What is Autocratic Leadership? How command and control is giving away to thought leadership

An autocratic leader tells people what to do, issues orders and expects them to be obeyed. It is said to be acceptable to use an autocratic leadership style in certain situations: in an emergency and when only the leader can make the decision. For example, only the leader can decide who to hire, fire and promote. If the alternative to being autocratic is participative leadership, then it is clear that employees in most organizations don’t have a say in how much they get paid or which of them gets promoted.

Primitive Leadership

At one time all leadership was autocratic. When we were ruled by kings and emperors, they saw themselves as having a “divine right” to tell everyone what to do, on pain of death. Even more primitive than this, all higher animals form themselves into hierarchies with one dominant individual (usually male) at the top. No lower level individuals could challenge the supreme leader unless they were prepared to put their life on the line in a struggle for power.

Paternalistic Leadership

Even in modern organizations, our concept of the effective leader is very close to our image of a good father. We look up to leaders who have strong personalities, who know what they are doing and who look after us – all qualities we associate with parental figures. Research has shown that people get anxious in groups where no one person is the clear leader or where the person in charge is not as strong and confident as we would like. So, we haven’t really left our primitive animal nature very far behind.

Modern Leadership

Today, leadership still has some primitive and paternalistic elements. We now expect people in charge of us to respect our opinions and to involve us in making important decisions. But we still generally prefer only one person to be in overall charge and we want that person to live up to certain paternalistic ideals. This form of leadership, however, is breaking down because there is a conflict between the desire for leaders who know what they are doing and the realities of modern complexity and rapid change. The common way to fudge this predicament is to say that leadership no longer means calling the shots, to say instead that it means being a good facilitator and coach.

Thought Leadership

An emerging trend is to base leadership not on position but on the ability to develop and promote new ideas for better products. This leadership is no longer about being the top dog; it is more like creativity, an episodic act. On this view, the person in charge is primarily a manager not a leader. We can still look up to parental figures; we just need to stop calling them leaders.

The End of Autocratic Leadership

When leadership is defined as promoting new directions and is not associated with position, then there is no longer any such thing as autocratic leadership. Yes, the person in charge of a group can make unilateral decisions but this is managerial action, not leadership. On this view, leadership is always based on informal influence or persuasion. Leadership can also be shown by example. The implication of this move is that any time an executive makes a decision that affects the group's wellbeing or direction, the executive is wearing a managerial hat, not showing leadership. In other words, leadership cannot be shown by telling people what to do. Still, managers need to be autocratic at times, such as emergencies and to resolve conflict that cannot be resolved in any other way.

Sep 11, 2008 8:32 AM

Guest :

WHAT KIND OF JOBS ARE AUTOCRATIC?

Sep 21, 2008 8:28 AM

Guest :

YEAH WHAT KIND OF JOBS ARE AUTOCRATIC? GEEZ, AN ANSWER WOULD BE HELPFUL. :)

Sep 21, 2008 5:53 PM

Mitch McCrimmon :

The question of what jobs are autocratic is interesting as the term "autocratic" was never meant to apply to jobs. It is meant as a style, a way of behaving that applies to managers who tell people what to do unilaterally. There are lots of jobs where the job holder is required to make definite decisions, such as the police and air traffic controllers for example, but these are not supervisory roles. It is only in the management of people that the term "autocratic" applies. A dictator in a country that is a dictatorship is normally autocratic. But a benevolent dictator, even with the absolute power to be autocratic, could decide to consult citizens and not behave in an autocratic manner. In any case, the short answer to the question is that there are no autocratic jobs, just autocratic managers or leaders.

Sep 24, 2008 4:20 PM

Guest :

hmmm. this article could have been more complete if there were any advantages and disadvantages in autocratic leadership written.

Oct 19, 2008 12:31 PM

Guest :

Interestingly enough, how would lower level managers differ from senior level managers in a autocratic or hierarchial organizational structure? Would there be a difference in the leadership style?

Oct 22, 2008 11:48 AM

Guest :

What is an example of an autocratic leader. I know Hitler was (at least I think he was- that's what my English teacher said!) But I need another example for my homework. Thanks much :)

Oct 26, 2008 2:34 PM

Mitch McCrimmon :

What are some examples of autocratic leadership? I think the first point here is that all leaders are autocratic some of the time, that is, whenever they need to resolve conflict, take fast action in a crisis or make unpopular decisions, such as to lay people off. Some leaders, however, are more autocratic than others - most historical military leaders such as Napoleon, Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan and General Patton would have been at least as autocratic as otherwise. Most pre-20th century kings and queens were pretty autocratic, such as England's Henry the eighth and Queen Elizabeth the first for example. Stalin and Hitler would be among the clearest modern cases, however. Then there is Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe and Saddam Hussein of Iraq to name some more recent examples. It is not clear how autocratic Fidel Castro has been over the years but Cubans don't have the same freedoms as citizens of more democratic countries so he must be viewed as fairly autocratic.

It is harder to name specific business leaders as autocratic, simply because their decision making style ranges so widely. There aren't likely many leaders in modern businesses that are so dictatorial that they cannot accept being challenged at all.

Managers in some countries are also more autocratic than they are elsewhere. Those countries with a weak tradition of democracy tend to have more autocratic leaders. In some such countries, subordinates dare not question their bosses. Some of them act as if they were ancient kings with a divine right to rule. But it is all relative and you can't generalize or apply stereotypes. No doubt some leaders in such countries are also very democratic in their style.