Although I think all three models have good points, I think Goleman's model is the one that has the strongest resonance with me. This model considers more than just competency, commitment and confidence. While all of those are certainly important factors, they are fairly rigid and leave little room for people who may be at the in between stages. For example, someone might be warming up to an idea so you may not need to go as heavy on the selling it part but they aren't quite at a place where they are ready to dive in to build competence.

For Goleman's model, it includes more of the grey area. In social work, we literally live and work in the grey area with very little being black and white so a leader can only be effective if they understand and respond to the grey. This model essentially gives a leader more options in how to respond without restricting them to the four categories.

It could be argued, however, that some of Goleman's leadership styles could actually be damaging. For example, the coercive leader may only serve to heighten a crisis instead of taking swift action to address it. Each of these styles listed by Goleman have both an upside and a downside. In counterpoint to this however, I would say that all three models have pros and cons and leaders will come up against times when no one model totally fits.

Katz’s model postulates that good leadership comes down to three specific skills or attributes. First, a good leader must have a strong technical foundation, meaning they have to know how the company or agency works on a day to day level. For example, in my role, this knowledge includes the procedures used by staff such as completing an intake or an exit or having an understanding of the criteria for someone to access shelter. Next, a good leader must have strong conceptual skills, meaning they must have the ability to think creatively and look at the bigger picture. In my case this might be looking at the philosophy behind how we help survivors and how we can better integrate it into daily practice. Lastly, a good leader must have good interpersonal skills. In my case this means being able to read what my staff may need emotionally and be able to meet that need. An area I in which I often need to use this skill is in watching for burn out and supporting staff who are struggling with it.<br> I think that these three skills are absolutely still relevant during the technological age. In fact, I think they may be even more important, especially the interpersonal skills. In the age of zoom and digital platforms, it is important to be able to pick up on nonverbal cues that might be harder to see in this format. Also, it’s essential to be able to keep the team connected to one another and to make sure the team feels connected to their leader when they are not always in the same room. In my role, there are agency staff members that I have literally never met in person so I need to be able to figure out how to meet their emotional needs and respond appropriately using the limited information I get through a picture on a screen.<br> One thing I would argue is that there is some need for floor level managers to have conceptual skills. In order for an agency to truly adhere to its mission and vision, everyone needs to have an understanding of what it is and how it applies to their own job. You can’t get to your destination if you don’t know what it is or how to get there. I have also anecdotally found that the agencies for whom I’ve worked that are the most successful are the ones where everyone, regardless of role or position in the hierarchy, have a part in looking at and fine tuning the bigger picture. At my current agency, we literally go through our annual agency goals at staff meetings and will discuss why those are the goals as well as the action steps to get there.