Command and Control vs. People-Centered Leadership Styles

Introduction to Leadership Styles

Leadership is defined as the ability of an individual to influence and guide his or her followers. A leader is therefore required to make sound decisions, create and articulate a clear vision, establish achievable goals, and provide followers with the knowledge and tools necessary to meet those goals. There are different leadership styles that leaders follow or adhere to, the most common being the command and control style. While it may be the most widespread style in use today, that does not mean it is the most effective. This style has its roots in the military. In command and control leadership, the leader is always in command and maintains control over employees. According to Smith et al. (2016), the command and control leadership style is authoritative and makes use of standards, procedures, and output statistics to regulate the organization. The leader is authoritative in nature, which fits well in bureaucratic organizations where privilege and power are vested with senior management (Woods, 2016). With this leadership style, there is a clear distinction between employees and management.

Problems of Command and Control Leadership

While many books and articles have been written criticizing the effectiveness of the command and control leadership style, it is surprising that numerous organizations have maintained this approach. A major reason for this persistence is that leaders are often unaware of better alternatives. This leadership style stifles creativity and limits the flexibility of employees, causing them to operate like robots who only follow the commands of their leaders. Employees are rarely treated with respect and dignity, which is deeply demotivating (Black and La Venture, 2018). When employees are not respected, they tend to leave for organizations where they will be valued, forcing the original organization to continually incur the exorbitant costs of hiring and training replacements.

Results are the primary goal of this leadership style. Managers are mainly interested in outcomes and give little consideration to people or the broader vision of the organization. While this approach can be effective in delivering short-term results, there is no emotional connection between management and employees (Smith et al., 2016). This makes it difficult for employees to offer ideas to management, even when those ideas could lead to increased productivity. Command and control leadership establishes power and control over people — and while some degree of behavioral structure is necessary, this is not the most effective way to lead. The notion that leaders always know best is outdated; the most effective leaders today are those who acknowledge the limits of their own knowledge. There must always be room for change if a leader is to be truly effective.

Employees under command and control leadership are constrained and limited in both engagement and commitment. Because the leader has already defined each employee's responsibilities and roles, there is little room for initiative or contribution beyond what is prescribed (Black and La Venture, 2018). Communication is inhibited, as the leader is unwilling to hear suggestions from employees, making communication essentially one-directional. Hierarchy and authority take precedence, and in the event of a problem during work performance, employees are not permitted to steer away from the prescribed course — they must maintain it until the leader directs otherwise. This can be particularly counterproductive in the manufacturing sector, where an unaddressed problem can cascade into serious consequences.

Different organizations face different challenges, and the command and control style is especially ill-suited to complex conditions that have no simple solution and require genuine interaction between management and employees. Complex challenges require collaboration, and without it, organizations cannot develop effective solutions. This style of leadership may have worked during the industrial revolution, but it is poorly matched to the current knowledge economy, where competitive advantage depends on the generation and sharing of ideas. Any leadership style that suppresses employee contributions cannot produce optimal results. Organizations must be innovative to remain viable, and innovation is only possible when employees are genuinely empowered to share their ideas. It has been suggested that many managers are not unaware of better alternatives — rather, they are afraid of losing control. In today's environment, business leaders are exposed to numerous management theories and best practices, meaning any organization that clings to command and control leadership does so largely in the manager's own interest rather than the organization's. Embracing contemporary approaches like the people-centered model allows managers to appropriately share control with their employees.

People-Centered Leadership Approach

Leadership is a chance to direct human behavior toward creativity and productivity. There are essentially two ways a leader can influence human behavior: through inspiration or through manipulation. The best leaders are consistently those who choose to inspire. The people-centered leadership approach views leadership as a process of influence that involves working with people to accomplish both individual and organizational goals (Black and La Venture, 2018). This approach is fundamentally about building trust and creating a clear vision of where employees are heading with their work. The leader must then work to actively support employees and manage the changes that arise during the course of their work. To live up to this definition of leadership, a leader must be committed to building strong relationships with employees. Strong relationships result in employees who work harder because they genuinely trust and respect their leader, and who are more forgiving when the leader makes a mistake. In most instances, this leadership style leads to greater motivation and satisfaction, because employees feel heard and appreciated — which in turn improves team engagement.

This stands in direct contrast to the command and control style, which focuses on telling employees what to do and how to do it without building meaningful relationships, leaving employees feeling neglected and treated like emotionless robots (Smith et al., 2016). Such an approach is clearly outdated and irrelevant in the 21st century. A leader who genuinely trusts employees — who has shared the organizational vision and goals and then allows employees to perform their work — will attract far more willing and dedicated followers than one who is solely focused on enforcing compliance. Command and control leaders may manipulate employees into completing tasks, but that is all employees will do. A leader who genuinely cares, however, will inspire employees to go the extra mile in pursuit of the shared vision.

Loyalty is also directly shaped by the people-centered approach. Building loyalty among employees gives a leader a depth of commitment that command and control methods simply cannot generate. In the current business environment, retaining talent is critical, and loyalty is essential to preventing the loss of key people to competitors. A people-centered leader recognizes employees' strengths and achievements and praises them for their accomplishments (Maier et al., 2015), motivating employees to perform even better. By contrast, the command and control leader operates from the assumption that the leader always knows best, rarely acknowledging employee accomplishments, which demotivates employees and discourages them from exceeding their minimum requirements. People-centered leadership recognizes this pitfall and instead embraces employees for who they are, giving them the opportunity to prove themselves and contribute to the vision the leader has crafted. Any leader who pretends to know everything will ultimately be punished for that mistake when their employees walk out the door.

Conclusion

Leadership is not about commanding followers. Leadership is about influencing and guiding them. A leader who guides followers effectively will not only achieve the desired objective but will also inspire followers to develop their own leadership capacity. In the dynamic business environment of today, it is essential that leaders embrace change and communicate the change process clearly and articulately. This enables the organization to manage transitions successfully. The widespread use of the command and control approach does not make it effective; its persistence likely reflects managers' unwillingness to relinquish control rather than any genuine advantage it confers. A manager who fears losing authority when followers are empowered to share ideas will ultimately lose those followers to a more accommodative leader.

For change to be effective, leaders must maintain open communication, actively seek solutions to emerging challenges, and encourage followers to share their ideas and concerns at every stage of the process. Leadership that is truly effective in the 21st century is adaptive, people-centered, and rooted in trust — qualities that command and control, by its very nature, cannot provide.

References

Avolio, B. J., Keng-Highberger, F. T., Schaubroeck, J., Trevino, L. K., & Kozlowski, S. W. (2016). How follower attributes affect ratings of ethical and transformational leadership. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2016(1), 16854.

Black, J., & La Venture, K. (2018). The human factor to profitability: Leveraging people-centered cultures as meaningful organizations. Public Integrity, 20, 444–458.

Maier, T., Tavanti, M., Bombard, P., Gentile, M., & Bradford, B. (2015). Millennial generation perceptions of value-centered leadership principles. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 14, 382–397.

Smith, T. D., Eldridge, F., & DeJoy, D. M. (2016). Safety-specific transformational and passive leadership influences on firefighter safety climate perceptions and safety behavior outcomes. Safety Science, 86, 92–97.

Woods, P. A. (2016). Authority, power and distributed leadership. Management in Education, 30, 155–160.