Economic Forum ranks the United States 63rd in political empowerment on the Global Gender Gap Index, far behind many other democracies.2   

Women comprise approximately 50% of the United States adult population, they hold only 25% of Senate seats, 29% of House seats, 24% of governorships, and 33% of state legislature offices.3  The underrepresentation of women in the political landscape mirrors broader societal challenges, where they continually face barriers in ascending to leadership roles.

The United States electorate remains divided on the issue of female political leadership. Hillary Clinton became the first woman nominated for president by a major political party in the 2016 election. She garnered 54% of the female vote and 41% of the male vote, while her opponent, Donald Trump, won 52% of the male vote and 39% of the female vote.4 Over time, the gap between male and female perspectives on women in leadership roles has widened.

In 1999, 51% of men and 62% of women believed that the country would benefit from more women in political leadership. In 2024, only 46% of men held this belief, while the percentage of women who supported female political leadership increased to 68%.5  

Public Opinion: By Gender & Political Party

A survey of public opinion regarding women in political leadership across political parties reveals further deepening of the divide. In 1999, 47% of Republicans and 66% of Democrats believed that more women in political leadership would improve governance.6  In 2024, the figures diverged even more sharply, with just 32% of Republicans supporting women in leadership roles, compared to 84% of Democrats.7 

The increased gender divide highlights the persistence of traditional gender norms among certain segments of the population, particularly among men and Republican voters. The stark difference reflects broader ideological divides, suggesting Republicans tend to favor traditional gender roles more strongly than Democrats. Such attitudes directly influence the extent to which women can participate in political leadership, often subjecting female candidates to greater public and media scrutiny than male counterparts.

 

The data for women in the U.S. Senate, House of Representatives, Governors, and the U.S. Cabinet appointments highlight significant strides, with a consistent increase in female representation, particularly within the Democratic Party.8,9,10

The Republican Party has historically nominated fewer female candidates, although it has had high-profile women leaders such as Condoleezza Rice, who served as Secretary of State, and Nikki Haley who was a Governor and later, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. The Democratic Party has demonstrated some gender diversity success with leaders like Hilary Clinton who was a Senator, party nominee for the presidential race, and Secretary of State, Nancy Pelosi, the first female speaker of the house, and Kamala Harris, the first female vice president and now, party nominee for the presidential race serving as prominent examples.

Women running for political office in the United States face unique challenges. Research shows that female candidates are judged more harshly on personal characteristics, such as appearance or family life, than male candidates.11 Such heightened scrutiny has a chilling effect, discouraging many qualified women from seeking leadership roles. Furthermore, systemic barriers, including fewer financial resources and limited access to political networks further compound the difficulties women face in United States politics.12

Global Comparisons: Learning from Other Nations

The United States falls short of global leadership in female political representation. Sirimavo Bandaranaike of Sri Lanka became the first democratically elected female prime minister in 1960. Since then, 80 countries have elected women as heads of state or government, with 27 countries being led by women as of January 2024.13   Recent elections in Mexico, the Democratic Republic of Congo, North Macedonia, Malta, and the Marshall Islands have added to the growing number of female leaders. Notably, in 2024 alone, seven countries elected female heads of state or government, a stark contrast to the United States, which has yet to elect a woman as president despite its global influence.

Countries with gender parity in leadership often implement structural reforms. Nations like Rwanda and Sweden adopted gender quotas, significantly increasing female representation in political office.14 These policies ensure women are not represented in token numbers but hold significant political power. In contrast, the United States has no such mandates, and progress remains slow and inconsistent.

The Path Forward: Breaking the Glass Ceiling in United States Politics

As of 2024, the Council of Women World Leaders, comprising female presidents and prime ministers, boasts 90 members.15

The United States is a global leader but not in the critical area of gender parity. It has made notable strides, but women remain underrepresented in political leadership positions, so there is much more to do. Achieving gender parity in political leadership requires addressing societal attitudes and structural barriers.

Public opinion plays a key role, as do policies that promote equal opportunities. Gender quotas, campaign finance reforms, and policies that support work-life balance for female candidates are just a few measures that could help level the playing field. Additionally, shifting societal perceptions about gender roles is key to ensuring broader acceptance of female leadership.

As other countries continue to elect female leaders and make strides toward gender parity, the United States must confront its gender parity challenges to ensure a conducive environment that provides women the opportunity to lead at the highest levels.

The November 2024 election results will provide further insight into where the American public stands regarding women in political leadership, all political factors considered.

Leadership Development and Executive Coaching

Contact Us