Leadership is an art form, one that constantly evolves depending on the nature of the team, the challenges at hand, and the long-term vision. In over 15 years of working closely with leaders and teams, I’ve witnessed two distinct styles emerge repeatedly—authoritative and influential leadership. Both have their merits, but the effectiveness of each depends heavily on the context.
The question that often arises is: What works better?
The Authoritative Leader: Command and Control
An authoritative leader sets the vision, demands results, and expects their directives to be followed without deviation. Think of this as the general on a battlefield—focused, determined, and unwavering. I’ve seen this leadership style work wonders in high-pressure, high-stakes environments, where rapid decision-making and clear orders are crucial to success.
Take, for instance, a project I worked on several years ago for a tech startup. The founder was brilliant, no question, but also rigid in his approach. He gave directives, and we followed them to the letter. His authoritative style created a laser focus in the team. We didn’t have the luxury to debate or experiment. Time was of the essence, and we needed to deliver.
It worked. The product launched on time, and our client base grew. But over time, the limitations of this style became apparent. While the short-term goals were met, team morale began to slip. The once passionate group of people started feeling more like cogs in a machine. Creativity stifled. Some of the most talented employees moved on to other ventures.
Lesson learned: Authoritative leadership may be effective in crisis situations or when quick, decisive action is needed, but over time, it risks eroding team trust and engagement.
The Influential Leader: Persuasion and Collaboration
Now, let’s contrast this with influential leadership—where the leader doesn’t rely on authority or position to get things done, but instead uses persuasion, collaboration, and inspiration to guide the team.
Years later, I had the chance to work under a different type of leader. This was during a consulting project with a large, decentralized team spread across continents. The leader, a Managing Director, never raised his voice or demanded results. Instead, he led by asking questions, encouraging feedback, and, most importantly, creating space for his team to innovate.
I’ll never forget the time we were facing a particularly challenging deadline for a global launch. Instead of imposing a solution, the MD brought everyone into a meeting and opened with: “What do you think is the best way forward?” At first, this approach felt foreign to those of us used to top-down leadership. But as the team began sharing ideas, something incredible happened—we collectively came up with a solution that no single person, no matter how experienced, could have devised alone.
We delivered ahead of schedule, and not only was the product better than expected, but the team felt energized, proud, and deeply invested in the outcome.
Lesson learned: Influential leadership fosters creativity, commitment, and ownership. The best ideas often come not from the top, but from within the team itself.
The Power of Balance: Knowing When to Shift Gears
What I’ve come to realize over the years is that neither authoritative nor influential leadership is superior in all situations. It’s the leader who can seamlessly shift between the two that ultimately succeeds.
In times of crisis or when clarity is desperately needed, an authoritative approach may be necessary. There are moments when the team needs a firm hand to steer the ship. But for long-term success and to build a culture of innovation, influential leadership is more sustainable.
I once led a small team that had to turn around a failing project. In the early stages, I had to adopt a more authoritative stance. Time was running out, and the team was demoralized. I laid out a clear plan, assigned roles, and demanded accountability. But once the immediate chaos was under control, I shifted gears. I started asking for feedback, encouraging open discussion, and letting the team take ownership of their work. The initial directive approach got us out of the hole, but the collaborative style is what kept us on a path of continuous improvement.
The team not only turned the project around but also developed a stronger sense of unity and resilience.
What Works Better?
So, what works better? The truth is, effective leadership is situational. The best leaders I’ve known are those who understand when to assert their authority and when to step back and allow their influence to guide the team. A rigid adherence to either style can limit a leader’s ability to adapt and grow, both personally and professionally.
Ultimately, success comes when leaders know their team, trust their instincts, and blend the strengths of both approaches. In today’s ever-evolving world, that balance is more critical than ever.