Low Vs High Power Distance: What England Rugby Can Teach Us About Leadership at Work

During this year’s Rugby Six Nations Championship, much of the commentary focused on tactics, selection and results. But beneath the surface, the behaviour of the England national rugby union team, particularly when compared with Scotland and Wales, offers a useful lens for exploring a critical cultural dynamic that shows up in organisations every day: power distance.

Power distance refers to the extent to which people prefer egalitarian decision-making versus clear, rigid hierarchies. It shapes how authority is exercised, how comfortable people feel challenging leaders, and how decisions are made – whether on the pitch or in the workplace.

Understanding Power Distance at Work

Power distance is one of the most influential cultural aspects that affects leadership, how we communicate and our performance.

• Low power distance cultures (such as Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands) favour flatter hierarchical structures, shared responsibility and open communication. In these cultures, leaders are mostly seen as facilitators rather than more distant authoritative figures. 

• High power distance cultures (such as China, India and Nigeria) mostly favour clear hierarchies where there is authority and top-down decision-making. Leaders in these cultures are expected to set the direction and deference to senior leaders is seen as the norm.

Neither low or high power distance is inherently better than the other and both bring their own strengths and risks, depending on the context.

Looking Closer at the England Rugby Team

If we take a look at elite sport, it often blends both low and high power distance – and the England rugby team gives us an example of this tension in action.

Lower Power Distance: Collaboration and “Teamship”

While under the leadership of Sir Clive Woodward, England adopted a “Teamship” approach. The team’s standards, behaviours and ways of working were developed by the players and management rather than being imposed solely from the leaders at the top. This created a more egalitarian environment, in which players felt a level of ownership and responsibility for the team culture and performance. 

In power distance terms, this reflected a low power distance approach, consisting of open contribution, shared accountability and a belief that leadership authority comes from being part of the team rather than standing apart from it. 

High Power Distance: Authoritarian and Commanding

In contrast, reports from Eddie Jones’ tenure described a more high power distance environment for the England Rugby team. His leadership style was often characterised as “direct”, with a “carrot and stick” management approach. Former England players including Danny Care have spoken about this era being a more challenging and less inclusive atmosphere. 

In this example, authority was more apparent. The coach played a dominant role in shaping behaviour and decision-making, and the hierarchy was more visible and rigid. 

 

The Current Shift

Today, the Rugby Football Union has defined a “Target Culture”. The Target Culture aims to foster an inclusive environment where all voices can contribute to team success. The modern England team aims for a low power distance in communication. Players and team members feel safe contributing ideas, but a high power distance in accountability, where standards are set by coaches and captains. This hybrid approach reflects what we see in many high-performing organisations. 

 

Power Distance in the Workplace and Decision-Making Preferences

These same dynamics play out in teams far beyond sport extending into the workplace, particularly when it comes to making decisions. 

In egalitarian (low power distance) environments, decision-making is collaborative and consensus-driven, employees feel able to challenge ideas including those of senior leaders and initiative is encouraged with constant approval. In highly competitive, fast-changing environments, this approach is often preferred. This structure can also perform well on complex, creative tasks that require innovation and collaboration. 

In hierarchical (high power distance) environments, decisions are made from the top-down, communication follows the chain of command, level skipping is discouraged and approvals are required These structures can be highly effective for speed, clarity and execution purposes – especially when tasks are simple or risk is high. 

 

Where Misunderstandings Arise 

Power distance differences can be a common source of friction in the workplace, particularly in culturally diverse teams. Someone from a hierarchical culture may see egalitarian leadership as chaotic or lacking in authority. Whereas someone from an egalitarian culture may perceive hierarchical leadership as autocratic or inefficient. 

Even things like office dress code or layout, or how leaders are addressed can carry very different meanings. In some cultures, authority comes from blending in, but in others it comes from standing apart. 

 

Finding the Balance 

The most effective teams and workplaces practise what we call hierarchical flexing, moving intentionally between structures depending on the task. Elite military units such as the UK’s Royal Air Force Aerobatic Team, widely known as The Red Arrows, do this well. They have strict hierarchies during executional moments and flatter structures during planning and debriefs. England rugby’s current approach reflects this same logic. 

 

What This Means for Leaders 

In today’s fast-changing multicultural workplaces, leaders cannot rely on a single style. A culturally intelligent leader might ask: 

• When do we need clarity and authority? 
• When do we need openness? 
• Do people feel safe to speak up, and clear about who makes decisions?

Power distance is not about being “soft” or “strict”, but instead about using hierarchy intentionally. And cultural intelligence is knowing when, and how, to use them both in the right way.