Knowing a leadership style is more than a branding exercise or a personality label. For many founders and leaders, especially in fast moving markets like Malaysia, Singapore, or Saudi Arabia, it is the difference between leading by accident and leading on purpose. Until a leader can clearly describe how they tend to think, decide, and interact under pressure, much of their impact on the organisation remains invisible, including the patterns that create repeated problems in the team.
Many leaders can recite revenue numbers, funnel metrics, or cash runway without hesitation, yet struggle when asked to describe their own leadership style. They reach for safe words such as “collaborative” or “hands on” without real reflection. What feels “natural” is left unexamined, even when it is the very thing that keeps producing the same conflicts, missed expectations, or execution gaps. Knowing a leadership style is powerful precisely because it makes the invisible visible. A style that is named can be observed, adjusted, and deliberately balanced. A style that remains unnamed quietly runs the show.
Under stress, a leader’s default style surfaces with particular clarity. Consider a delayed product launch, a key hire backing out, or a tense investor meeting. One leader will immediately dive into operational details and try to personally fix every problem. Another will call the whole team into a room to talk until tensions ease. A third will withdraw for a while to map out scenarios and second order consequences. These are not random reactions. They are expressions of different leadership styles in motion. When leaders recognise these patterns as part of a coherent style, they gain a useful dashboard rather than an unconscious script.
One of the most practical advantages of understanding leadership style is the impact on hiring decisions. A visionary founder who thrives on big ideas and momentum may naturally attract people who respond to that energy. The early team may feel highly aligned, creative, and fast moving. Yet after some time, the same leader may notice that projects keep slipping, details are missed, and no one seems to own the unglamorous work of implementation. The problem is not simply “bad hires.” It is an overly dominant leadership style that has replicated itself too many times.
When leaders acknowledge their own tendencies, hiring can shift from “people I like and who like my style” to “people who balance my style.” A visionary founder can decide to bring in a COO who loves process, or a product head who consistently tests assumptions and asks detailed questions. That founder can state clearly, both to themselves and to the new hire, “My strength is speed and big picture thinking. I need you to protect execution quality and challenge my ideas when they are not ready.” This kind of clarity reduces ego games and sets healthier expectations on both sides.
Self knowledge also transforms communication. Many leaders believe their teams are resistant, unproactive, or confused, when the underlying difficulty is inconsistency in how the leader shows up. A leader might spend one month in a highly participative mode, inviting input on every decision, and the next month in crisis mode, making unilateral calls and demanding rapid execution. To the leader, this swing feels like a natural response to changes in urgency. To the team, it feels unpredictable and destabilising. People begin to waste energy trying to guess “which version” of the leader will appear in each meeting.
When leaders understand their own pattern, they can explain it in advance and frame intentional shifts. A founder who knows they are naturally decisive and fast moving can say, “In normal weeks, I want broad input and slower decisions. In the next two weeks, because of the launch, I will make faster calls and we will trade some discussion time for speed.” The style may still vary, but it is no longer experienced as mood or inconsistency. The reasoning becomes transparent, which reduces anxiety and improves follow through.
Awareness of leadership style is equally important in preventing strengths from becoming liabilities. A highly supportive leader creates loyalty and psychological safety, but may avoid direct feedback or delay difficult conversations. A very direct leader clears bottlenecks quickly, but may create a climate of fear or defensiveness. A leader who relies heavily on data reduces certain risks but may slow down decisions when speed is the true competitive advantage. Without language for these tendencies, leaders tend to interpret the consequences as random interpersonal issues. They blame “sensitive staff,” “weak hires,” or “poor culture fit” instead of recognising where their own style is overextended.
Once a leader can name their style, they can ask more precise questions. A supportive leader might ask, “Where am I protecting feelings at the expense of clarity and accountability.” A direct leader can ask, “When was the last time someone disagreed with me openly, and what did I do in that moment.” A data heavy leader can ask, “Where am I using analysis as a shield against committing to a direction.” These questions invite targeted adjustments instead of vague promises to “improve communication” or “be more empowering.”
Leadership style also shapes organisational culture more deeply than any written value statement. People learn what truly matters by watching how leaders behave, especially when trade offs are involved. An over responsible leader who constantly rescues failing projects may unintentionally teach that real ownership means never dropping the ball and never saying no. In such environments, burnout becomes a quiet norm, and people hide their limits because they assume that exhaustion is the price of loyalty. A leader with an overly relaxed style may create a sense of freedom, yet also signal that standards are flexible and consequences are fuzzy. High performers eventually leave because they tire of carrying the weight for others.
By examining their own style, leaders can see the gap between declared values and lived experience. A founder might realise that although the company talks about “family,” their own style creates distance and hierarchy. Or they might see that while they encourage “open feedback,” their reaction to criticism still shuts people down. This recognition is uncomfortable, but it is also the doorway to genuine culture work. Without it, culture initiatives remain cosmetic.
Decision making provides another lens on style. When stakes are high, a relational leader will turn first to conversations and consensus, an analytical leader to models and projections, and a bold leader to rapid action. None of these approaches is inherently wrong. The risk lies in forgetting that each one is a partial view shaped by personal preference. Leaders who understand their style can intentionally surround themselves with complementary perspectives. Before making a major decision, a speed oriented leader can ask, “If we slowed this down, what risks would we avoid or insights would we gain.” A people focused leader can ask, “What financial or strategic trade offs am I underestimating because I am prioritising harmony.” In this way, style becomes a known bias rather than an invisible driver.
Regional context makes this even more important. In emerging or rapidly transforming ecosystems, leaders are often tempted to copy models they see in global media. Silicon Valley swagger, rigid corporate formality, and casual “tech bro” informality all travel quickly online. Yet investors, employees, and families in Kuala Lumpur, Singapore, or Riyadh live within different social, cultural, and regulatory realities. A leadership style copied without adaptation can easily clash with local expectations, religious norms, or family dynamics. Leaders who understand their own style can filter external examples more wisely. They can ask, “Which parts of this model fit my personality and my context, and which parts would damage trust or credibility here.”
The process of discovering leadership style does not need to begin with another personality assessment, although those tools can offer useful vocabulary. A more grounded starting point is to analyse real events. Leaders can reflect on a few recent situations: a conflict between team members, a threatened deadline, a tough choice around promotion or restructuring. For each event, they can write down what they did first, what they avoided, what felt easy, and what felt draining. Clear patterns usually emerge from this reflection. Some leaders will see that they always step in to mediate, even when others should lead. Some will notice that they keep postponing meetings whenever tension rises. Others will see that they consistently ask for more data even when time is slipping away.
These repeated behaviours form the raw material of a leadership style. From there, leaders can give the style a name that feels accurate rather than impressive. They can share it with their teams, explain where it serves the organisation well, and openly describe where they are working to expand their range. This transparency builds trust, because team members can see that self development is not reserved for them alone. The goal of knowing a leadership style is not to lock a person into a rigid box. Styles are starting points, not prisons. Once a default pattern is acknowledged, leaders can experiment with stretching into complementary behaviours. A supportive leader can practice more direct feedback in low risk situations. A highly analytical leader can practice making smaller decisions with less data. Over time, the leader becomes more adaptable without losing their core strengths. The difference is that style now serves the mission instead of the mission having to work around an unconscious style.
In the end, tools, frameworks, and tactics matter less than the person applying them. Playbooks can be copied from case studies or consultants, but the lived quality of leadership emerges from the way a leader habitually thinks, feels, and acts under pressure. Knowing one’s leadership style does not solve every problem. However, it provides a stable reference point from which to hire, communicate, build culture, and make decisions with greater coherence. Leaders who invest in this self understanding are not just more effective. They also tend to break fewer things and fewer people on the way to their goals.
WhatsApp
Instagram
Threads
