Introduction
In recent years, articles have claimed that "command and control" leadership is old-fashioned and that a new style of leadership has emerged. Instead of telling people what to do, leaders should ask them questions. Instead of sticking rigidly to plans, they should adjust goals as new information arises. Instead of leading from gut instinct, they should rely on data for decision-making, and so on.
Let's call this old paradigm of leadership "traditional" and the new model "emergent." Here is the challenge: in the current environment, most managers must be adept at both styles to succeed. That is, any leader who relies solely on positional authority will run into trouble.
In surveys and interviews with hundreds of leaders around the world, we discovered seven core tensions between traditional and emergent leadership approaches. These tensions create significant stress for leaders, as they are often unsure which competencies, skills, and behaviors to apply in a specific context. In this article, we dissect these tensions, outline the risks of ignoring them, and suggest coping strategies for balancing the two approaches.
Tension 1: The Expert vs. The Learner
Traditionally, leaders built their careers by developing deep expertise and demonstrating increasing levels of competence as they climbed the corporate ladder. Organizations assumed they brought superior insight to the challenge at hand.
In the emergent approach, leaders must accept that their expertise is limited (and in some cases, obsolete) and must be ready to learn from others. If this tension is not managed wisely, leaders risk making poor or inappropriate decisions.
Tension 2: Constant vs. Adaptable
The traditional approach to leadership values conviction and consistency in decision-making. Good leaders "stick to their guns." In contrast, the emergent approach recognizes that in rapidly changing environments, decisions often need to shift or adapt, and changing course in response to new information is a strength, not a weakness.
If this tension is not managed wisely, leaders risk appearing too rigid on the one hand, or overly capricious on the other.
Tension 3: Tactician vs. Visionary
The traditional approach requires operational clarity and strictly defined plans. The emergent approach suggests that leaders need a clear vision without necessarily having a concrete roadmap for how to get there.
If this tension is not managed wisely, leaders risk providing no "North Star" for their team members. Conversely, if they are not grounded in reality, they might set lofty, unrealistic, or intangible goals.
Tension 4: Speaker vs. Listener
The traditional approach demands that leaders tell others what to do and how to do it. The emergent approach values listening carefully to others before making a decision. If this tension is not managed wisely, leaders risk losing out on crucial information held by the team members around them. Conversely, if a leader refuses to offer their own perspective, they miss the opportunity to utilize their own valuable knowledge.
Tension 5: Power Holder vs. Power Sharer
The traditional approach suggests that leaders must lead from the top, make decisions, and take actions independently. In contrast, the emergent approach values empowering others to achieve goals.
If this tension is not managed wisely, leaders risk alienating and marginalizing promising talent. On the other hand, they might undermine their own authority by sharing power too broadly.
Tension 6: Intuitive vs. Analytical
The traditional approach suggests that leaders develop an "expert flow" for intuitive decision-making. In contrast, the emergent approach dictates that leaders should base decisions primarily on data. If this tension is not managed wisely, leaders risk making decisions based on outdated and biased heuristics. Or, conversely, they risk ignoring their inner compass, which might offer valuable insights from past experiences.
Tension 7: Perfectionist vs. Accelerator
The traditional approach emphasizes that leaders should take the time to deliver a perfectly finished product. The emergent approach urges leaders to acknowledge that doing something quickly and failing fast is often more important than doing it perfectly. If not managed wisely, leaders risk delaying the launch of key initiatives or directives due to a fear of imperfection. Conversely, delivering initiatives without sufficient vetting and testing can lead to embarrassing results.
What Can Executives Do to Overcome These Tensions?
Leaders improve their effectiveness not by constantly emphasizing one approach over the other, but by developing the ambidexterity to shift between the two as the context demands. The difficulty of achieving this level of cognitive and behavioral ambidexterity should not be underestimated—but with effort and focus, it can be attained.
- Self-Awareness: Understanding your natural tendencies is the first crucial step. Where is your comfort zone? What is your default position? In the digital world, leaders can gain insights from real-time feedback apps or online forums where community members post and evaluate their opinions.
- Learn, Adapt, Practice: Once leaders recognize their natural tendencies, they can work to build a repertoire of micro-behaviors to counter the tensions they do not manage well. This process can be reinforced by formal coaching.
- Contextual Awareness: Becoming a more effective leader means not only expanding your current leadership approach to incorporate new behaviors but also knowing when to focus more on one side of a tension or the other. This requires both contextual awareness and emotional intelligence—sourced directly from the leader or from the surrounding social environment. Through programs like reverse mentoring, leaders can lean on the diversity within their workforce to advise them on when it is appropriate to favor one approach over another.