Five Managerial Archetypes That Shaped My Leadership Style (And What I Learned From Each)

Disclaimer: If you recognize yourself in any of these vignettes, know that these are distilled stories meant to illustrate broader patterns. I’ve learned tremendously from each leader I’ve worked with, and I’m genuinely grateful for everything they’ve taught me that has shaped who I am today.

The Charismatic Delegator (aka “The Ferris Bueller”)

You know this manager. They glide through the office with an almost supernatural ability to avoid looking busy while somehow keeping everything running. They’re rarely in meetings, masterfully delegate most tasks to their reports, and yet… people genuinely like them.

This leader had an uncanny knack for interpersonal relationships and could read the political undercurrents of any situation. They’d show up fashionably late to meetings (always), drop a perfectly timed joke or wildly insightful observation, then disappear again. People either adored them for their hands-off approach or liked them while quietly wondering what exactly they did all day.

What I learned: This manager was the first person to tell me something revolutionary as a new leader: “You have agency to do what you need to do with your team to make things happen.” That permission to trust my instincts was invaluable. They taught me that sometimes the best leadership is knowing when to get out of people’s way or when to pull rank and do what needs to be done.

What was missing: While the autonomy was empowering, I craved more concrete mentoring. Their laissez-faire approach meant I had to figure out a lot of leadership challenges on my own when some direct guidance would have accelerated my growth significantly.

The Aloof Guru

Picture this: You spend hours preparing for your 1:1, armed with thoughtful questions, industry insights, team updates, and burning issues that need guidance. You’re ready for a rich 45-minute conversation. Instead, you get a distracted leader who seems to be mentally somewhere else entirely, wrapping up after 15-20 minutes with vague, inspirational platitudes.

This leader had a frustrating pattern of responding to concrete problems with abstract wisdom. When I needed specific coaching on handling a difficult team dynamic, I’d get something like “trust the process” or “lean into the discomfort.” Meanwhile, initiatives they’d championed were quietly falling apart, and the team was left to navigate the chaos without clear direction.

What I learned: Sometimes inspiration is exactly what people need, but sometimes they need you to roll up your sleeves and get tactical. The best leaders know when to be the visionary guru and when to be the hands-on problem-solver. Being only one or the other leaves gaps that your team will feel.

The Fierce Advocate (aka “The Anti-Change Agent”)

This leader taught me everything about servant leadership and empathetic management. When I reported to them, I felt genuinely heard and supported. They’d fight tooth and nail for their team members, running concerns up the flagpole and using every ounce of their influence to make our work lives better.

But when I became their colleague, I saw the other side of this coin. Their reflexive pushback against any change from senior leadership—even necessary business changes—started to feel counterproductive. While advocating for your team is crucial, sometimes changes need to happen for the organization to survive and thrive, even if they’re initially unpopular or challenging.

What I learned: There’s an art to strategic pushback. I now try to save my “squeaky wheel quota” for things I feel passionately about rather than reflexively opposing every change. The key is helping your team understand why changes are happening while still being their advocate within reasonable bounds.

The Emotional Volcano

This manager wore every feeling on their sleeve—the good, the bad, and everything in between. We always knew exactly how they felt about any situation, person, or decision. While transparency can be valuable, this leader let emotions build and build until they’d explode in disruptive ways that affected the entire team’s dynamic.

Their emotional volatility meant we often knew more than we should have about office politics, interpersonal conflicts, and leadership decisions that were still in flux. What started as refreshing honesty became exhausting unpredictability.

What I learned: Emotional transparency has its place in leadership, but it needs boundaries. Yes, your team should sometimes see when you’re upset about something important—it shows you care and have their backs. But sharing every emotional reaction creates unnecessary stress and can undermine your credibility as a steady presence your team can rely on.

The Puppet Master

This leader turned management into a psychological chess game. They’d weaponize silence in meetings, waiting until the discomfort forced you to say something you might not have otherwise shared. Trust was a foreign concept—they were never warm, never vulnerable, never genuine in their interactions.

They played favorites openly, and for a while, I was on the good side of that equation. Conference attendance, paid training, regular 1:1 attention—I got it all. But when their focus shifted to someone else, I received the lowest performance review of my career during what I considered my hardest-working year.

Most insidiously, they’d bring up gossip in individual conversations, designed to make people suspicious of their colleagues. And despite being in a player-coach role, whenever they needed to contribute as a “player,” their work barely met minimum standards.

What I learned: Trust is the foundation of effective leadership, and manipulation erodes it faster than almost anything else. Favorites might feel good in the moment, but they create toxic team dynamics. Consistency in how you treat people and genuine investment in everyone’s success builds the kind of culture where people actually want to do their best work.

The Leadership Cocktail

Here’s what’s fascinating about these experiences: each archetype had elements worth emulating and others worth avoiding. The Charismatic Delegator’s trust in people’s agency, the Aloof Guru’s occasional inspirational moments, the Fierce Advocate’s genuine care, the Emotional Volcano’s transparency (in smaller doses), and even the Puppet Master’s strategic thinking (applied ethically)—there’s something to learn from every approach.

The leaders who’ve had the most positive impact on my growth have been able to flex between these styles as situations demanded. They knew when to delegate and when to dive deep, when to inspire and when to get tactical, when to advocate and when to embrace change, when to be transparent and when to maintain professional boundaries, when to be strategic and when to be genuine.

What managerial archetypes have shaped your leadership journey? Which ones do you find yourself gravitating toward, and which ones do you actively try to avoid?

Want more thoughts on leadership and management? Follow along for more real talk about the messy, complicated, and occasionally brilliant world of leading people.