The Adverse Effects of the Command and Control Business Model

In a rapidly evolving global economy marked by innovation, agility, and employee empowerment, the command and control business model is increasingly viewed as outdated and counterproductive. Rooted in military-style hierarchies, this model emphasises top-down decision-making, rigid structures, and strict oversight. While it once served well in industrial settings where uniformity and predictability were paramount, today's complex and dynamic business environment exposes its numerous shortcomings. Globally, only 21% of employees are engaged at work, while 62% are not engaged and 17% actively disengaged (Wellable, 2025), underscoring the cost of outdated management practices.

1. Lack of Employee Engagement and Motivation

One of the most immediate consequences of the command and control approach is low employee morale. In this model, decisions are made by top executives, with little to no input from lower-level employees. This leads to a workforce that feels undervalued, disengaged, and unmotivated (Rusilowati et al., 2025). When employees are treated as mere executors of orders rather than contributors of ideas, they are less likely to take initiative, solve problems creatively, or feel a sense of ownership over their work (Mphaluwa, 2025). Research shows that 91% of employees who receive regular recognition report being highly engaged (Achievers, 2025), highlighting how top-down approaches that ignore feedback and recognition can worsen disengagement.

2. Inhibited Innovation and Agility

Innovation thrives in environments where ideas are freely exchanged, and experimentation is encouraged. The rigid hierarchy of the command and control model stifles this environment. Because lower-level employees often have the closest insight into customer needs and operational inefficiencies, excluding them from strategic discussions limits the organisation's ability to adapt and innovate (Rietze et al., 2022). This has measurable consequences: companies with high employee engagement see up to 22% higher productivity than those with low engagement (World Metrics, 2025). In rapidly changing markets, the lack of responsiveness and innovation under command and control can lead to obsolescence.

3. Bottlenecks in Decision-Making

Centralised authority means that key decisions often must pass through layers of bureaucracy, causing delays and inefficiencies (Drury-Grogan et al., 2012). This can be especially damaging in fast-paced industries where quick decision-making is crucial. Moreover, senior leaders may not have the granular knowledge needed for effective decisions on local or technical matters, resulting in poor outcomes. Studies of large infrastructure and construction projects confirm that delays in stakeholder decision-making are among the top five causes of delay, often resulting in time overruns of 10–30% and cost overruns exceeding 20% (MDPI, 2023).

4. High Turnover and Talent Drain

Today's workforce, especially younger generations, values autonomy, purpose, and the ability to contribute meaningfully to an organisation. When talented individuals feel constrained by a top-down structure, they are more likely to seek opportunities elsewhere (Alamri, 2024). Data suggests that engaged employees are 87% less likely to leave their organisations compared to disengaged employees (Gitnux, 2025). High turnover not only disrupts workflow but also leads to significant financial costs, as replacing an employee typically costs between 50% and 200% of their annual salary, depending on seniority (SHRM, 2023). For businesses, voluntary turnover accounts for nearly US$1 trillion in annual losses (Gallup, 2019).

5. Poor Communication and Misinformation

In a command and control system, communication often flows one way: from the top down. This not only limits feedback but also increases the risk of miscommunication. Employees may not feel safe voicing concerns or suggesting improvements, leading to unresolved issues and a disconnect between management and frontline staff (Mazzetti et al., 2022). The financial cost of poor communication and low engagement is staggering—Gallup's 2025 report estimates that disengagement has cost the global economy US$438 billion in lost productivity (Business Insider, 2025).

6. Resistance to Change

Organisations operating under this model often develop a culture of compliance rather than curiosity. Employees become accustomed to following orders, which fosters a fear of change and discourages innovation (Alamri, 2024). Evidence shows that resistance to change has major implications: 70% of organisational change initiatives fail, often due to employee resistance and insufficient management support (McKinsey, 2015). Moreover, only 34% of transformation efforts succeed in meeting their goals (Gartner, 2020). Employees who feel excluded from decision-making are also 4.6 times more likely to be disengaged during change processes (Gallup, 2020). As a result, even when there is a need for transformation, internal resistance can slow or derail the process entirely.

7. Undermining of Trust and Collaboration

Trust is foundational to any high-functioning team. The command and control model, with its emphasis on oversight and control, can foster an atmosphere of mistrust. Employees may feel they are constantly monitored rather than supported, leading to stress and reduced collaboration (Mazzetti et al., 2022). Research shows that organisations with high-trust cultures report 74% less stress, 50% higher productivity, 76% more engagement, and 40% less burnout compared to low-trust workplaces (Zak, 2017). While in low-trust environments, collaboration drops significantly and team performance suffers, with studies showing that teams in low-trust organisations are 50% less productive and have 106% less energy at work compared to high-trust organisations (Zak, 2017). A lack of trust can therefore fracture teams and erode the organisational culture from within.

Alternatives to Command and Control

Modern businesses are increasingly shifting towards more adaptive and inclusive management styles such as:

• Servant Leadership: Focuses on supporting and enabling employees rather than directing them (Rusilowati et al., 2025).
• Agile and Flat Structures: Promote responsiveness, cross-functional teams, and decentralised decision-making (Rietze et al., 2022).
• Participative Management: Encourages collaboration, employee involvement, and shared ownership of outcomes (Wright, 2022).

Conclusion

While the command and control business model may still have a place in certain high-risk, highly regulated environments (e.g., military, aviation, or emergency response), its blanket application in modern organisations can be more harmful than helpful. In an age that demands innovation, adaptability, and employee engagement, businesses must reconsider their management paradigms. Moving away from rigid hierarchies towards more collaborative and empowering structures can unlock the full potential of the workforce and ensure long-term success.

References

• Achievers. (2025). Employee Engagement Statistics. Retrieved from https://www.achievers.com/blog/employee-engagement-statistics
• Alamri, A. G. S. (2024). Comparative Analysis of Traditional, Agile, and Flexible Management Approaches. Academic Journal of Research and Scientific Publishing, 6(67). Retrieved from https://www.ajrsp.com/en/Archive/issue-67/6.pdf
• Business Insider. (2025). Declining Employee Engagement Costs the Global Economy Billions. Retrieved from https://www.businessinsider.com/manager-engagement-gallup-workplace-report-2025-4
• Deloitte. (2020). Global Human Capital Trends Report. Retrieved from https://www2.deloitte.com/global/en/pages/human-capital/articles/introduction-human-capital-trends.html
• Drury-Grogan, M., Conboy, K., & Power, K. (2012). Obstacles to decision making in Agile software development teams. Journal of Systems and Software, 85(6), 1239-1254.
• Gallup. (2019). This Fixable Problem Costs U.S. Businesses $1 Trillion. Retrieved from https://www.gallup.com/workplace/247391/fixable-problem-costs-businesses-trillion.aspx
• Gallup. (2020). State of the Global Workplace Report. Retrieved from https://www.gallup.com/workplace/257552/state-global-workplace-2020.aspx
• Gartner. (2020). Why Change Management Fails. Retrieved from https://www.gartner.com/en/documents/3992950
• Gitnux. (2025). Engaged Employees Statistics. Retrieved from https://gitnux.org/engaged-employees-statistics
• Kotter, J. P. (2012). Leading Change. Harvard Business Review Press.
• Mazzetti, G., Vignoli, M., Schaufeli, W. B., Guglielmi, D., & Butera, F. (2022). The Impact of Engaging Leadership on Work Engagement and Team Effectiveness. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 871126. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.871126
• McKinsey & Company. (2015). Changing change management. Retrieved from https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our-insights/changing-change-management
• MDPI. (2023). Critical Delay Factors in Mega Construction Projects: A Case Study. Sustainability, 15(7), 5872. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15075872
• Mphaluwa, G. (2025). How do leadership styles influence employee engagement … Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-05707-w
• Rietze, S., Felfe, J., & Giesing, J. (2022). Relationships between Agile Work Practices and Occupational Well-Being. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(3), 1833. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19031833
• Rusilowati, U., et al. (2025). The Effects of Top-Down Management on Employee Morale.
• SHRM. (2023). The Cost of Employee Turnover.
• Wellable. (2025). Global Employee Engagement Statistics.
• World Metrics. (2025). Productivity and Employee Engagement.
• Wright, P. (2022). Participative Management and Employee Engagement.
• Zak, P. J. (2017). The Neuroscience of Trust. Harvard Business Review.