Why CEOs Are Going Back to Command-and-Control (And Why It Will Backfire)
Issue 226, August 21, 2025
We’re seeing some surprising headlines: Andy Jassy essentially told his 1.5 million employees, “It’s my way or the highway.” AT&T’s CEO told his workforce they’re replaceable. Starbucks’ new leader wrapped a return-to-office mandate in softer language about “human connection.” What’s really happening here isn’t just about productivity, AI or office space. It’s also potentially signaling fear and control.
Transactional Culture
For months, we have commented on the shift in our business culture to defer to a transactional model. The current posture in the market and across businesses is taking a new direction where everything can be negotiated, everything has a price, and everything is a deal that one will profit from. In response to this shift, we have cautioned on the risks of short-term thinking and the erosion of an organizational culture. Our book “The Truth About Transformation” and newsletter have reinforced the theory that command and control leadership and organizational models do well in the short term, but always come with long-term consequences.
We have been witness to an evolution from a hierarchical command-and-control leadership model born from the Industrial Age to an empathetic, relationship-based approach that serves five generations working alongside each other. Now, we seem to have reverted to an attitude and mentality that is misaligned with our service and intelligence economy.
Taking a Hardline
Many CEOs are pivoting in leadership style, publicly taking a hardline approach to running their organizations. This shift has a deeper rationale, and we have speculated about the possible reasons.
- What is the impetus for this change in approach? Based on our analysis of history, business and the economy, what is the catalyst?
- Is there data that demonstrates productivity has decreased and profits declined.
- Are leadership insecurities taking center stage and leveraging power, opposed to collaboration?
- Has leadership boredom triggered a desire to act differently, even if it may not have a productive end?
The Shift to Hard-Line Approaches
Nowhere is the shift to a hardline approach more evident than in recent return-to-work mandates. As reported by Axios, Andy Jassy, CEO of Amazon, told his employees in 2023 that if they didn’t embrace working in the office, they may not have a future at the company. “It’s past the time to disagree and commit and if you can’t disagree and commit, I also understand that, but it’s probably not going to work out for you at Amazon because we are going back to the office at least three days a week, and it’s not right for all of our teammates to be in three days a week and for people to refuse to do so.” Jassy later expanded the mandate to five days a week.
More recently, John Stankey, CEO of ATT, made headlines when he said, “In the next few years, we expect that we will reduce our total corporate workforce as we get efficiency gains from using AI extensively across the company,” he said. As reported by Business Insider, Company culture is no longer about loyalty, tenure, or family. It’s about performance. Starkey said, “AT&T is a nearly 150-year-old company that has long embodied a culture that celebrates loyalty and tenure. Focus on those values, however, is a thing of the past. This shift can be characterized as moving away from an orientation on hierarchy and familial cultural norms and towards a more externally focused and competitive market-based culture.”
AI has been cited both as an excuse and an accelerator for a hardline management approach. Amy Coleman, Microsoft’s chief people officer, wrote a message to managers in April stating that the company was introducing new tools to improve performance management. “Today, we’re rolling out new and enhanced tools to help you accelerate high performance and swiftly address low performance. Our goal is to create a globally consistent and transparent experience for employees and managers (subject to local laws and consultation). These tools will also help foster a culture of accountability and growth by enabling you to address performance challenges with clarity and empathy.” (Business Insider)
At ATT, performance would be employees’ best metric for longevity at the company moving forward, and Stankey encouraged staff to get on board. He said, “I know change like this is difficult and can be unsettling for some. However, as General Eric Shinseki so eloquently stated, ‘If you dislike change, you’re going to dislike irrelevance even more.'”
Culture Shift
Our concern is that shifts like this can quickly be amplified by organizations that are happy to get on a bandwagon that shows deference and support of a larger cultural meme. We now face a workplace culture that, if based on a transactional mentality, becomes a divisive battleground. The mantra seems to be: “If you don’t agree and think like we do, you have no place in our system.” That flies in the face of our insistence that critical thinking, a diverse, inclusive workforce, embracing criticism to aid in solving problems and developing solutions, and a commitment to serve customers first, not management, has been retrofitted to a legacy and ineffective approach that does not bode well for long-term success.
We are even skeptical of the authenticity of a rationale disguised as empathetic, as stated by Starbucks CEO Brian Niccol, who told staff in an email last month that returning to the office allows employees to “share ideas more effectively, creatively solve hard problems, and move much faster. We understand not everyone will agree with this approach,” Niccol wrote. “But as a company built on human connection, and given the scale of the turnaround ahead, we believe this is the right path for Starbucks.” (Business Insider) Is being physically together really a game changer when most everyone is focused on their devices for most of the day? When so many employees are interacting with their screens to accomplish their work? Let alone workers interfacing with AI, word processors, spreadsheets and project management tools?
The Truth Behind Hardlines
Rhetoric aside, here’s the real question: What’s behind this shift? Anyone who knows us at 2040 understands that it is the human factor that is responsible for the success or failure of any organization. Despite the passion, inspiring personality, dogma, and personal belief of any leader, it is the human factor that will make or break any strategy or well-honed business plan. Mark Cohen, former director of retail studies at Columbia Business School, sticks to his guns when it comes to a CEO’s responsibility: “I’m all for consensus management and progressive managers. The issue of where a company conducts its business is a command-and-control decision, not one that ever lends itself to a vote. If a CEO and the board decide that, for the health and well-being of an organization that return to work is going to ensure its sustainability, then it becomes a mandate, whether said politely or harshly, like CEO Jamie Diamond at JPMorgan, who threatened to fire everyone. Regardless of your style, it’s a mandate. For example, retail doesn’t lend itself to remote management, certainly not for merchandising. If it’s a business in trouble, it’s time to get everyone back into their seats. If your enterprise requires employees’ presence, that’s it. Get ready to replace the most talented people with other talented people who are willing to come back to the office. Expect disruption. But if the decision is made with thought and care, it becomes a mandate. Remote work in many fields of business isn’t always optimal.”
Cohen’s opinion is hard to ignore, but our perspective is in the execution of that goal, not blindly following an inflexible, draconian edict. What motivates an inflexible approach? Can it be rationalized by “for the good of the stakeholders?” Or is there something more complex operating here? The psychology behind leadership style is as fascinating as it is complicated. We work with clients to explore why a transactional approach is adopted. Is it a lack of organizational performance or an inherent need to feel and act like a leader? Or is it a distrust of one’s ability to lead, confronted by differing opinions? Or is it falling back on the familiar and comfort of “doing what we have always done,” even if it’s not effective?
In any case, taking the hardline is the antithesis of moving away from a hierarchical Industrial Age management style. The “my way or the highway” school of leadership may be a nostalgic hope to return to the past in a simple desire for change. This perspective is rooted in the conflict of centralization versus decentralization as much as it is in the necessity to take a power position and exert power (not often defined objectively).
There is also the subconscious motivation that subverts when things may be working fine, because the organizational structure is perceived as a reason to exert power. And we have observed that an inflexible management style often surfaces when things have gotten too big to manage. In this case, other opposing views of the best course for the organization may be evolving among managers responsible for growing their divisions.
The Psychology Behind the Hardline
There’s more to the story, and we offer what’s really happening, and it’s not what these CEOs are telling you. When you strip away the corporate communications, you’re left with leaders making decisions from four primary motivations:
- Fear of Loss of Control. When organizations grow beyond a leader’s ability to directly manage every moving part, the natural instinct is to grasp tighter, not delegate smarter. There may be non-stated reasons their job is on the line, and control is the protective mechanism that feels best to them.
- Nostalgia for Simplicity. Command-and-control feels simpler. One decision-maker, clear hierarchy, immediate compliance. It’s a leadership tactic that suppresses touchy-feely collaborations and exercises no patience to hear what others think. It also demonstrates the greatest human default to conserve energy; if a leader feels he/she is right, why bother exerting energy to hear alternatives.
- Performance Theater. Sometimes, taking a “tough stance” isn’t about results—it’s about projecting decisiveness to stakeholders and investors who may mistake firmness for strength. Our articles on innovation theater deconstructed this behavior.
- Being Overwhelmed. If you’re managing a transformation that feels too big, too complex, or too uncertain, reverting to familiar patterns provides psychological relief, even when those patterns don’t work. When we get stressed, we seek clarity and feel the need to take control.
The problem? None of these motivations actually solves the underlying challenges. They just create new ones.
Why The Hardline Will Backfire
We have seen decades of organizational evolution move away from hierarchical command-and-control models for good reason. We’ve evolved from an Industrial Age to a service and intelligence economy. Treating knowledge workers like factory workers doesn’t just feel wrong—it produces measurably worse results. Most critically: You can lose the very thing that drives success in transformation—the human factor that makes or breaks any strategy, regardless of how well-planned it might be.
Here’s what can happen when you force a hardline regression:
- Talent Exodus. Your highest performers—the ones with options—leave first. You’re left with people who stay because they have to, not because they want to. You’re also left with the expense of replacing talented workers with potentially more expensive new talent.
- Innovation Shutdown. “My way or the highway” cultures don’t generate breakthrough thinking. They reinforce compliance.
- Psychological Withdrawal. Employees who physically return to the office may easily mentally check out. Ambivalent bodies in seats do not guarantee minds engaged in problems.
- Cultural Whiplash. If you’ve spent years building a culture of psychological safety and collaborative decision-making, a sudden authoritarianism puts workers on guard and creates a breach of trust that can take years to heal.
The Path Forward
We believe hardline approaches can coexist with relationship-based management—but only when delivered by leaders skilled enough to build cultures that diverse workforces want to participate in and contribute to. Hardlines delivered as edicts fall on deaf ears. Clear and compelling calls for united effort, with shared purpose and respect for individual contributions, triumph every time.
The leaders who will succeed in the next decade aren’t the ones reverting to Industrial Age thinking. They’re the ones sophisticated enough to provide clarity and direction while maintaining the psychological safety that drives innovation and engagement. The question isn’t whether you can make people comply. The question is whether you can inspire them.
The Truth About Transformation: Why Most Change Initiatives Fail (And How Yours Can Succeed)
Why do 70% of organizational transformations fail?
The brutal truth: It’s not about strategy, technology, or resources. Organizations fail because they fundamentally misunderstand what drives change—the human factor.
While leaders obsess over digital tools, process improvements, and operational efficiency, they’re missing the most critical element: the psychological, behavioral, and cultural dynamics that actually determine whether transformation takes hold or crashes and burns.
The 2040 Framework reveals what really works:
- Why your workforce unconsciously sabotages change (and how to prevent it)
- The hidden biases that derail even the best-laid transformation plans
- How to build psychological safety that accelerates rather than impedes progress
- The difference between performative change and transformative change that sticks
This isn’t theory—it’s a battle-tested playbook. We’ve compiled real-world insights from organizations of all sizes, revealing the elements that comprise genuine change. Through provocative case studies, you’ll see exactly how transformations derail—and more importantly, how to ensure yours doesn’t.
What makes this different: While most change management books focus on process and tools, The Truth About Transformation tackles the messy, complex, utterly human reality of organizational change. You’ll discover why honoring, respecting, and acknowledging the human factor isn’t just nice—it’s the difference between transformation and expensive reorganization.
Perfect for: CEOs, change leaders, consultants, and anyone tired of watching transformation initiatives fizzle out despite massive investment.
Now available in paperback—because real transformation requires real understanding.
Ready to stop failing at change? Your organization’s future depends on getting this right.
