Good leaders are much more facilitative than directive.
They work hard to discuss, explore, and engage with people as opposed to simply telling them what to do. They understand that including team members in the decision process, even about work assignments, produces greater commitment and superior results.
But there are times and conditions that demand a more direct approach.
Even good leaders sometimes tell people what to do without discussion. Certain situations call for a shift from facilitative to highly directive. But that shift doesn’t mean good leaders start barking orders without input.
Four conditions call for that shift.
Crises are the clearest example. When time is short, the stakes are high, and the leader has seen this problem before, the cost of deliberation can exceed the cost of an imperfect decision made quickly.
The leader who insists on discussion while the building is on fire isn’t being inclusive; they’re being irresponsible.
But when the crisis is unfamiliar, a fast round of input from people closer to the ground can catch what the leader’s instinct alone might miss. Speed argues for direction. Novelty argues for a quick check first. A good leader reads both before acting.
The same is true for safety, ethical issues, and non-negotiable standards.
While explaining the “why” behind the issue is required, inviting debate about it can send the wrong message — that the standard is up for negotiation. Good leaders don’t open safety or ethics to discussion.
The third condition occurs when expertise is sharply asymmetric. When a leader clearly knows something the team doesn’t, and there isn’t time to teach the reasoning behind it, directive instruction respects people’s time more than a hollow discussion would.
The fourth is readiness. People new to a role or task often need to be directed regardless of whether anything is urgent. This is not because they lack judgment or expertise, but because they have yet to build the experience that makes facilitation the most productive approach.
Directiveness with those who are inexperienced is an investment that prepares them for the future. Once they are seasoned, direction can be abandoned for a more facilitative style.
Put together, these four conditions form a working test. Before defaulting to a directive, a leader should ask: Have I seen this urgent situation before? Is the standard genuinely non-negotiable? Do I know something others don’t? Are they inexperienced in this matter?
A “no” to all four means facilitate. A clear “yes” to any one is a green light to be directive.
Good leaders diagnose what a moment calls for and move fluidly between facilitative and directive without apology. A leader who is directive in an emergency and facilitative as a general approach isn’t inconsistent. They are calibrated.
The mistake some leaders make is failing to notice when conditions have changed and clinging to facilitation past the point where it serves anyone well.
Much worse is defaulting to command because it’s faster and easier, even when discussion would produce a better outcome and stronger commitment.
When they do move to a more directive style, the best leaders explain the shift.
By telling people why they are being directive, leaders preserve the trust that facilitative leadership builds. “We don’t have time to debate this, so here is what we’re going to do,” lands very differently than silently overriding the team’s input without acknowledgment.
People can accept being told what to do when given a reason. What they can’t accept is being told what to do by someone who doesn’t explain why their views aren’t necessary.
