Pacesetting Leadership Style
Definition and Characteristics
The pacesetting leadership style is one of six leadership styles identified by Daniel Goleman (2000) in his influential work on emotional intelligence and leadership. This style is characterized by a leader who sets high performance standards and exemplifies them through personal behavior, expecting others to follow suit. Such leaders are highly competent, driven, and often perfectionists who prioritize excellence and speed.
According to Goleman (2000), pacesetting leaders lead by example and tend to take over tasks if others are not performing to expected standards. While this can be effective in high-performing, self-motivated teams, it often results in reduced morale, burnout, and diminished innovation over time, particularly in teams requiring guidance and development.
“The pacesetting leader sets high standards for performance. He or she is obsessive about doing things better and faster, and asks the same of everyone.”(Goleman, 2000, p. 87)
Core Traits of Pacesetting Leadership
-
High Standards: Leaders expect excellence and are intolerant of mediocrity (Goleman, Boyatzis & McKee, 2002).
-
Hands-On Approach: Often micromanage or intervene when standards are not met (Northouse, 2018).
-
Results-Driven: Task and performance-oriented, focusing on productivity and speed (Robbins & Judge, 2019).
-
Low Emotional Engagement: Often neglect the emotional and developmental needs of subordinates (Goleman, 2000).
Impact on Organizational Climate
Goleman (2000) notes that while this style can be highly effective in short bursts or in organizations populated by highly skilled professionals, it generally undermines the emotional climate. The style has been linked to high stress levels and low morale, especially in educational contexts where collaboration, mentorship, and emotional support are crucial (Leithwood et al., 2006).
Moreover, in the field of educational leadership, this style is often critiqued for its lack of attention to the developmental needs of staff and students. As noted by Fullan (2001), sustainable school improvement requires relationship-building and capacity development—elements often overlooked in pacesetting environments.
Strengths of Pacesetting Leadership
-
Suitable in crisis or turnaround situations where quick results are necessary (Kouzes & Posner, 2017).
-
Effective with experienced, self-directed teams who require minimal guidance.
-
Encourages excellence and accountability.
Limitations and Criticisms
-
Reduced Collaboration: Team members may feel disempowered or undervalued (Leithwood et al., 2006).
-
Burnout Risk: Unrealistically high standards can lead to stress and staff turnover (Day et al., 2016).
-
Lack of Professional Development: Limited focus on coaching and mentorship reduces long-term capacity-building (Fullan, 2001).
Application in Educational Contexts
In educational institutions, especially schools and universities, the pacesetting leadership style is a double-edged sword. While it can drive academic achievement and raise standards quickly, it often does so at the cost of community-building and staff development. Research in educational change underscores the importance of relational trust, shared leadership, and emotional intelligence—all areas where pacesetting may falter (Bryk & Schneider, 2002; Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012).
Educational leaders employing this style must be cautious. As Robinson (2007) highlights, the most effective school leaders balance instructional leadership with the ability to build trust and capacity among staff—tasks that require more than just modeling high performance.
Conclusion
The pacesetting leadership style is a performance-oriented approach that relies heavily on modeling excellence and expecting the same from others. While it can yield rapid improvements, particularly in capable and autonomous teams, its long-term application in educational settings often leads to stress, disengagement, and lack of innovation. Therefore, educational leaders should integrate elements of pacesetting with more emotionally intelligent and collaborative styles such as coaching or democratic leadership to foster sustainable school improvement.
References
-
Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in Schools: A Core Resource for Improvement. Russell Sage Foundation.
-
Day, C., Gu, Q., & Sammons, P. (2016). The Impact of Leadership on Student Outcomes: How Successful School Leaders Use Transformational and Instructional Strategies to Make a Difference. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52(2), 221–258.
-
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a Culture of Change. Jossey-Bass.
-
Goleman, D. (2000). Leadership That Gets Results. Harvard Business Review, 78(2), 78–90.
-
Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2002). Primal Leadership: Realizing the Power of Emotional Intelligence. Harvard Business Press.
-
Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2012). Professional Capital: Transforming Teaching in Every School. Teachers College Press.
-
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2017). The Leadership Challenge (6th ed.). Wiley.
-
Leithwood, K., Day, C., Sammons, P., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2006). Successful School Leadership: What It Is and How It Influences Pupil Learning. DfES Publications.
-
Northouse, P. G. (2018). Leadership: Theory and Practice (8th ed.). Sage.
-
Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2019). Organizational Behavior (18th ed.). Pearson.
-
Robinson, V. M. J. (2007). School Leadership and Student Outcomes: Identifying What Works and Why. Australian Council for Educational Leaders.
