Leadership, a vital aspect of organisational success, manifests in different styles that influence not only the direction of a team but also the culture and decision-making effectiveness. Two contrasting sides of leadership coin yet interconnected are often observed: the “gatekeepers”, who centralise decision-making and control the flow of information, and the “enablers”, who empower teams by delegating authority and fostering autonomy. Understanding the strengths, weaknesses, and balance of these styles is crucial for leaders seeking to align their behaviours with organisational goals.
Gatekeeper Leadership: Control and Oversight
The gatekeeper leadership style is defined by centralisation of power and strict control over decision-making. Gatekeepers see themselves as custodians of organisational integrity, responsible for ensuring that decisions align with broader strategies and regulatory constraints (Northouse, 2018).
This style is particularly effective in environments that demand consistency, compliance, and precision, such as healthcare, aviation, or financial services. Yukl (2013) argues that in crisis situations, gatekeepers’ ability to take quick, unilateral action can prevent chaos. For example, during the 2008 financial crisis, many banks relied heavily on top-down leadership to maintain compliance and stability in a volatile environment.
Research by Zohar and Luria (2010) describes group leaders as “gatekeepers of safety climates”, showing how this style ensures reliability and reduces errors in hazardous industries. Similarly, Collinson (2005) highlights that distance created by gatekeepers can sometimes allow reflection and consistency in strategic decision-making.
However, gatekeeping can also generate bottlenecks. By hoarding information and decision rights, leaders may slow down processes and discourage initiative. Amabile (1998) warns that overly controlling leadership stifles creativity, preventing organisations from adapting to dynamic environments. Modern studies confirm this: Pinkow and Schulze (2020) found that organisations with leaders acting primarily as gatekeepers struggled to build adaptive capacity, especially in fast-changing markets.
Gatekeeper leadership often leads to reduced employee motivation. According to Deci and Ryan’s (2000) self-determination theory, employees thrive on autonomy, competence, and relatedness. When leaders deny autonomy, they undermine intrinsic motivation, leading to disengagement and higher turnover.
Enabler Leadership: Trust and Empowerment
In contrast, the enabler leadership style is grounded in empowerment, trust, and knowledge-sharing. Enablers focus on distributing decision-making authority, encouraging employees to take ownership of their work. This approach reflects modern transformational and servant leadership models that prioritise collaboration and personal growth (Greenleaf, 1977; Kouzes & Posner, 2017).
Enablers create an “adaptive space” within organisations, where employees feel safe to innovate and experiment (Pinkow & Schulze, 2020). Goleman (2000) links this to emotional intelligence-based leadership, where enablers leverage empathy, motivation, and social awareness to unlock team potential.
Empirical studies support this approach. Spreitzer (1995) found that psychological empowerment correlates with job satisfaction, innovation, and commitment. Cavaliere, Lombardi and Giustiniano (2015) further demonstrated that knowledge-sharing cultures, facilitated by enabling leaders, enhance performance in knowledge-intensive industries. Similarly, Engelsberger, Cavanagh and Bartram (2022) argue that multicultural and relational leadership skills act as enablers in open innovation contexts, where cross-cultural trust is key.
Practical examples illustrate this effectiveness. At Google, leaders enable autonomy through initiatives like “20% time,” which has produced innovations such as Gmail. Agile methodologies also reflect enabling leadership: Spiegler, Heinecke and Wagner (2021) observed that shared leadership in agile teams improves adaptability and innovation.
The Balance Between Gatekeepers and Enablers
While these styles are often contrasted, effective leadership usually requires a balance. Gatekeeping may be necessary for compliance, security, or crisis management, but over-reliance hinders agility. Enabling is powerful in innovation-driven environments, but without some oversight, it risks creating inconsistency or lack of accountability.
Whitmore and Gaskell (2024) describe leaders as both “gatekeepers to performance” and “levers of empowerment.” Similarly, Chowdhury (2025) notes that digital leadership challenges traditional gatekeeping, as technology empowers employees to access information independently. The challenge for modern leaders is therefore not choosing one style over the other, but knowing when to gatekeep and when to enable.
This duality also reflects cultural and organisational contexts. Hofstede’s (2001) research on cultural dimensions suggests that in high power-distance cultures, gatekeeping may be more accepted, while in low power-distance contexts, enabling leadership resonates better. Thus, situational awareness is critical.
Benefits and Risks
Gatekeeping Benefits:
- Ensures compliance and risk management in highly regulated industries.
- Provides clarity and consistency in crisis or uncertainty.
- Prevents errors by concentrating expertise at the top.
Gatekeeping Risks:
- Bottlenecks and slow decisions.
- Stifled creativity and disengagement.
- Talent attrition due to lack of autonomy.
Enabling Benefits:
- Encourages innovation and adaptability (Hamrin, Johansson & Jahn, 2016).
- Builds trust and loyalty, reducing turnover (Spreitzer, 1995).
- Distributes workload, freeing leaders to focus on strategic vision.
Enabling Risks:
- Risk of inconsistency or poor quality without clear guidelines.
- May overwhelm inexperienced employees without proper support.
- Requires strong trust, which can be difficult to build in hierarchical cultures.
Case Study Insights
- Healthcare: Cardiff and Gershuni (2023) showed that nurse leaders acting as enablers improved retention and commitment, while over-gatekeeping reduced staff morale.
- Manufacturing: Cavaliere et al. (2015) found that enabling leadership in knowledge-intensive manufacturing boosted performance through knowledge-sharing networks.
- Technology: Spiegler et al. (2021) demonstrated how enabling leadership in agile software teams facilitated adaptability, while “role-keeper” behaviours risked rigidity.
- Public Sector: Cole et al. (2010) noted that gatekeepers in transport policy provided consistency, but community participation (enabling behaviours) was critical for long-term innovation.
Leadership is indeed a coin with two sides: the gatekeeper who safeguards stability and the enabler who empowers growth. Gatekeepers ensure compliance and alignment, which is vital in complex or high-risk contexts. Enablers foster trust, autonomy, and creativity, driving innovation and adaptability.
The most effective leaders are those who blend both approaches, adapting to context, culture, and organisational needs. By knowing when to centralise and when to distribute, leaders can protect their organisations while simultaneously unlocking their teams’ full potential.
As organisations face increasingly complex, fast-changing environments, enabling leadership is becoming more critical. Yet, the discipline and oversight of gatekeeping remain indispensable in ensuring accountability and direction. The challenge for modern leaders lies not in choosing one side of the coin but in mastering the art of flipping it wisely.
References
Amabile, T.M. (1998). How to kill creativity. Harvard Business Review, 76(5), pp. 77–87.
Cardiff, S. & Gershuni, O. (2023). How local, first-line nurse leaders influence intent to stay. Journal of Clinical Nursing. Wiley.
Cavaliere, V., Lombardi, S. & Giustiniano, L. (2015). Knowledge sharing in manufacturing firms. Journal of Knowledge Management, 19(6), pp. 1124–1142.
Chowdhury, R.H. (2025). Digital leadership and organisational learning: Technologies for business transformation. Springer.
Collinson, D. (2005). Questions of distance. Leadership, 1(2), pp. 235–250.
Deci, E.L. & Ryan, R.M. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), pp. 54–67.
Engelsberger, A., Cavanagh, J. & Bartram, T. (2022). Multicultural skills in open innovation. Personnel Review, 51(7), pp. 1678–1699.
Goleman, D. (2000). Leadership that gets results. Harvard Business Review, 78(2), pp. 78–90.
Greenleaf, R.K. (1977). Servant Leadership. Paulist Press.
Hamrin, S., Johansson, C. & Jahn, J.L.S. (2016). Communicative leadership. Corporate Communications, 21(3), pp. 1–20.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s Consequences. Sage.
Kouzes, J.M. & Posner, B.Z. (2017). The Leadership Challenge. Wiley.
Northouse, P.G. (2018). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Sage.
Pinkow, F. & Schulze, J.H. (2020). Leadership for organisational adaptability. Administrative Sciences, 10(3), p. 37.
Spreitzer, G.M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), pp. 1442–1465.
Spiegler, S.V., Heinecke, C. & Wagner, S. (2021). Changing leadership in agile teams. Empirical Software Engineering, 26, pp. 1–32.
Whitmore, J. & Gaskell, T. (2024). Coaching for Performance. Routledge.
Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in Organisations. 8th ed. Pearson.
Zohar, D. & Luria, G. (2010). Group leaders as gatekeepers. Applied Psychology, 59(4), pp. 647–673.
