Why Command and Control Managers are Obsolete
For decades, many businesses have followed a rigid leadership style — a hierarchal management style where managers gave orders, and input from others were not welcome. This type of management style is known as the command-and-control method. You may recognize this style of leadership as authoritative, used as a ‘top-down’ technique that fits into a bureaucratic organization where authority is transferred at a hierarchal level.[1] While this leadership strategy has both advantages and disadvantages, this approach is considered to be outdated, as different management styles can and should be used in an organization to achieve productivity in this modern business world.
According to Forbes, this old-school command-and-control method is one where superiors keep track of the “missteps and infractions” of their employees, resulting in them being hemmed down with rules and policies. While this method may show certain advantages, it also has its drawbacks. Although executives are able to keep their employees in check with this approach, it also results in them not being able to think creatively outside the box to create better solutions.[2] Furthermore, this method “establishes” a clear line of authority, showing the boundaries of the company’s departments and jobs, it also results in isolation between the company’s departments resulting in tunnel vision.
Even though this method may have worked previously, it needs to be adjusted; companies that do not, may find it difficult to recruit and retain talent. Continuing to follow this method may lead to mediocre results such as limiting employee mobility and autonomy and a company that is unable to adapt to changes. This results in limiting the ideas and decisions of employees in the company, leading them to feel micromanaged and scrutinized by their managers. The current fast pace of the modern business world requires employees to constantly adapt and adjust their ways to meet changing demands. This means that businesses should allow their employees to trust their own judgement and make decisions based on the best information they have at that time, which the command-and-control method does not offer.
Leaders should be able to use different leadership styles to accommodate their individual team. In Beldoni’s[3] recent book, “12 Steps to Power Presence” he argues that having a position of authority is merely not enough in this century. Leaders should trust and respect their individual team and employees — there should be delegations of decision-making as well as allowing employees to have opportunities to show forth their own ideas. “A leader must earn the right to lead others. Title is conferred; leadership is earned… while leaders project power through presence, it is followers who authorize it with their approval,” his book states.[4]
Thus, progressive businesses have recently moved away from this traditional hierarchy management method and into other management styles that uses a team approach. Having different leadership styles in a company would help to increase efficiency between the employees. Research from Gallup noted that 82% of the time, companies will fail to hire a right candidate for a managerial position.[5] And more often than not, the failure of the manager is the result of using the wrong manager style for the particular company and team.
Leaders should use various management styles, addressing each individual situation — this means constantly using different styles when dealing with different people. Leaders should understand the tactical needs of their team and alter the way they lead respectively. One of which is the servant leadership style.
This management style originated in the 1970s by Robert K Greenleaf. This method focuses less on hierarchy and more on mentoring as a team. Managers would be seen as an adviser rather than a rule enforcer. This style also means that the manager needs to be highly experienced in the respective field and have strong interpersonal skills to relate to the team. Essentially, this type of management needs to be built on trust between the leader and the team. Prying away from the command-and-control style and towards this servant leadership style is effective in developing and advancing a team, creating strong bonds between employees and managers.
According to Shaun Betts, Associate Partner at Infosys Consulting, the philosophy of a servant leader ‘embraces the agile way of working. By offering this [servant-leader] environment, managers can build a stronger and more cohesive culture, improve employee experience, and nurture innovation in the organization…’[6] In a more agile and project-based work environment, employees have the opportunity to act like a leader and think outside the box. Being in an agile environment, managers are able to share leadership and responsibility between the team. It focuses more on transparency and shared ownership of work between the team, increasing collaboration with each other.[7]
A study done with the IBM Smarter Workforce Institute surveyed over 20,000 employees across 45 countries to determine the result of a positive employee experience based on retention, discretionary effort and performance. This study found that out of these organizations, the top 25% of employee experience results in 3 times the return on assets compared to the bottom 25%.[8] This shows that employees in this decade are looking for a positive work culture and workplace experience and not just a career.[9] IBM’s research shows that there needs to be room for organizations to improve on how they go about their practices to drive a positive employee experience to maximize their performance.
IBM’s research points towards having a more positive employee experience through having a human-centric workplace. According to IBM and Globoforce, a more human-centric workplace is characterized through opportunities to do more meaningful work, to be empowered and to have a voice. This would mean constantly having growth and feedback between the team due to good coworker relationships and a work-life balance.
Thus, instead of expecting to lead in an authoritarian manner, organizations should take time to create a more human-centric work environment that is built on independence and collaboration.[10] In a company, there needs to be a strong sense of responsibility between the employees that are involved. A manager should have both managerial and leadership skills to succeed in a human-centric work environment, learning how to understand themselves and their team’s motivations and desires.[11]
While the past method of a command-and-control style is still as widely used, it does not allow for flexibility. In today’s world, leaders should be agile and have the ability to adapt to constant changes around us. According to IBM’s survey, changing up the company’s managerial style to adapt to the needs of their employees would be efficient and effective in helping the company thrive.
Authors — Darren Nerland & Amanda Goh
[1] http://www.learningtobegreat.com/blog/2010/05/13/commandandcontrol-leadership-vs-peoplecentered-leadership
[2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/lizryan/2016/02/26/command-and-control-management-is-for-dinosaurs/?sh=500bee8924ed
[3] https://www.amazon.sg/12-Steps-Power-Presence-Authority/dp/0814416918
[4] https://www.amazon.sg/12-Steps-Power-Presence-Authority/dp/0814416918
[5] https://www.gallup.com/workplace/231593/why-great-managers-rare.aspx
[6] https://www.infosysconsultinginsights.com/2020/02/14/servant-leadership-qa-shaun-betts/
[7] https://kanbanize.com/blog/agile-project-manager/
[8] https://www.ibm.com/downloads/cas/XEY1K26O
[9] https://www.workhuman.com/resources/globoforce-blog/here-lies-bureaucracy-command-and-control-management-is-dead
[10] https://www.fastcompany.com/90250899/3-steps-to-create-a-21st-century-work-culture
[11] https://www.insperity.com/blog/leadership-vs-management-strike-right-balance-business/
