For a long time, steep structures of authority and discipline within the framework of hierarchical leadership were commonplace in almost any organisation. But in today’s world, where everyone wants to do something meaningful, contribute to something big and take responsibility, jobs in a cramped hierarchical segment simply no longer correspond to the zeitgeist.
Table of contents
Instead, the trend is developing towards completely contrarian lateral leadership – a more anti-authoritarian leadership culture that allows collaborating at eye level. But which of the two does it better? We have looked at both leadership cultures for you and present the advantages and disadvantages of each in this article.
Also check out: [QUIZ] What management style do you use?
Hierarchical leadership is a classic authoritarian leadership style from the genre of transactional leadership. Transactional leadership is strictly success- and performance-oriented and can be described as a purely functional relationship between employer and employee; the interests and ideas of the employees are irrelevant here because they have to fulfil a specific task in a prescribed manner. In hierarchical leadership, clear work instructions are communicated from the management level to the subordinate levels, and they must be complied with.
Managers within the hierarchical leadership model have disciplinary authority, control and regulate very tightly and, in the case of deviations or mistakes, take tough action and sanctions to ensure discipline. Good performance and high compliance are occasionally rewarded with incentives or bonuses (performance-related fringe benefits).
In hierarchical leadership, discipline and order reign, one might say. However, this form of leadership, which seems slightly antiquated nowadays, has stood the test of time mainly because of these advantages:
Overall, the exclusively hierarchical leadership style is indeed best suited when clear structures and quick decisions are strongly required – for example in conflict and crisis situations or phases of transition. Unfortunately, this is also very clearly reflected in the following disadvantages.
Vertical hierarchy thrives on looking down on parts of the workforce – unthinkable considering today’s demands for equality. Moreover, these possible disadvantages should also be taken into account when deciding on a practicable management style:
Hierarchical leadership still has its justification for existence due to its advantages, but it completely neglects the recognition, appreciation and motivation of employees and is therefore absolutely unsuitable as the primary leadership style according to today’s expectations in the working world. Is lateral leadership possibly better in all respects? Let’s take a look at that now.
Lateral leadership is probably the complete opposite of hierarchical leadership: Here, there is no longer a clear management level and no direct authority. Instead, this leadership style from the category of “transformational leadership” is based on the trust that employees will successfully complete jobs in their own individual way with a certain degree of personal responsibility and make a targeted contribution to achieving the company’s objectives. With this freedom for self-determination, employees should be allowed to develop freely. However, the lateral management style is by no means new; it was already spreading in organisations in a wide variety of sectors in the 1960s.
Leaders within lateral leadership are to be understood more as work coaches or mentors. They take the employees by the hand, influence, steer, and support team members in an inspiring and stimulating way — and should thus enable them to make autonomous decisions. Diligence is also emphasised here, but if a mistake is made, it is not punished but used for future learnings.
The term “manager” has now found its way into most job titles, and that makes sense: practically every team member takes responsibility for his or her own field and makes the manager in his or her original leadership position obsolete. Instead, the leadership or coaching within lateral leadership is usually taken over by the person with the greatest expertise and longest professional experience within a field.
But instead of saying “This is how it’s done and that’s it!” as the head of a department/team, the leader no longer intervenes top-down but from the side (lateral: Latin “latus” = sideways) and consequently meets his “subordinates” at eye level. This is precisely what makes the small but subtle difference between the formerly authoritarian manager and a lateral leader.
“Here I am Man, here dare it to be!” … The encounter at eye level and the opportunity for free development are essential for younger talents in particular to accept a job. Both are fundamental advantages of lateral leadership. But the list of advantages does not end there. These lateral leadership characteristics also have a very beneficial effect:
With all the advantages that a lateral leadership style seems to offer, there are of course also shadow sides. And these should not be disregarded:
Note: These are possible disadvantages that can occur with exclusive use of lateral guidance. They do not always occur in exactly the same way. If the lateral leadership style is applied supplementarily and thus in a mixed form, the disadvantages mentioned can be effectively prevented.
Classic control pyramid or stimulating mentoring, which one is better? Both approaches have their pros and cons. Basically, it is much more in line with today’s zeitgeist when managers and employees meet at eye level and no one is pressed into a mould. Personal development is important for a productive working relationship between company and employee. But it must also be moderated in an appropriate manner in order to be used in a goal-oriented way. And this requires suitable, sometimes slightly authoritarian structures with firm decision-makers and clear lines of command and communication. This is why most companies use lateral leadership only as a supplement to their main leadership style.
Ergo: Strictly hierarchical leadership is not recommended because it contains too many guidelines and control mechanisms, while lateral leadership can quickly become self-perpetuating. Therefore, a good mixture of both is recommendable. For example, the model of “flat hierarchies”, which combines the advantages of both worlds, has proven to be successful.
To learn more about leadership skills, also see our article on how empathetic leadership can benefit your organisation.
Sarah Heßler
Sarah Heßler was a bilingual Content Manager at JOIN who loved to share knowledge with our visitors and enjoyed writing about HR and Recruitment topics from many different perspectives.
Related articles
Why January is a critical month for hiring and how you should prepare
January presents a unique and powerful opportunity for businesses to fill open roles effectively. As the new year begins, individuals and companies alike enter a period of reset and reflection. For employees, this often means pursuing new career aspirations, while businesses kick off the year with fresh energy…
JOIN has a new look
The JOIN website has a fresh new look! Find out what's changed, what's new in our product, and how this overhaul helps you as a customer.
How to acquire top talent with TikTok recruiting
Engage young talents and find new employees via TikTok recruiting. Explore strategies and examples of successful ways to hire through TikTok.