Let's Be Blunt: That's Not Leadership, That's Just Control
Management Tactics versus Effective Leadership
I’m going to be blunt.
As a leader, I’ve always held myself to high standards. In turn, I have high expectations of my teams. I firmly believe that people have an exceptional potential waiting to be unlocked, and my expectation is simply that they strive for it.
I know this can create pressure. I’ve been told that my own work ethic and high expectations of myself can sometimes cause anxiety for those trying to match it.
I believe my responsibility isn’t to lower the standards; it’s to build a a team and an environment where people can thrive in meeting them. A core part of that commitment is my own belief in lifelong learning. I constantly read, learn, and absorb new ideas so I can bring the best, most effective strategies to the leaders I work with.
This brings me to my point. While I’ve learned (over time) to be comfortable with healthy conflict, I am, by nature, blunt. When I see something that isn’t right — something that’s actively harmful to a leader’s development and their team’s well-being — I feel I have to call it out
Recently, while exploring insights from other leadership authors, I came across one whose work stopped me in my tracks. The articles claimed to offer good advice, but they were underpinned by an ethos of control, pressure, and self-centred management.
This isn’t just a matter of opinion. This is the very stuff that creates toxic cultures and burns out good people. It’s what I call ‘management tactics,’ and it’s the polar opposite of authentic leadership.
Let’s look at two of this author’s “tactics”.
Tactic 1: “Fixing” a Team Member Who Fears Disagreement
One article addressed the (very real) problem of a team member who is afraid to disagree. (Let me preface this by saying that the original author did not state that this was a once-off problem, arising in the context of an otherwise functioning environment.)
The author’s “solution”, in summary, was a three-step process:
“Practice” by having “playful arguments” about trivial things like TV shows.
Tell the “reticent” team member in advance that you’re going to put them on the spot in a meeting about a “sticky issue.”
If they don’t give enough dissent, “push them” until they do.
Let’s be blunt: this is an ambush, not leadership.
The author even admits this tactic “may create angst.” You cannot build trust by deliberately creating anxiety. This approach is a catastrophic failure to understand the real problem.
The problem is not the person; it’s the environment.
A team member’s fear of disagreement is a direct symptom of low psychological safety. They aren’t “afraid” in a vacuum; they are afraid of “being judged,” “rejected,” or “feeling inadequate”—all things the author’s own article identifies!
A leader’s job is not to “fix” the person. It is to fix the culture.
A “tactic” is to put one person on the spot.
True leadership is to model vulnerability first. The leader should be the one saying, “I’m not sure about this, what am I missing?” or “This might be a bad idea, but...”
A “tactic” is to “push” someone until they break.
True leadership is to facilitate a session where the team collaboratively defines its own rules for mastering healthy conflict. Make constructive dissent a shared responsibility, not a personal failing.
This “tactic” places all the blame on the individual while the leader abdicates their core responsibility: to build a safe environment.
Tactic 2: “Handling” an Emotional Team Member
In another article, the same author gave advice for dealing with a team member who responds emotionally to setbacks.
The core advice? That the “root cause really doesn’t matter much.”
I had to read that line twice.
The author’s “solution” was to use tactics to “lessen their intensity,” postpone the real conversation because “high emotionality clouds judgment,” and ultimately make them write their feelings down to “give the colleague a much-needed distance.”
This is, frankly, a staggering abdication of leadership.
To say the “root cause doesn’t matter” is the literal opposite of leadership. It is the definition of self-centred management. It communicates to the team member that their experience is irrelevant and that their emotional state is an inconvenience to you.
The root cause is the only thing that matters.
This moment isn’t a problem to be “managed”; it’s a critical opportunity to lead with empathy and authenticity.
A “tactic” is to “label” their emotion to control it.
True leadership is to be quiet and actually listen. Is this person overwhelmed? Is the vision unclear, robbing them of purpose? Is there a breakdown in collaboration? This response is often a sign of a deep disconnect from the very things that truly motivate us.
A “tactic” is to “postpone” the discussion for your own comfort.
True leadership is having the courage to sit in that discomfort and build unshakeable trust in you as a leader.
Treating a human being’s response as a variable to be controlled guarantees you will never understand the real issue, and you will certainly never enable them to achieve their true potential.
Why This Distinction Is Everything
Management tactics might get you short-term compliance. They will never get you innovation, commitment, or a sustainably high-performing team.
Tactics create a culture of quick-fixes and distrust. Leadership builds a culture of trust.
This is why my work with new tech leaders focuses on the Impactful Intangibles. You don’t need tricks. You need to redefine leadership for this new era by building a genuine foundation of Vision, Authenticity, and Collaboration..
So, the next time you read a leadership “hack,” ask yourself this blunt question:
Is this about enabling my team, or is it about controlling them?
+++
If you are a rising or aspiring manager looking to accelerate your leadership impact and master crucial skills, explore how Leadership Ethos can support your journey.
Visit leadership-ethos.com for more insights.