When times get tough, leadership often regresses.

The language changes.
“We’re firefighting.”
“We don’t have time to consult.”
“This needs one clear voice.”

And suddenly, we are back to command and control. The Lone Wolf. The heroic decision-maker. The belief that urgency justifies autocracy.

But is that still true?

Or is that instinct part of what keeps us stuck in the cycle?

The Myth of the Crisis Autocrat

In difficult periods, speed matters. Clarity matters. Decisiveness matters.
But autocracy is not the same as decisiveness.

Research on decision-making models such as the Vroom–Yetton framework reminds us that leadership style should flex based on context – not fear. Even under pressure, there is a difference between:

• Making a fast decision
• Shutting down contribution

The first is leadership. The second is control.

And control, over time, narrows thinking, reduces accountability, and weakens organisational resilience. Ironically, what feels efficient in the moment can prolong the bad times.

When only a few voices are heard:

• Blind spots multiply
• Ownership shrinks
• Innovation stalls
• Burnout increases

Firefighting becomes the norm, not the exception.

Are We Mistaking Adaptation for Resilience?

Some leaders – and some teams – appear to thrive in high-control environments.  They are described as “resilient”. But often they are simply well-adapted to hierarchy. They respond well to instruction. They perform in structured, directive systems.

That is not the same as building environments where everyone can thrive.

A truly resilient organisation does not rely on a handful of people who function well under pressure. It builds capability broadly. It creates psychological safety. It distributes thinking.

Resilience is collective capacity – not individual tolerance of stress.

Does Command and Control Shorten or Prolong Crisis?

Command-and-control leadership can stabilise acute emergencies. In life-or-death scenarios, clarity and centralised authority are necessary.

But most corporate “crises” are not burning buildings. They are strategic inflection points, market shifts, performance dips, or organisational ambiguity.

When leaders default to autocracy in these moments:

• Learning slows
• Strategic thinking narrows
• The organisation becomes dependent
• Future leaders are not developed

The long-term effect? Fragility.

We risk recreating the very conditions that caused the difficulty.

A Better Way to Lead in Tough Times

There is another model. One that holds urgency and inclusion together.

It looks like:

• Clear direction (Know WHY)
• Explicit decisions (Know WHAT)
• Intentional choice of decision style (Know HOW)
• The right people involved (Know WHO)
• Timely action (Know WHEN)

This is not consensus-by-default. It is conscious leadership. Sometimes the leader decides alone. Sometimes they consult. Sometimes the group decides.

The difference is intentionality.

The next generation of leaders must not instinctively equate pressure with control.

Their instinct should be:

• “What level of involvement will produce the strongest outcome here?”
• “How do we maintain accountability and inclusion?”
• “How do we protect long-term strength while solving short-term urgency?”

Leadership That Allows Many to Thrive

The future belongs to organisations that:

• Share ownership
• Develop distributed judgement
• Create psychological safety
• Value clarity over authority

Leadership is not about who survives difficult environments. It is about creating environments where more people can contribute, grow, and succeed – even during uncertainty.

If we teach emerging leaders that crisis equals command and control, we recreate the past. If we teach them that pressure requires clarity, not dominance, we shape something better.

The real question is not whether autocratic leadership works in tough times. It is whether it builds the kind of organisation that prevents tough times from becoming permanent.

And that is a strategic decision.