The Death of Command and Control

If you've ever read up on the research on human motivation, you've probably encountered Maslow's Hierarchy of Human Needs or Herzberg's Two Factor Model.  There's also a good chance that you've heard about the work by Douglas McGregor in the 1950's and 1960's on Theory X and Theory Y.  As it turns out, McGregor was actually a student of Abraham Maslow, who was actually a contemporary of Frederick Herzberg.  McGregor developed and introduced his model in his book, The Human Side of Enterprise, first published in 1960.  Notably, leadership expert Warren Bennis once said of McGregor, "Just as every economist, knowingly or not, pays his dues to Keynes, we are all, one way or another, disciples of McGregor."

What's important to know about McGregor's theory is this - while Theory X generally has a negative view of workers, Theory Y generally has a positive one.  Theory X believes that the typical worker or employee has little ambition, avoids responsibility, and is focused primarily on achieving their own personal goals and interests.  Theory Y, in contrast, believes that the typical worker or employees is internally motivated, enjoys their job, and works hard to better themselves without a direct reward in return.  

Leaders and managers who subscribe to the Theory X viewpoint, then, will rely upon a more authoritative, top-down/hierarchical approach.  They will use punishment and rewards to motivate their workers or employees.  They will develop and enforce (again through punishment and/or rewards) strict policies and procedures that are to be followed as routine.  Conversely, leaders and managers who subscribe to the Theory Y viewpoint are more democratic in their approach.  They believe that in a positive workplace culture that emphasizes autonomy (with accountability), responsibility, and "deference to expertise".

It's important to realize that McGregor saw both Theory X and Theory Y as two ends along a continuum.  Consistent with situational leadership theory developed by Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard or contingent leadership theory developed by Fred Fiedler, the most effective leaders would at times use both methods, depending on the specific needs or context of the situation.  It's also not too hard to figure out which theory the most prevalent leadership approach used today is based upon - there was actually an article ("Beyond Theory Y") published in 1970 in the Harvard Business Review that again emphasizes that both approaches can and likely should be used, depending on the specific needs of the situation at hand or the problem to be solved.

So why then are their articles touting the "death" of Command and Control (see for example, "Command and Control is Dead" or "Command and Control Leadership is Dead" or "The Death of Command and Control: Why Old-School Leadership is Killing Your Team's Potential")?  Command and Control (C2) refers to a leadership and management approach traditionally used in the military, but it has also been used in non-military organizations as well.  The "Command" part of C2 refers to the process of directing, issuing orders, and providing leadership for a particular group, project, or operation.  The "Control" part of C2 refers to the process of monitoring compliance with policies and procedures (and enforcing them) and ensuring the proper execution of orders and tasks.  As you can probably guess, C2 is more top-down, hierarchical, and authoritarian/autocratic and definitely leans more toward the Theory X approach.

Kathy Miller Perkins wrote an excellent article for Forbes magazine ("Shift Your Leadership Style: Guidelines for Agile Leadership"), in which she outlines the exact approach that McGregor recommended all those years ago.  She writes, "Steering through the complex waters of modern leadership requires more than a single, go-to approach.  It demands the skill to adapt swiftly, changing your leadership style on the fly to tackle constantly shifting conditions and challenges."  In short, the leader's in today's VUCA (or BANI) world need to be agile, and agile leadership, consistent with both situational leadership theory and contingent leadership theory, includes "Command and Control".  

Perkins lists a number of situations where a more autocratic or C2 approach may be preferred:

1. Agile leadership during a crisis: "When navigating through treacherous waters with reefs and storms, you may need a crew that follows your orders as an experienced leader."

2. Agile leadership in highly predictable environments: A C2 approach can be most effective with work that is highly predictable, well-defined, and repetitive in nature.  Perkins gives the example of a manager at a fast-food restaurant, where setting clear expectations and ensuring compliance with standard operating procedures, rules, and regulations can drive efficiency and high performance.

3. Agile leadership in regulated environments: Again, with tight regulatory environments, a C2 approach may be preferred over other approaches, particularly when variation from standards can result in significant problems for the organization.

Perkins concludes her article by stating, "Leadership in this century is not about clinging to a single, comfortable style but about developing the situation awareness and flexibility to switch between approaches as the context demands."  Rather than being dead, "Command and Control" leadership is here to stay, even if used relatively sparingly and for specific situations or contexts.