Directive Leadership: Pros and Cons of Directive Leadership

A directive leadership approach is a type of leadership where instructions are passed down a chain of command with a strong leader at the top. Directive leaders assume full responsibility for their organizations. They typically use directive leadership to pursue specific goals via the steady completion of tasks.

Militaries typically rely on directive leadership and a chain-of-command model. Under military leadership theory, soldiers must understand their roles—whether that’s as a leader or a subordinate—and respect the institutional hierarchy. This allows leaders like generals to quickly dispatch orders for nimble actions in times of war or conflict. Sports teams also thrive with directive leadership, where coaches give specific instructions to their players. A directive leadership style can also work in the corporate world, but it requires total buy-in from team members.

The concept of directive leadership has its origins in the path-goal theory articulated in 1970 by professor of business management Martin G. Evans and refined in 1971 by Robert House, also a professor of business management. The path-goal theory describes four principal types of leader behaviors: directive path-goal clarifying leader behavior, achievement-oriented leader behavior, participative leader behavior, and supportive leader behavior.

According to Evans and House, directive leadership behavior involves a strong, central leader who defines employee roles, sets clear expectations, and provides guidance on how people should do their jobs. This directive behavior style works best when team members accept an organizational hierarchy and can enjoy their work despite being cut out of the decision-making process. However, this leadership style can fail if employees feel resentful or if they perceive their boss’s actions as meddlesome micromanagement.

How an organization responds to a leadership style depends on its structure, culture, mission, and the competency of the person in charge. A successful directive leadership approach may reap the following benefits.

1. 1. Directive leadership can stabilize hierarchical organizations. Some organizations need a strong hierarchy to thrive, including the military, law enforcement, sports teams, and certain governing bodies. When these organizations have a strong, effective leader at the top, they can quickly improve morale, communicate expectations, and take on new challenges as a cohesive unit. These positive attributes may be harder to achieve under a laissez-faire leadership model.
2. 2. Directive leadership allows for nimble decision-making. Of all the common leadership styles, directive leadership makes it simplest for an organization to quickly make decisions and tackle new initiatives. This is because, for better or for worse, directive leadership is a type of autocratic leadership, where only the highest-ranking leaders make all decisions on behalf of their company. A more democratic leadership style, for all its virtues, tends to slow down the decision-making process.
3. 3. Not everyone wants to lead. In certain work environments, team members are happy to excel at specific tasks and collect a paycheck without worrying about the burdens that come with major decision-making. Such team members welcome a directive leader who sets expectations and makes big decisions. Directive leadership is also beneficial in organizations where subordinates are inexperienced and need strong guidance. This is, of course, contingent upon the leader treating team members with dignity and respect.

For many companies, a directive leadership style may clash with the overall organizational culture. Here are three reasons why.

1. 1. Directive leadership can quickly devolve into micromanaging. Many people associate good leaders with vision and decisiveness, but they recoil at micromanaging. If a directive leader strays into a smothering, autocratic style, they can alienate team members and foment resentment.
2. 2. Too much directive leadership can shut out new ideas. With so few people involved in core decision-making processes, the directive leadership model risks missing out on new ideas and transformational thinking. By contrast, a participative leadership model, where companies solicit team members’ input on major decisions, can tap into wisdom and insight from people who may not be at the top of the corporate ladder but nonetheless understand crucial aspects of the business.
3. 3. The directive leadership approach puts a lot on one person’s shoulders. Directive leadership organizations are only as strong as the directive leaders who guide them. If a CEO, coach, or police chief lacks sufficient leadership skills, the whole organization will suffer because most major decisions and strategic planning initiatives are determined by a single person. When companies embrace a different leadership style and empower more stakeholders, they improve their chances of adaptability and success even if the person at the top leaves something to be desired.

Get the MasterClass Annual Membership for exclusive access to video lessons taught by business luminaries, including Bob Iger, Chris Voss, Robin Roberts, Sara Blakely, Daniel Pink, Howard Schultz, Anna Wintour, and more.