𝐏𝐎𝐒𝐓 𝐓𝐇𝐈𝐑𝐓𝐘 𝐅𝐎𝐔𝐑 𝐄𝐋 𝐋𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐫 : (𝐢𝐢) 𝟐𝟕 𝐋𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩 𝐒𝐭𝐲𝐥𝐞𝐬 𝟔. 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐋𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩 𝐒𝐭𝐲𝐥𝐞

Commanding Leadership Style

In the context of educational leadership, the Commanding Leadership Style, also known as directive, authoritative, or coercive leadership, is a top-down approach characterized by strict control, clear directives, and the expectation of immediate compliance from subordinates. While often effective in crisis or turnaround situations, this style can also be detrimental to morale and innovation if applied inappropriately.

Defining the Commanding Leadership Style

The commanding leader demands compliance, often using authority and discipline to enforce rules and achieve results. This style is best encapsulated by the phrase “Do what I tell you” (Goleman, 2000). It emphasizes hierarchical control, strict adherence to rules, and minimal dialogue or collaboration. In educational settings, this could manifest as a school principal enforcing policy without teacher input or a district superintendent mandating curriculum changes with little stakeholder consultation.

Daniel Goleman (2000), in his seminal work on emotional intelligence and leadership, identifies the commanding style as one of six leadership styles that derive from components of emotional intelligence. While he notes that it is the least effective in most situations, it can be critical during emergencies, when rapid turnaround is needed, or when dealing with problematic staff who are underperforming.

Theoretical Foundations

1. Behavioral Theories of Leadership

The commanding style aligns with task-oriented leadership, as described in early behavioral theories such as the Ohio State Leadership Studies and University of Michigan Studies. These frameworks distinguish between task-oriented and people-oriented behaviors. Commanding leaders exhibit high task orientation and low concern for interpersonal relations, focusing on performance and control (Stogdill & Coons, 1957; Likert, 1961).

2. Transactional Leadership Model

This style also resonates with transactional leadership, particularly contingent reward and management by exception. According to Bass and Avolio (1994), transactional leaders emphasize discipline and rule enforcement, offering rewards for compliance and punishments for deviation. In schools, this may be seen in performance-based evaluations, standardized test mandates, or top-down discipline policies.

3. French and Raven’s Five Bases of Power (1959)

Commanding leadership typically relies on legitimate power (formal authority), coercive power (ability to punish), and sometimes reward power. This aligns with French and Raven’s taxonomy of power, which explains how leaders enforce compliance.

Application in Educational Settings

In schools, commanding leadership can appear in various ways:

  • Crisis Management: During emergencies such as school lockdowns, natural disasters, or health crises (e.g., COVID-19 outbreaks), a commanding style becomes necessary for ensuring safety and swift decision-making (Leithwood, 2020).

  • Turnaround Schools: In failing schools under corrective action, district leaders may use commanding tactics to replace staff, impose new curricula, and enforce accountability (Duke, 2010).

  • Discipline Systems: Some principals adopt commanding styles to enforce strict behavioral norms, particularly in schools facing high rates of violence, absenteeism, or gang-related activity (Finn, 1989).

However, sustained use of this leadership style may create a climate of fear, low teacher morale, and resistance. As Fullan (2001) argues, change driven by fear and coercion is rarely sustainable in the long term and may undermine collaborative cultures essential for learning organizations.

Strengths of Commanding Leadership

  • Efficiency in Crises: Swift decisions are possible when time is of the essence.

  • Clarity: Clear expectations and roles minimize ambiguity.

  • Discipline Enforcement: Effective in situations where rules and consequences must be strictly applied.

Limitations and Risks

  • Demotivating Staff: Lack of autonomy may lead to teacher burnout and turnover (Ingersoll, 2001).

  • Suppressing Innovation: Minimal input from teachers and stakeholders can stifle creativity and professional learning communities.

  • Negative School Culture: May foster resentment and resistance, undermining school improvement initiatives (Louis & Wahlstrom, 2011).

Balancing Commanding Leadership

While commanding leadership should not be the dominant style in educational contexts, it can be strategically integrated with more democratic or transformational approaches. For example, a principal may need to use a commanding style during a security threat but revert to distributed leadership for instructional improvement and curriculum design.

Goleman (2000) suggests that effective leaders are those who can adapt their style to the context—a concept echoed by situational leadership theory (Hersey & Blanchard, 1988). Thus, commanding leadership is not inherently bad; it is context-dependent.

Conclusion

The Commanding Leadership Style is a directive, authority-driven approach most effective in urgent or crisis-driven situations. While it has a place in educational leadership, particularly when quick decision-making is needed, its overuse may hinder the development of a collaborative, innovative school culture. Effective school leaders should understand the situational appropriateness of this style and strive to balance it with more participative and transformational leadership approaches.

Key References

  • Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Sage.

  • Duke, D. L. (2010). The Challenges of School District Leadership. Routledge.

  • Finn, C. E. (1989). We Must Take Charge! Our Schools and Our Future. Free Press.

  • French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. H. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power. University of Michigan.

  • Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a Culture of Change. Jossey-Bass.

  • Goleman, D. (2000). Leadership that gets results. Harvard Business Review, 78(2), 78–90.

  • Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1988). Management of Organizational Behavior: Utilizing Human Resources. Prentice Hall.

  • Ingersoll, R. M. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 499–534.

  • Leithwood, K. (2020). Leading schools in times of crisis. Education Canada, 60(2), 14–17.

  • Likert, R. (1961). New Patterns of Management. McGraw-Hill.

  • Louis, K. S., & Wahlstrom, K. L. (2011). Principals as cultural leaders. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(5), 52–56.

  • Stogdill, R. M., & Coons, A. E. (Eds.). (1957). Leader Behavior: Its Description and Measurement. Ohio State University.