The Essential Role of Leadership Styles, ETHRWorld

“Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day; but teach a man how to fish, and he eats for a lifetime.”

This well-known proverb, often attributed to Chinese philosopher Lao Tzu, underscores the value of imparting knowledge and skills over offering short-term assistance. But how does this idea apply in the workplace? How can leaders become more self-aware of the type of help they provide, and how can employees better recognize the kind of help they receive? In our recent research published in the Journal of Applied Psychology, we seek to answer these questions.

A key leadership function is to support employees. Leaders who help others are celebrated and lauded for such behaviours because doing so can improve employee and team performance. However, what this work has generally neglected is how leaders help. Distinguishing between a leader’s helping behaviour is critical, as it can make employees either self-reliant or reliant on the leader, as highlighted by the aforementioned proverb.

In our research, we distinguish between two types of help: dependency and autonomy help. Dependency help involves solving a problem without explaining the underlying logic or reasoning, which facilitates immediate progress but fosters long-term reliance on the leader and reinforces feelings of inferiority (Nadler, 1997, 2002). In contrast, autonomy help offers guidance that enables employees to solve problems on their own—by giving hints or explanations that clarify core issues—thereby promoting independence and future competence.

A critical question, then, is: do certain leaders systematically differentiate in their helping behaviours?

We draw on the dual theoretical framework of social rank, which describes dominance and prestige as two ways of influencing or leading others. Dominance-oriented leaders influence others by centralizing decision-making, limiting communication, and positioning themselves as indispensable (Maner & Mead, 2010; Case & Maner, 2014). In contrast, prestige-oriented leaders promote inclusivity, encourage employee voice, and are motivated by admiration and respect (Case & Maner, 2014; Lee et al., 2020). We found that these motives actively shape leaders’ helping behaviours.

Dominant leaders are more likely to offer dependency help, reinforcing subordinates’ reliance and maintaining their control. They are less inclined to give autonomy help, which could diminish their authority. Prestige-oriented leaders, by contrast, prefer giving autonomy help, promoting skill-building and mutual respect. They avoid offering dependency help, as it conflicts with their values of participation and empowerment. These distinctions help explain why receiving help from certain leaders can feel so different.

How Dominance- and Prestige-oriented Leaders Tend to Offer Different Types of Help

Our research included 8 correlational and experimental studies with over 3,400 participants that tested these hypotheses. Across these studies, we consistently found that dominance-oriented leaders provide more dependency help and less autonomy help, while prestige-oriented leaders provide more autonomy help and less dependency help.

As an initial test of our hypotheses, participants reported themselves on dominance (“I would prefer to be a leader who enjoys having authority over other people”) and prestige (“I would prefer to be a leader who is held in high esteem by other members”) using a validated scale (1 = Strongly disagree, 7 = Strongly agree). Afterwards, participants read six workplace scenarios and indicated how they would assist. For example, participants read, “At work, your subordinate needs help solving a client problem in a meeting,” or “At work, your subordinate needs help organizing a guest lecture series for the company.” Then, they selected their behavioural response from three options for each scenario. The options were: (1) Ignore the request, (no help); (2) Do the task for your subordinate (dependency help); and (3) Teach and explain how to do it so that your subordinate could do it by themselves in the future (autonomy help). We found that dominance (prestige) positively (negatively) predicted dependency help and negatively (positively) predicted autonomy help, even when controlling for relevant variables.

In another experiment, we manipulated dominance and prestige by randomly assigning participants to a high- or low-dominance or prestige condition and measured their responses to employee requests for help (same measure as described above). The results reinforced our earlier findings: dominant leaders were more likely to take over tasks, while prestige-oriented leaders provided more coaching-style support. We also uncovered a key driver behind these behaviours—zero-sum thinking. Leaders who believed that one person’s gain meant another’s loss were more likely to control outcomes and limit others’ growth. By contrast, leaders who saw success as a shared endeavour were more inclined to empower others. Together, these studies offer clear insights: how leaders perceive the world—whether as competitive or collaborative—shapes whether their help develops employees or holds them back.

In our final field study, we tested our hypotheses in real workplaces over time by surveying 105 supervisors and their 420 employees across diverse industries in India such as business, finance, information technology, healthcare, sales, consulting, and manufacturing. Leaders reported on their dominance, prestige, and zero-sum mindset, while employees rated the dependency and autonomy help that they received from their leaders across two different time points. Consistent with earlier studies, dominant leaders were more likely to provide dependency help and less autonomy help, whereas prestige-oriented leaders were less likely to provide dependency help and more autonomy help. The relationship between prestige and autonomy help however, was not robust. Additionally, zero-sum thinking explained why dominant leaders offered more controlling help and less developmental support. This mindset was stronger when leaders felt their status was under threat, amplifying dominance-driven responses. Prestige-oriented leaders, by contrast, were less prone to this scarcity mindset and did not react to status threats in the same way. This study offers strong real-world evidence highlighting how leaders’ tendencies to influence shapes how they help their employees.

How Organizations Can Promote More Effective Helping

Our research offers concrete takeaways for senior leadership and employees. While many companies reward leaders for offering help, they often focus on quantity over quality—assuming that more help automatically means better leadership. But not all help is the same as our work highlights. Here is how organizations can move toward a more effective culture of helping:

1. Evaluate help based on fit, not frequency

A leader who frequently provides dependency help by taking on tasks for their employees and handling all their problems may seem supportive; however, this type of help can unintentionally undermine employees’ growth since it reinforces continued reliance on the leader. Performance systems should therefore move beyond counting how often help is given and start asking: Did this help properly promote long-term learning and independence? Was the employee at the right stage in their career and ready to learn how problems can be fixed, and are leaders offering ample developmental support? For example, organizations can incorporate 360-degree feedback surveys asking employees whether the help they received enabled them to solve problems independently. This type of upward feedback tool would help leaders realize what type of help they have been dispensing and whether it was valuable.

2. Shift away from zero-sum thinking in leadership evaluations

Our research reveals that dominance-oriented leaders engage in zero-sum thinking by believing that empowering others may threaten their own status. To counter this, organizations can shift away from competitive, individual-focused evaluations—such as forced rankings on a curve—and instead reward behaviours that promote collective growth and collaboration. For instance, Microsoft under Satya Nadella eliminated stack-ranking and introduced metrics that emphasized collaboration, continuous learning, and leader contributions to team development (Ibarra & Rattan, 2018). Adopting similar systems can help reshape dominance-oriented leaders’ mindsets to be less focused on control and competition, and more centred on shared success. Additionally, to help leaders see the value of empowering their employees without feeling threatened, leadership development programmes can include exercises that promote perspective-taking and interdependent goal setting.

3. Train employees to recognize different leaders’ helping styles

When problems arise, employees typically care for an immediate resolution rather than considering how the help received might influences their long-term development. In these moments, HR professionals and leaders can empower employees to seek the right kind of aid that meets their goals. For example, career development workshops could first teach employees what dependency help (e.g., jumping in to fix things) and autonomy help (e.g., coaching through a situation) are. They can then teach employees how to identify when a leader tends to give dependency help versus autonomy help. Companies might also offer mentor-matching programmes that connect mentees interested in long-term growth with prestige-oriented leaders who promote skill-building and independence.

In sum, our research shows that not all help is created equal—and not all leaders provide help the same way. Dominance-oriented leaders tend to offer help that keeps them in control, while prestige-oriented leaders are more likely to promote independence. Dominance-oriented leaders will give an employee a fish, whereas prestige-oriented leaders will teach employees how to fish. Understanding these patterns and being intentional about when and how to offer support, can help leaders become more effective and help employees grow. And when companies reduce the zero-sum mindset that often encourages dependency helping, they can create cultures where both leaders and employees thrive.

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are solely of the author and ETHRWorld does not necessarily subscribe to it. ETHRWorld will not be responsible for any damage caused to any person or organisation directly or indirectly.