As a leader, striking a balance between push and pull is essential. Leadership demands flexibility: what works in one situation may not in another, so an effective leader must adapt their approach based on what the moment and organization requires.
Many leadership models—and many “gurus”—emphasize a “pull” story of leadership. Emphasizing the need to create buy-in through collaboration, inviting input, building shared vision. These are powerful tools. I believe in them and have had career-changing experiences both working with leaders applying these theories as well as using them myself. But they are not sufficient on their own.
There are times when people need a push. When complacency or stagnation are setting in, when moving forward feels impossible, a directive nudge is necessary. Though push (directive) styles risk appearing authoritarian, they are a necessary part of the leader’s toolkit—especially when strategic goals demand urgency. One of the most common errors I’ve seen in my career is leaders who rely too much on pull alone, even when the context calls for push. Such overreliance leads to frustration, low morale, and disengagement—not always from those who lag, but from those who want to move forward and feel held back by a perceived lack of leadership.
Push becomes especially necessary when change must happen fast. Think of a new leader entering an organization, trying to realign practices or reset expectations. In those “first 90 days,” you need early wins. You need clarity. You need visible shifts. When the vision is clear, when some colleagues are already on board, when momentum can be built, a push at the right time and in the right direction can reset the pace. But push doesn’t mean abandoning support; it means being explicit: this is how we are working now, this is how we are progressing. You give people every resource to succeed, but also make clear where change is non-negotiable.
An example of push style leadership I came across while developing my thinking comes from a video from HBR focused on “Commander’s Intent”. The framework is that it is the leader’s responsibility to define why the work matters, outline what needs to be done, and, most importantly, what the outcome should look like. What I appreciate about this model is that there is no explicit mention of how; this crucial piece is left to the members who need to move forward. The idea of providing a push into action through giving clear direction, support and the expectation of initiative.
By contrast, pull is what you lean into for long-term strategy and deep cultural change. It’s what builds commitment when the stakes are sustained over years, not weeks. It’s how you engage others so they feel ownership of the path forward. Pull nurtures trust, creativity, and alignment, especially when the direction isn’t crystal clear or when people need to bring in their ideas and expertise.
For either mode to work well, a leader needs a clear vision and, crucially, self-awareness. You must be able to sense whether the situation calls for push or for pull, or both. Push used too much undermines sustainability and alienates people; pull used too much when urgency is needed results in drift. Leadership lies not in choosing one style, but in being able to shift between them, applying both effectively.
Leadership isn’t about being consistently gentle or always forceful—it’s about being present in the moment, reading the room, and leading in a way that matches both the needs of the people and the urgency of the purpose. As developing leaders, we must prepare to take on new challenges and intentionally practice this balancing act. Pay attention to the times when you pull people along and when you push them forward. The key to developing as an organizational leader often comes down to learning when to pull and when to push, and doing both with integrity, clarity, and care.
Learning to Lead 