Opposite of top-down approach

In management circles, leadership tends to get reduced to two opposing models: Youre either a traditional top-down leader who believes in the organizing power of clear chains of command, or youre a collaborative, bottom-up leader who puts more faith in flat organizations, holocracies, and approaches that put leaders in more of a facilitator role. Advocates of either approach will tell you why theirs works best, and why the alternative is a disaster.

But a mark of good leadership is knowing that few complex challenges ever come down to just choosing between two simple options. The truth is that top-down and bottom-up leadership arent mutually exclusive. But the alternative isnt always so easy to find.

The Rise Of Bottom-Up Leadership

As an idea, bottom-up leadership emerged from the egalitarian ideals that swept the Western world in the 20th century. It emphasizes participation as a way of drawing on all the skills and knowledge an organizations employees have to offer.

Even though the roots of those ideas have been around for over a generation, bottom-up leadership approaches are often presented as something new. And advocates tend to argue that weve so far failed to learn its valuable lessons.

To be sure, bottom-up leadership has its advantages. By getting many peoples input, it crowdsources wisdom and information, allowing you to draw on the best ideas that are out there, rather than just dictating a certain task for someone to perform. It also gives people a sense of ownership over their work and workplace, which boosts engagement and motivation.

The Return Of Top-Down Leadership

But while bottom-up leadership is often framed as the path toward innovation, top-down approaches have always remained important in practice and may even be seeing an ideological resurgence.

Top-down leadership is about setting a clear directionone that doesnt always value everyones input equally. Steve Jobs, for instance, famously directed the consumer tech market through singular products and design choices that were Apples own, rarely ever listening to focus groups or chasing existing trends. This led to one of the most successful companies and widely recognized brands in the world.

And while Jobss personal leadership style has been criticized, his effectiveness in many ways complicates the claim that collaborative, bottom-up approaches always lead to the most innovative strategies. Sometimes it takes a strong, visionary leader to map a clear sense of direction that might otherwise get lost in a mass of opinions that could muddy or compromise it.

Picking And Choosing

But the truth is that leaders canand probably shouldhave it both ways. Neither top-down nor bottom-up leadership work well consistently if theyre seen as absolutes. Theres usually room for both within a single organization at the same time. The reason is simple: The usefulness of either approach depends on what youre trying to achieve.

Picking the right approach is a leadership challenge in its own right. As a leader, youve been chosen to guide your team or organization as best you can. Fundamentally, that responsibility is a matter of top-down leadershipdefining the goals and ensuring everyone keeps them in mind.

But when it comes to execution, that doesnt mean you have to direct every detail from the top down. In fact, thats usually harmful; the same position that gives you the opportunity to see the best direction to take is often the one that prevents you from seeing everything through on the ground.

So set the parameters for your organization from the topyour purpose, goals, design, the sort of brand you want to be, etc. Then use those parameters to frame the bottom-up decisions. Whats more, the parameters neednt be restrictive. Most people are at their most creative when they have boundaries to work within and ideas to riff on.

If, like Jobs, you have ideas for innovative new products, you can still involve a wide range of your staff in deciding how to deliver them. You may know that you want a dynamic and supportive work culture, yet at the same time let your employees decide how best to make that happen. Tap into their ideas, and earn their commitment and engagement.

In the real world, leadership is messier than picking between two countervailing philosophies. Dont be fooled by management gurus whod prefer you to ignore that. Choose the path that best suits you and your organizations goalseven if its a mixed map.