Authoritarian, or autocratic, leadership tends to be viewed rather negatively, even though it is among the most common leadership styles in the business world. The term creates a negative image in most minds; an idea of dictators and tyrants. The images are directly translated into the world of leadership, even though authoritarian leadership can have much to offer.
In this guide, we will examine the main concepts behind authoritarian leadership and study the core characteristics of the style and the leaders who use it. We’ll also delve into the advantages and disadvantages of the framework, before looking at examples of authoritarian leaders with their weaknesses and strengths.
1 Understanding the different contexts of authoritarian leadership
To understand authoritarian leadership and how it works, you should study the history of it. While authoritarianism has been around for a long time, the idea of didn’t form into an official leadership style until the publication of a few major studies. The work of Resis Likert and Douglas McGregor has heavily influenced the birth and popularity of the leadership style.
Rensis Likert’s study of leadership
In 1960s, an American social psychologist Rensis Likert developed a model describing different management and leadership styles. He and his colleagues set out to identify how leader’s communicate with subordinates and what behaviours help improve the productivity of industrial organisations.
The Liker four-fold model of leadership
In authoritarian leadership, the leaders make the decisions without the involvement or input of the group members. Making
Autocratic leadership, also known as authoritarian leadership is a leadership style characterized by individual control over all decisions and little input from group members. Autocratic leaders typically make choices based on their own ideas and judgments and rarely accept advice from followers. Autocratic leadership involves absolute, authoritarian control over a group. It can also be derived
Authoritarian leadership style is where a leader has complete control and power over their team. They demonstrate their 'power' and 'control' by dictating policies and procedures, deciding what goals need to be achieved, and directs all activities to be done by the team. An authoritarian is usually most successful when things are going well or when in a crisis and decisions need to be made quickly.
Authoritarian leaders are the leaders who like to do all the group decisions on their own and tell other group members what to do and how to do it. This type of leadership is very beneficial when you are in need of a quick decision or faced with some type of crisis. This type of decision making can easily be abused and can often be viewed as being bossy and over controlling. Leaders who use this style may provoke dependence, criticism, dissatisfaction, and aggression from their group members (Forsyth, 1990). According to Gladding 2012, authoritarian leaders do not ask for consideration or suggestions from group members; instead, they structure and direct their groups according to their own wishes, purposes, and the information available to them. A task group could benefit more from an Authoritarian leader. Tasks groups focus on accomplishing specific goals. According to Gladding 1994, “with task groups, an
Authoritarian leadership is a leadership style in which the leader dictates and controls all decisions in the group and task. Often referred to as Autocratic leadership, authoritarian leadership is about control, organization and discipline. Coach Haskins Leadership Style on the Court is authoritarian with his quota “You’re here to learn fundamental, disciplined defensive basketball. Now that means discipline both on and off the court. No girls. No booze. No late nights. Nothing besides fundamental basketball. I speak, you listen. I don’t wanna hear ‘can’t’ or ‘won’t’ or Coach, I’m bleeding. I don’t wanna hear anything except the basketball bounce. You play basketball my way. My way’s hard.” Bobby Joe This authoritarian style of leadership is often encountered in the world of athletics. During the beginning of their season Coach Haskins demands the respect of his players. His values included listening and obeying your coach, or repercussions will take place. If a player dared to disrespect the rules in place, either that person and/or the team would be put through punishment. There was no room for compromise, for whatever coach said was to be done. For example, when coach had said there was no partying some of the team members snuck out the first night. The next day at practice, coach had been informed of their disobedience and had the team running sprints for punishment until they physically could not do anymore. It happened again when coach caught Booby Joe Hill with a
As harsh as it indeed sounds, there is a place in management for this leadership style. According to Nwlink.com, it works best when there are deadlines to be met, and time is short. The other instance that the authoritarian, or autocratic, style is appropriate is when an employee, or group of workers, is new, and training must take place.
Leaders of authoritarian systems have an absolute rule without contestation from others and have the power to control all factors that concern their state. This paper will explore the similarities and differences between ruling presidents and ruling parties within the authoritarian system.
Often times an authoritarian leader has full control of those around them, and believes to have complete authority to treat them as they want. An authoritarian leader would provide instructions without looking for inputs and superintend his or her nurses in a close manner. However, problems may arise if a nurse must wait for the manager's decision or direction before taking action regarding a patient. Although the authoritarian leadership style can be viewed as undesirable, it has proved to be very efficient in emergent and stressful situations. One of the key benefits of authoritarian leadership is the fact that decision making becomes much more simple and fast, as the leader doesn't have to consult or convince anybody. Basically authoritarian leadership can work wonders for the organization when decision making has to be quick and during some crisis.
Authoritarianism is a form of government in which the leader or leaders have exclusive power concerning matters of the state. Although these
Authoritarian leaders give clear orders to what should be done and are straight to the point. They settle on choices with no contribution from others. An Authoritarian leader would be for example an Officer as a part of the armed force, they are for the most part bossy,comanding and intimidating to some they think they are constantly right and they're way is the most ideal way. This could be utilized as a part of a circumstance where a group needs to do things quick and successfully e.g in a drugs raid, if the unit is under attack the leader must yell orders and the group must react quick as their life is at stake. This style is like Task Orientated in the way that the leader is the main individual who puts input, this doesn't make a welcoming
In an authoritarian government, there is one leader who makes all of the decisions. They could also have a group of leaders like in our democracy. The only thing is, the people don’t get a say in who is leading them. Instead of holding an election, like we do, the authoritarian government just picks whoever they think fits best. This is a problem because they are taking away the people’s
An authoritarian system can be defined as a principle of blind obedience and acceptance to authority, as opposed to individual freedom and belief. Authoritarian rulers often lack constitutional responsibility towards citizens and choose to exercise absolute control without consideration to the existing bodies of law. Authoritarianism is considered a contested term as they are various forms of authoritarian rule, namely ruling parties and ruling presidents. Hence, this essay will discuss, with reference to similarities
2. Background. The Authoritarian Leadership Theory can be defined simply as the establishment of strict, close control over followers by keeping close regulation of policy’s and procedures given to followers (Howell, 4). Authoritarian leaders set clear expectations as to what should be accomplished and how it will be accomplished. As such, the authoritarian leader fills the void as both the leader and the commander, which makes for a clear divide between the leader and follower. If executed poorly, this kind of leadership tends to lead to negative attributions towards subordinates and makes it ineffective and disruptive to the designated group (Hughes, 158).
There are two definite strengths of authoritarian leadership: efficiency and productiveness. These both impact the team positively, as team members will feel satisfied - having completed a task/accomplished a goal successfully. Generally, the more efficient and productive a team, the more likely they are to be successful. Authoritarian leaders are proficient at motivating others. This leadership style allows for fast decisions which can be a lengthy process in other leadership styles such as bureaucratic. This essentially allows the team to begin a project and complete it promptly. An example of where this leadership is most effective is in the Armed forces. There is a clear defined structure of ranks and roles within the regiment. There is one leader in charge (the general) who instructs lower ranks and gives orders. The sergeant does this without any input from lower ranks. Northouse (2012) states some “would argue that authoritarian leadership is a much-needed form of leadership– it serves a positive purpose, particularly for people who seek security above responsibility.” This supports the strengths of the authoritarian leadership
Autocratic Leadership- The individual who is in the position of authority makes all decisions, with little to no input from any other members of the staff. Their opinions and beliefs about how the facility should run supersedes that of anyone else. This method of leadership can be effective in an emergency, or situation where immediate action is necessary, but in a long-term sense may make your employees feel undervalued or unappreciated.