A Blast of Top-Down Management

Collaborative. Empathetic. Consensus building. For most of this century, these have been among the key elements of effective corporate leadership. But in a remarkably short time, many top leaders are changing their style—and workers have noticed.

Under pressure from a new business climate that seems to be changing at hyper speed, as well as from government leaders’ abrupt policy shifts, CEOs and other bosses at some of the biggest firms are making use of a more traditional, but also controversial style: a so-called “directive,” top-down approach to management. It’s been seen, for instance, in companies’ increasing strictness about return-to-office mandates, as well as, more recently, in the blunt public comments of CEOs criticizing underperformers and pushing for faster results and greater compliance.

“Directive is old-world leadership,” says Kevin Cashman, Korn Ferry vice chairman of CEO and enterprise leadership, who views it as one—not the only—management style leaders should turn to. Indeed, leadership researchers say that the directive approach is most effective when applied to simple, straightforward tasks, or when dealing with chronically underperforming team members. But it can also backfire quickly: It can turn off high performers and rally staffers against company goals. “To say that directive is the preferred style is like saying an athlete should only use one move in all situations,” says Cashman.

To some degree, experts say, many leaders may feel cornered by a host of growing pressures, including a record number of activist campaigns focused on short-term results and an employee base that feels empowered to criticize their own companies on social media. Other experts point out that during the Great Resignation—when employee job-hopping spiked—leaders had to build more consensus than they might have preferred, lest they lose too many employees (or fail to attract enough). Now, many CEOs are taking a more authoritative approach, at least for the moment. Particularly in the tech and finance industries, leaders have been swift to restructure org charts, eliminate underperforming divisions, and set aggressive productivity standards. Layoffs have slowed, but companies haven’t been shy about eliminating entire layers of management.

A top-down approach, of course, has been in vogue for much of the history of corporate America. Leaders like Jack Welch, Henry Ford, John Rockefeller, and Steve Jobs—all highly successful over the long term—didn’t prioritize consensus building or empathy with stakeholders. Over time, and particularly in this century, scholars have postulated that such leadership styles can lead workers to feel bullied and to refuse to buy into a leader’s vision. “The directive style should always be used in small doses,” says Paula Kerr, a director in the Korn Ferry Institute.

Indeed, directive styles of leadership were used, with great effectiveness, during the early days of the pandemic, when CEOs needed to act quickly, without concern for consensus building. “It is possible that some leaders may use a more directive style under a narrow set of circumstances,” says Sarah Hezlett, a Korn Ferry Institute vice president of assessment science, North America. Regardless of the style leaders prefer, she says, they shouldn’t rely exclusively on one. Within the context of the situation their teams are facing, they should choose the style that will most effectively energize and engage them. “With leadership styles, more is better,” Hezlett says.

Learn more about Korn Ferry’s Leadership and Professional Development capabilities.

Read more This Week in Leadership articles