But what happens when your preferred approach suddenly loses followership? If you don’t adjust, you could diminish your credibility as a leader. On the other hand, adopting an unfamiliar style can be both awkward for you and confusing for your colleagues.

The challenge to become versatile across leadership styles is arguably harder than improving technical expertise or strategic competence because it calls for personal transformation. And these days, if you’re not committed to developing past your comfort zone, you’re unlikely to inspire others to stretch themselves and follow your example.

In my work coaching executives, I’ve seen that having the courage to develop greater adaptability in their leadership approach is worth the effort. Leaders who expand their range of styles not only sustain followership, they’re often surprised by how agility gets easier with practice. Here are five strategies to help you successfully meet the moment when your default leadership style stops working.

Scan for shifts in the business, stakeholders, and yourself.

When your leadership style loses impact, it’s typically because something changed in the systems around you. To avoid blind spots in your effectiveness, look for sudden changes in three areas: the business you serve, the stakeholders you manage and influence, and your personal concerns.

Ask yourself: Have market dynamics, customer needs, or product strategies shifted? Are your stakeholders requiring something different in order to willingly follow you? And within yourself, have any new responsibilities demanded a change in your confidence and presence?

I once coached a VP who noticed morale dropping across his team and complaints rising from internal customers about work delays. As he scanned for shifts in the business and key stakeholders, he recognized that constant pivots in strategy to keep up with market competition confused the team’s priorities. At the same time, internal customers were applying pressure on shared projects. And the new VP, newly promoted, was trying too hard to please everyone, rather than managing around a clear vision and strategically setting boundaries on service. The result was a purely reactive team seen as order-takers targeted for criticism rather than valuable strategic partners.

By scanning at the level of the business, stakeholders and self, the VP realized he needed to lead with more clarity and conviction to improve credibility around what his team could promise and deliver. Shifting his style with this intention helped reset and re-engage both his team and stakeholders more effectively.

Identify a style you’re overusing and try on new ones.

To help you assess which styles you tend to favor, consider how you show up across these six leadership styles, as provided by psychologist Daniel Goleman’s research: directive (using command and coercion), authoritative (defining a vision to follow), pacesetting (insisting on high standards), affiliative (preferring personal bonds), democratic (seeking consensus for decisions), and coaching (prioritizing individual growth).

Several factors influence your chosen style, from your personality and unique strengths, to how you were taught about leadership, perhaps from prior bosses or mentors. But comfort breeds complacency, and as needs change, your over-reliance on one approach can limit future followership.

One of my coaching clients was a CEO who had spent his whole career at his company. Because of his deep institutional knowledge and a scrappy, “roll up your sleeves and get it done” personality, he preferred to operate in the weeds, involving himself in extremely tactical issues. This pacesetting style—hands on, detail oriented and pushing for his view of excellence—worked well when the company was small and his leadership team was made up of longtime colleagues who expected it.

But as the business scaled and new leaders were hired to help the company develop a mature operational structure, his involvement became a bottleneck. And his style, once effective for solving simpler problems, now limited his managers’ capabilities in addressing increasingly complex ones. He realized that in order to sustain effectiveness, he needed to try on some new styles, namely a visionary one that encouraged team ownership, and a coaching one that empowered others to grow themselves in preparation for future demands.