Leadership styles

Leadership is never one-dimensional. Early in my career I wrongly assumed that consistency in a specific leadership style was a strength. Over time, I learned that the reality is very different. Effective leadership at the Director+ level requires adaptability. The context changes constantly, from aligning a cross-functional group around a product vision, to scaling teams across geographies, or managing a crisis in real time. The way a leader shows up must shift with it.

When an organisation is at an inflection point, such as entering a new market or re-positioning a product, clarity of direction tends to become the primary need. In these moments, I have found a visionary style creates alignment and energy. It can tie engineering execution to a broader customer or business outcome and helps people see beyond the incremental. The danger is in remaining at the visionary level without driving toward tangible milestones. In high-growth organisations, vision without delivery creates frustration quickly.

At other times the emphasis needs to be on people growth. Senior ICs stepping into staff or principal roles, or first-time managers building confidence, need a leader who is present as a coach. That means asking questions, broadening perspectives, and enabling them to take on more ownership. This investment pays off disproportionately when operating at scale, because it creates the next layer of leaders who extend impact across multiple teams. However, coaching cannot dominate in every situation. In moments of urgency, it must give way to a more directive approach.

There are also periods when servant leadership is the most effective approach. High-performing, mature teams often need their leader not to dictate, but to remove friction or blockers. In an engineering organisation, this can mean creating space for teams to make technical trade-offs, while handling executive-level negotiations around budgets, compliance, or cross-functional dependencies. The trap to avoid is confusing servant leadership with absence. Teams that feel abandoned in moments of ambiguity lose confidence quickly.

Critical events demand something different altogether. In a launch where downtime threatens customer revenue, or during a major security incident, directive leadership is non-negotiable. A leader must step in, establish clear ownership, and cut through noise to resolve the problem. At scale the stakes are high enough that minutes matter. The key is not to normalise this as a daily leadership style, but to use it in precisely those moments when decisive control protects reputation, trust, and revenue.

Collaboration is another mode that becomes essential in complex matrix organisations. Engineering does not operate in isolation; progress requires alignment with product, design, marketing, finance, security, legal as well as other teams. Collaborative leadership creates buy-in across these groups and ensures the right voices are heard. The challenge here is to maintain clear decision ownership. Without it, collaboration can tip into decision paralysis and diluted accountability.

Finally, transformational leadership is required for the most significant shifts: re-architecting a core platform, driving AI adoption across an organisation, or re-designing operating models for scale. These are moments when leaders must set a new standard and challenge the status quo. The energy and persistence required are considerable, and so is the risk of overuse. An organisation cannot live in a permanent transformation state without creating fatigue and instability.

I’ve found the most effective leaders are not defined by a single style. They are defined by their ability to read the organisation’s maturity, the context of the decision, and the impact for the business, and then to adapt their approach.