In recent months, attention has shifted back to the United States and its renewed commitment to protectionist trade policies. With Donald Trump back in office, talk of new tariffs—and even an open trade war—is causing understandable concern for European executives. But beyond the economic fallout, another issue is creeping in through the back door: leadership style.
The American managerial culture—direct, fast, performance-driven, and centralized—stands in sharp contrast to the more participative approaches found in many European companies. So in a time of uncertainty, should companies lean into the model of the "strong leader who decides quickly," or hold fast to collective decision-making, even if it's slower but potentially more sustainable?
A meta-analysis by Timothy Judge and Ronald Piccolo (University of Florida, 2004) compared the effectiveness of several leadership styles, particularly transformational leadership (inspiring, participative, talent-developing) and transactional (results-oriented, directive). The findings were clear:
These numbers speak for themselves. Transformational leadership—and by extension, participative in spirit—is more effective. But the context still matters.
The effectiveness of a leadership style is strongly linked to cultural context. Geert Hofstede’s model of national culture shows that in countries with low power distance (like the Netherlands or Sweden), participative leadership is not just appreciated but expected. In countries with high power distance (like China or Russia), more directive leadership is seen as legitimate.
Europe sits somewhere in between. Countries like France, Germany, and Belgium often toggle between these two logics. Many organizations struggle with the tension between achieving rapid results and maintaining inclusion, dialogue, and long-term engagement.
Learn more about participative management
Gallup’s 2024 State of the Global Workplace report showed that only 13% of European employees report being engaged at work, compared to 33% in the U.S. This could suggest the U.S. model is superior. But look closer: engagement in American companies is often supported by regular real-time feedback, recognition, and dynamic role evolution. In other words, U.S. leaders often (consciously or not) apply transformational principles, even in performance-heavy environments.
Many of these practices are echoed in the experiences of global CEOs. As shown in this article on 10 valuable leadership lessons from top executives across the globe, some of the most respected business leaders prioritize people over profit, nurture strong cultures, and lead with purpose—all hallmarks of participative, adaptive leadership.
McKinsey, in a 2021 study on crisis leadership, identified the most effective leaders as adaptive. These individuals are able to make decisive calls when necessary, but also return to participative governance once the storm has passed.
Put differently: being directive is a tool. But it becomes toxic when it turns into a permanent operating model.
HR leaders play a central role in striking the right balance between these leadership models. A few essential questions can guide internal reflection:
We’re not a consultancy. We don’t tell leaders how to manage. What we do is give HR teams and decision-makers the visibility they need to see what often goes unnoticed:
In a context where leadership models are clashing, that visibility is critical. It enables organizations to forge their own path, make fine-tuned adjustments, and stay coherent.
Leadership style shouldn't be dictated by geopolitics or imported trends. Trump's return and the American business ethos are not reasons to abandon participative culture. They're a moment to pause and reflect on what really works for your organization.
It’s not an easy choice. But it is a possible one. And HR is uniquely positioned to ensure that choice is intentional, aligned, and grounded in what employees actually experience.
Primary sources:
.jpg)
.png){kind=logo}
.png)
