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.
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.
And yet, Gallup’s 2024 State of the Global Workplace report indicates that Europe remains the least engaged region in the world, with only 13% of employees reporting being engaged. This persistent disengagement highlights a gap between managerial intentions and the actual experience of employees.
Adding to this is a striking figure: according to McKinsey, uncaring leadership is the top reason for resignations, cited by 35% of workers. This doesn’t necessarily point to a poor "style" of leadership, but rather to an execution disconnected from the needs of teams: lack of listening, recognition, or consideration.
The question, therefore, is not about choosing between authority or participation, but about examining the quality of the connection between managers and their teams. A connection that, without ongoing feedback and on-the-ground alignment, erodes – no matter the model chosen.
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. Studies show that participative models – based on recognition, feedback, and talent development – are associated with better performance, increased satisfaction, and stronger employee engagement.
But this is not about rigidly opposing one style to another. The most effective leadership is the one that adapts to context, that knows how to be firm in times of uncertainty, while returning to listening as soon as possible.
Ultimately, good management is the one that responds to the real needs of your teams and stays aligned with your values. It’s not an easy choice. But it’s a strategic, human, and sustainable one.
And you – how do you assess the real impact of your leadership style on the ground?
👉 Discover how eBloom can help you gain clarity.
Primary sources:
.jpg)
.png){kind=logo}
.png)
