Management styles: 2026 guide for French SMEs

Quick answer. Four major styles structure managerial practice in 2026: directive, persuasive, participative and delegative. Drawn from Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard's situational model, their effectiveness depends on employee maturity, context (urgency, hybrid remote work, growth) and team size. According to INSEE surveys, roughly one third of French executives work remotely on a regular basis, which pushes SMEs of 5 to 50 employees towards the participative and delegative styles.

Management is the set of organisational, leadership and team-animation techniques that allow a company to reach a goal. For a long time, French SMEs modelled their practices on twentieth-century industrial doctrines, themselves inspired by Frederick Taylor and then Henri Fayol. The widespread adoption of remote working after Covid, the massive arrival of Gen Z on the labour market and the legal duty to prevent psychosocial risks (article L. 4121-1 of the French Labour Code) have profoundly reshaped the playing field.

The surveys published by ANACT (the French National Agency for the Improvement of Working Conditions) on quality of working life show a strong expectation from French employees for more autonomy, meaning and recognition. The Ministry of Labour has integrated the notion of QVCT (quality of life and working conditions) into mandatory company-level negotiation since 2022. For a CEO of a 5 to 50 employee SME, ignoring this evolution means accepting high turnover and growing recruitment difficulties.

At Cabinet Hayot Expertise, a firm registered with the Paris Île-de-France order of chartered accountants, we have spent more than a decade supporting SME owners on the structuring of their HR function. Our conviction: a management style is not a fixed personality trait, but a repertoire of practices that a leader must adapt to each employee and each growth phase of the company.

The most widely used typology in France is the situational leadership model of Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard, formalised in 1969. It distinguishes four styles along two dimensions: directive behaviour (task-oriented) and supportive behaviour (relationship-oriented).

1. Directive management#

The directive manager sets precise objectives, gives detailed instructions and closely monitors execution. Communication flows downwards and decisions belong to the manager. This style works in operational emergencies, with junior employees or for simple repetitive tasks. It becomes toxic if applied permanently to autonomous staff: demotivation, disengagement and talent flight are the classic consequences.

2. Persuasive management#

The persuasive manager keeps decision rights but takes time to explain the why. Communication becomes two-way without delegating actual authority. This style suits motivated employees who still lack experience, for example a junior sales rep on a complex target or a junior developer on an unfamiliar stack. It is very time-consuming: a leader who spends two hours explaining every decision quickly loses control of the strategic agenda.

3. Participative management#

The participative manager co-builds decisions with the team. They consult, listen, arbitrate and value individual contributions. This style unlocks creativity and engagement, especially in support functions, marketing, R&D and consulting. It assumes competent and autonomous employees and a manager able to decide when consensus fails. It is the style most aligned with the expectations of French executives and technical specialists aged 25 to 40 according to ANACT studies.

4. Delegative management#

The delegative manager sets the direction, the objectives and the budget, then lets the employee freely choose the means. They monitor results, not methods. This style is ideal for expert and autonomous staff such as a seasoned sales director, a CTO or a senior consultant. It becomes dangerous if applied to junior employees without a clear framework: drift, loss of quality, burn-out through excess responsibility.

Three other models deserve to be known to structure a CEO's managerial reflection.

Kurt Lewin (1939) distinguishes three leadership styles: authoritarian, democratic and laissez-faire. His contribution is the link between managerial style and group climate: authoritarian produces short-term results but destroys trust, democratic generates more engagement, and laissez-faire leads to chaos without expert autonomy.

Rensis Likert (1961) proposes four systems: exploitative authoritative, benevolent authoritative, consultative and participative. Likert demonstrates statistically that organisations practising the participative system achieve better economic results in the long run.

The transformational leadership theorised by Bernard Bass in the 1980s goes further: the leader inspires, gives meaning and elevates employees beyond their immediate self-interest. This model fits hypergrowth startups and mission-driven companies particularly well, where the corporate project mobilises more than mere salary.

The most operational grid remains the Hersey-Blanchard one. It crosses two variables: the employee's competence on the task, and their commitment (motivation, self-confidence). Four scenarios emerge.

The most frequent mistake we observe: a CEO who uniformly applies the style they feel comfortable with. A visionary delegative founder leaves juniors stranded; a former military leader stays directive with senior managers who eventually resign.

1. Map your team on the D1-D4 matrix. Assess each employee on their main missions, not as a block.
2. Pick a target style per manager-employee pair, mission by mission. The same employee can be D4 on their core job and D1 on a new technical project.
3. Document the managerial contract: SMART objectives, cadence of check-ins, KPIs tracked, arbitration rules. A short written document beats a vague speech.
4. Track engagement quarterly through an internal barometer of no more than five questions. The survey must be short to be sustained.
5. Revise annually the matrix and the managerial contract during the mandatory annual review.

This approach fits the mandatory annual negotiation on quality of life and working conditions provided by articles L. 2242-1 and following of the Labour Code for companies of 50 employees or more. For smaller companies, it serves as an excellent safeguard against psychosocial risks and a differentiator in recruitment.

According to INSEE, the share of active employees practising regular remote work (at least one day a week) has stabilised at around 22% of all employees and more than a third of executives in France. This generalisation forces us to revisit managerial styles.

Directive management works poorly remotely: visual oversight disappears, micro-surveillance through digital tools generates stress and runs into case law on workplace privacy. Conversely, delegative management reveals its full value as soon as objectives are measurable and reporting is shared.

Three practices structure good hybrid management: a structured weekly one-to-one of thirty minutes per employee, a written remote-work charter (connection hours, right to disconnect, equipment, allowances), and a monthly in-person session dedicated to collective dynamics. The French inter-professional agreement on remote work signed on 9 December 2020 and extended by ministerial order provides a solid contractual framework.

Hypergrowth startups (10-50 employees in 18 months). The shift from the founder's directive style to a delegative one is consistently the most critical moment. We regularly support tech startups through this transition: hiring intermediate middle management, deploying quarterly OKRs, structuring the HR function.

Intergenerational management (Gen Z vs senior). Young Gen Z professionals expect more meaning, flexibility and fast feedback. Senior employees over 50 value recognition of their expertise and stability. A single manager must alternate between a participative style with juniors and a delegative one with seniors, without creating a sense of unfairness.

Field teams (construction, hospitality, retail). Directive management keeps full relevance for operational execution for safety and productivity reasons, but must be complemented with participative slots to surface improvements from the field. Toyota's Production System (kaizen) remains a reference.

Transition management. For a temporary replacement of a CEO or a transformation project, recourse to an external transition manager brings expertise and a neutral posture. Our dedicated article on transition management for SMEs in mutation details mission conditions, average duration (6 to 12 months) and pricing range.

• Confusing style and personality. A style can be trained, learned and adapted. No leader is locked into a single register.
• Underestimating the legal framework. Before any reorganisation, check the duties to consult the works council (articles L. 2312-8 and L. 2312-9 of the Labour Code) and to update the single risk-assessment document.
• Forgetting financial variables. A managerial change is often paired with a redesign of the pay policy. See our guide on employer HR and payroll duties for 2026 and on rolling out a profit-sharing agreement.
• Confusing participative management with absence of decision. Participative supposes a manager who decides after consultation, not a permanent democracy.
• Neglecting the legal and tax dimension of intra-group recharges. For structured groups, charging management services between holding and subsidiary requires strict formalism: see our article on management fees between holding and subsidiary.

Recently, we supported a Paris-based software SME that grew from 8 to 32 employees in two years. The founder, an engineer by training, had built the company on an assumed delegative model: senior hires, full autonomy, few processes. The model worked up to 20 staff. At 25, turnover doubled and three key hires failed in their first year.

Our diagnosis revealed a classic flaw of this phase: the move from a tight-knit collective (where everyone knows each other) to a structured organisation (where retention depends on explicit HR processes). We supported the CEO on three axes: creating intermediate middle management (two team leads), rolling out structured annual reviews and a profit-sharing agreement, and drafting a remote-work charter compliant with the 2020 inter-professional agreement. Eighteen months later, turnover came back down to 8% per year, against 24% at peak.

The lesson is simple: there is no universal style, but there is a universal bad reflex—repeating the style that worked in the previous phase. The chartered accountant's role, beyond producing payslips, is precisely to point out these inflexion points and to back them with financial tools.

Hayot Expertise advice. Before any managerial shift, take two hours to map your team on the Hersey-Blanchard matrix. Check consistency with your pay policy, your legal duties (works council, risk assessment, QVCT negotiation) and your growth strategy. An external annual HR audit by your chartered accountant usually costs less than the resignation of a key manager.

• Four styles structure managerial practice: directive, persuasive, participative, delegative. None is intrinsically superior.
• The Hersey-Blanchard model remains the most operational grid to adapt your style to each employee.
• Hybrid remote work, now widespread for over a third of French executives, favours participative and delegative styles.
• QVCT is now a mandatory negotiation theme for companies of 50 employees or more (articles L. 2242-1 and following).
• The shift from directive to delegative is the most critical moment for SMEs in growth between 10 and 30 employees.
• A chartered accountant registered with the French Order supports the HR, payroll and financial dimensions of these transitions.

Official sources#

• ANACT — QVCT approaches and management (French agency for the improvement of working conditions)
• Ministry of Labour — Quality of working life
• INSEE — Remote work and employment statistics (French national statistics office)
• Légifrance — Labour Code, articles L. 2312-8 and L. 2312-9
• Inter-professional agreement on remote work, 9 December 2020
• Service-public.fr — Employer health-and-safety duties

Cabinet Hayot Expertise — 50 avenue Hoche, 75008 Paris — +33 6 51 47 43 92 — contact@hayot-expertise.fr

Request a free quote for a personalised managerial and HR diagnosis.