The top-down approach to management is when company-wide decisions are made solely by leadership at the top, while the bottom-up approach gives all teams a voice in these types of decisions. Below, we cover the details, pros, and cons of top-down vs. bottom-up management.
Depending on the company, a project lead can be responsible for the work of a handful of individuals or for the oversight of multiple teams. Since different teams have different structures, sizes, and specific challenges, each project lead has to decide what management strategy will work best for them.
The top-down approach to management is one such strategy, in which the decision-making process occurs at the highest level and is then communicated to the rest of the team. This style can be applied at the project, team, or even the company level, and can be adjusted according to the particular group’s needs.
Many teams go with the top-down approach because it eliminates confusion, reduces risk, and keeps initiatives organized across larger teams. However, top-down management doesn’t work for everyone. It can limit creativity and slow down problem-solving, so it may not be the best choice for teams that require greater flexibility and responsiveness.
Below, we break down how the top-down approach compares to the bottom-up approach so you can decide which best fits your leadership style.
In the top-down approach to management, a team or project manager makes decisions, which then filter down through a hierarchical structure. Managers gather knowledge, analyze it, and draw actionable conclusions. They then develop processes that are communicated to and implemented by the rest of the team. You may hear this style of management referred to as “command and control” or “autocratic leadership.”
The top-down approach is probably what you think of when you think of the management process. Traditional industries like retail, healthcare, or manufacturing typically apply the top-down management style.
When approaching a project from the top down, higher-level decision-makers start with a big picture goal and work backward to determine what actions different groups and individuals will need to take in order to reach that goal.
The entire project planning process takes place at the management level. Then, once an action plan has been created, decision-makers communicate it to the rest of the team to be implemented (usually without much room for adjustment ).
The top-down approach can be effective because it remains the same from project to project, allowing teams to establish a well-practiced process that grows more efficient over time. Since the nature of the top-down style is so steady and reliable, many organizations (think: IBM, The New York Times, and other legacy organizations) choose to operate their entire companies according to this approach.
Today, very few organizations apply a purely top-down approach to management. Most teams apply a hybrid approach that falls somewhere along a spectrum of combinations between top-down and bottom-up management styles.
The top-down approach is more rigid and structured, so teams with multiple sub-teams, many different project parts, or any other factor that makes processes difficult to keep organized will benefit from incorporating elements of top-down methodology. Smaller teams or teams with a narrower project focus will have the freedom to lean more heavily on the bottom-up style.
There are benefits to a top-down management style, especially for larger teams that consist of multiple smaller teams or groups that function together in a broader organizational hierarchy.
The top-down management style is common, which means there’s less of a learning curve for new hires if they came from a company that uses this structure. As a team leader, you can help new team members adjust more quickly by incorporating some familiar elements of top-down methodology into your management style.
The top-down approach results in clear, well-organized processes that leave little room for confusion. Because all decisions are made in one place and all communication flows in one direction, mix-ups and misunderstandings happen less frequently than with other management styles.
When problems or inefficiencies do occur, the top-down management approach makes it easy to track them to their source. With clearly defined teams that each have their own separate responsibilities, it’s easier to locate, diagnose, and solve problems quickly and efficiently.
Since the decision-making process takes place at just one level of management, they can be finalized, distributed, and implemented much more quickly than decisions that require input from multiple leaders or project stakeholders.
Though top-down methodology has some advantages, there are also drawbacks to consider in how this approach might impact individual team members and overall team morale.
Since all decisions are made at the top, a mismatched project management hire can have a bigger impact on the success of the team. Many process problems are only visible at the lower level, so project managers who fail to solicit feedback from individual team members before making decisions can inadvertently cause significant problems, delays, and losses.
With all communication flowing from leaders to team members with little room for dialogue, the top-down approach allows fewer opportunities for creative collaboration. Less interdepartmental collaboration may also eliminate fresh perspectives and stifle innovation.
One challenge with the top-down management approach is that it requires proactive work to keep non-leadership team members feeling engaged, connected, and respected. When all decisions are made at the top, the rest of the team might feel that their feedback and opinions aren’t valued.
While a bottom-up approach allows decisions to be made by the same people who are working directly on a project, the top-down style of management creates distance between that team and decision-makers. This can lead to poorly-informed decisions if leadership doesn’t ask for input or feedback from their project team.
When approaching project objectives from the bottom up, a team will collaborate across all levels to determine what steps need to be taken to achieve overall goals. The bottom-up approach is newer and more flexible than the more formal top-down strategy, which is why it’s more commonly found in industries where disruption and innovation are a priority.
Examples of bottom-up management include:
Hybrid OKRs: broader objectives are set at the company level, but KRs (key results) are set by teams and individuals.
Scrum teams: the daily standup meeting brings the entire team together to coordinate collaboratively.
Democratic management: leaders work with team members to determine what decisions should be made at each level, allowing for better collaboration while also maintaining structure.
The bottom-up style of management solves many of the problems that come with the top-down approach. This approach has advantages that make it a great fit for creative teams and industries where collaboration is key, like software development, product design, and more.
In collaborative settings, those who work directly on projects and oversee project management can speak to the decisions that will impact their future work. Upper managers work directly with team members to chart a course of action, which prevents potential process blind spots that might otherwise appear when decisions are made without team input.
The bottom-up approach encourages greater buy-in from team members because everyone is given the opportunity to influence decisions regardless of seniority. It also facilitates better relationships between colleagues by offering members of all seniority levels an equal opportunity to influence project outcomes. In doing so, this approach increases the likelihood that all members will be invested in the team’s success.Read: How team morale affects employee performance
In top-down processes, there are fewer opportunities for teams to give input or suggestions. Collaborative approaches like the bottom-up approach, on the other hand, create opportunities for feedback, brainstorming, and constructive criticism that often lead to better systems and outcomes.
Of course, there’s a reason that the bottom-up approach hasn’t been more widely adopted: it comes with a number of challenges that make it incompatible with certain types of teams, projects, and industries.
A purely bottom-up approach to solving a problem might result in “too many cooks in the kitchen.” When everyone in a group is invited to collaborate, it can be harder to arrive at a decision and, as a result, processes can slow down.
To avoid this: Consider assigning one to two group leaders who take into consideration all of the input and then make a decision based on feedback.
Though it’s important to give team members the opportunity to provide feedback, not everyone is comfortable doing so—especially with leadership in the room. Keep in mind that everyone has different comfort levels and pushing too hard for feedback might stifle honesty or creativity.
To avoid this: Offer different environments for team members to contribute, like in small group breakout rooms, 1:1 meetings, or quarterly anonymous feedback surveys. Encourage more senior team members to find ways to break the ice with new contributors so everyone feels comfortable participating.
In many ways, it makes sense for project decisions to be made at the project level. However, projects are still impacted by higher-level factors like company goals, budgeting, forecasting, and metrics that aren’t always available at the team level. Processes designed from the bottom-up can suffer from blind spots that result from a lack of access to insights from upper management.
To avoid this: Create a communication flow that provides team leads with summaries of information from the company level that may be relevant to project-level decisions. As a team lead, you can pass along information to your team as you see fit to ensure team decisions are aligned with company-wide positions and goals.
The key to implementing a management approach that works is to invest in your people as much as you do in your processes. The challenges of the top-down management approach can be alleviated or even eliminated entirely if the people at the top of the process aren’t just good managers, but are leaders too.참고: 리더십과 관리의 차이점
Since process-related communication flows top to bottom in top-down companies, it’s easy for individuals and groups to become siloed and eventually feel isolated. Create opportunities for communication across departments, teams, management levels, and even geographical locations to help ensure that your team members can build meaningful relationships with each other.
Whether your team uses a top-down or bottom-up approach, provide purpose-built opportunities for collaboration between teams that don’t normally work together. Though not part of your day-to-day processes, these additional brainstorms can help stimulate creativity, build relationships, and lead to creative solutions that can later be implemented to benefit the greater group.
Non-management teammates may feel less invested when their opinions and perspectives aren’t considered by the people making decisions at the top. Build new channels for bottom-up feedback to not only increase buy-in with lower-level team members, but also give decision-makers valuable insight into gaps or issues with processes.
When it comes down to it, effective managers know how to balance the efficiency of the top-down approach with the collaborative and creative advantages that come from the entire team.
By blending elements of different management styles, you can find an approach that works best for you and your unique team. Once you decide the right approach, you can establish streamlined workflow management.
Test out Asana’s workflow management software to build and track your team workflows and communication all in one place.Try workflow management software from Asana