Early in his career at Blue Arrow, Paul McCallum admits he adopted a “command and control” style that never really worked for him. Now founder of PJ Staffing, he adopts a more progressive “listen and learn approach”. McCallum describes his style as “leading with humanity”. He notes that putting effort into improving your team develops the entire business and how bringing his authentic persona to work has made him an overall better leader.
This approach is not dissimilar to the evolution that leadership theory has undergone in the past 30 years, seeing a shift from rigid authority towards consensus and collaboration.
As Larry Fink, CEO of BlackRock and interim co-chair of the World Economic Forum, observed from his time at the 2026 Davos congregation, progress was most likely when leaders felt able to disagree openly and deepen their understanding, rather than have agreement forced upon them.
But in our increasingly volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous (VUCA) times, does this consensus stand up to scrutiny?
Return of the decision-maker
In a world of constant disruption, many argue that a more decisive leadership style must return.
Alain Bejjani, former Majid Al Futtaim Group CEO – ranked second on Forbes Middle East’s 50 Most Influential Expats in the UAE and author of NEXT: Leading Through the New Realities – believes leadership simply responds to context. He argues that over-correcting towards approachable, inclusive models perpetuates uncertainty during turbulent times, and that a more domineering, assertive approach needs a comeback to provide necessary clarity.For Bejjani, leadership requirements are fluid with no single right way, but current conditions demand greater assertiveness as a return to common sense.
Owning it
Christian Gladwell, former global CEO of M&C Saatchi Performance and now senior director at Sabio, agrees that leadership must adapt to context. Stating that today, “the principal requirement of leaders is arguably having the intellectual firepower to communicate a plan and then own it. Leaders are required to make decisions. At the moment, so many don’t, or they lead by committee. When you have less wiggle-room, the directive approach has legs.”
Addressing concerns that a directive style alienates Gen Z employees, Bejjani argues workforce expectations are more nuanced. He notes employees tolerate firm, authoritative leadership if it provides clear strategic direction during complex times.
Purpose and trust
This perspective isn’t universally shared. Vicky Reddington, co-founder of Amplified Group, argues that team experience sets the tone and that true leadership relies on purpose, trust and psychological safety, rather than overbearing authority.
The strong defence of inclusive leadership highlights how far theory has shifted away from command-and-control styles. Academic support remains robust; Hult International Business School’s report, The Six Shifts: What ‘Better’ Leadership Really Means, notes that authentic, humble and fair leadership underpins trust among employees.
Change of approach?
Consequently, collaborative leaders are questioning their preferences. Carl Lundberg, CEO of Gerald Edelman, notes that while his predecessor was direct, recent changes highlight the need for decisive leadership to provide certainty amid sector consolidation. “I can see the world is changing and I’ve probably underestimated just how decisively leaders do need to be right now. That’s a leader’s job.”
“I can see the world is changing and I’ve probably underestimated just how decisively leaders do need to be right now. That’s a leader’s job.”
For Simon Crichton, CEO at Harvey Nash, the question of how he has been brought up to lead, and how appropriate this is for the current climate, is a very real one – and, again, does not appear easy to answer. What Crichton has learned is that you should be less worried about what style you’re choosing and instead have clarity of what you’re trying to do and achieve. He sums this up as being “flexible but having rigidity in standards”.
Amp it up or dial it down?
If this reads a lot like leaders just wanting to hang on to the best bits of both styles, then maybe this is their way of justifying amping up and dialling down some styles as they are needed.
Dr Sam Porter, performance psychologist at Mindflick (official mindset performance partner to Manchester United), sees command-and-control versus listen-and-enable as a false choice. He views both as adaptable behaviours rather than fixed identities. “Every leader has a natural starting point and the good ones aren’t loyal to just one style; they read the moment and shift. I call this ‘changing gears’, or ‘counterweighting’ and it’s the difference between a strength and a liability.”
“I’ve done the collaborative way, and been burned, because things just didn’t get done.”
Steve Rowbotham, who won a bronze medal in rowing at the 2008 Olympics and is the founder of travel audience intelligence company Navigator, believes both styles are appropriate – but leaders have to know when to use them, and why. “I don’t think it’s either/or, but both,” he says. “I’ve done the collaborative way, and been burned, because things just didn’t get done.”
False choice
According to Rowbotham, the expectation staff have of their leaders – for them to chart the correct path ahead – is “insane”. Although he says he harks from a very command-and-control rowing background, he’s clear about one thing. “You can lead, and you can be directive, but you can do it properly, and you don’t have to be an a*hole!”
Roy Capon, ex-Accenture, now managing director of AI innovation company Valtech, calls this being able to lead with “radical candour”. He argues over-indexing for consensus is quietly killing decision-making quality and speed. He also argues that ‘listen and enable’ creates indecision and that kindness without clarity just leaves teams more confused and disempowered. Some might call this ‘leading with humanity’, another leadership phrase that signals the ability to be directive when necessary, but listen at other times.
“Leading with humanity can mean that you see the person behind the role, assume positive intent and ensure that the person feels valued and supported, and is leveraging their unique strengths – while still being willing to have the difficult conversation,” says Porter.
“It’s not a soft option, but, arguably, it’s not a third style either. A line we use with managers is that being clear is being kind.”
A flexible modus operandi
If current VUCA conditions require command-and-control leadership, increased stability could soon demand a different approach. Executive coach Nicola Ellwood notes that leaders enforcing temporary control must still engage employees, build trust and unlock intrinsic motivation.
Porter stresses that effective leadership relies on noticing when to adapt one’s style. “Most leaders aren’t missing the other gear,” he concludes. “They just don’t notice they need to change. Good leadership is mostly a noticing habit.”
Peter Crush is an award-winning HR-specialist journalist, writing about all aspects of leadership and the world of work.
The full version of this article is available in the autumn 2026 issue of Edge magazine. IoL members can read their copy now.
