The autocratic leadership style is characterized by individual control over all decisions and little input from group members. Autocratic leaders typically make choices based on their ideas and judgments and rarely accept advice from followers.
This leadership style involves clear direction, unilateral decision-making, and strict control over organizational activities. While it can lead to quick decision-making, it may discourage creative collaboration and lower employee morale.
Characteristics
Scholars generally agree that autocratic leadership styles share three major characteristics in common:
Limited input from stakeholders
Autocratic leaders make most, if not all, group decisions, leaving little room for feedback. This leadership style may voice efficiency when decisions need to be made quickly; however, this can potentially have repercussions on group morale.
For example, according to traditional management advice (Harms et al., 2018), employees who are not trusted with decisions or important tasks may question the value to bring to a company — a journalist who spends weeks doing extensive research for a story may face lowered morale if an autocratic editor decides not to publish the story simply because it was not to their taste.
Highly structured environment
Autocratically structured groups and organizations tend to be rigid in a way that clearly defines who has power. This, again, increases efficiency.
However, the strangeness of autocratic environments may also demotivate those working under the leader. For instance, a team member who knows their manager is constantly monitoring their activity may be motivated to complete their job solely out of fear.
Clearly defined rules and processes
Groups under autocratic leadership tend to have clearly defined roles, rules, and processes.
This may, however, result in those under the leader feeling as though their input is not valued. Overall, clearly defined rules and processes tend to discourage creativity and differential thinking.
Examples
Autocratic Leadership in Nursing
Traditionally, many nurses have been led using autocratic leadership styles, and these historical influences still permeate contemporary practice (Murphy, 2005). Autocratic leadership can be mirrored in organizational philosophies and disempowered staff.
Several researchers, such as Maboko (2011), have conducted studies of the impact of various leadership styles on nurse performance and morale. According to Koukkanen and Kaatajisto (2003), authoritarian leadership is an obstacle to empowerment in nursing, as it is detrimental to important functions of nursing management such as listening, conflict management champion nurses, communication, and the feeling that workers are agents of change.
Maboko attempted to examine the nursing leadership style at an academic hospital in Gauteng, South Africa, where approximately 37% of nurses leave their jobs because they did not receive support from their managers (Strachota et al., 2003).
Using qualitative methods, the researcher found that autocratic leadership tended to cause resentment among nurses and that the style often arose out of hospitals having limited information about other leadership styles — such as transformational and visionary leadership (Maboko, 2011).
Climate, Wealth, and Leadership Culture
Some scholars have described leadership styles as arising from cultural adaptations to noncultural components of the national environment, such as the harshness of a country’s climate or level of national wealth.
Van de Vliert, in an analysis of managerial survey data from 62 cultures, found that autocratic leadership at the organizational level was most prevalent in poorer countries with harsh climates. Meanwhile, autocratic leadership was seen as less effective in rich cultures with harsh climates.
Autocratic Leadership and Job Satisfaction
Numerous studies have drawn links between leadership styles and job satisfaction. Nadarasa and Thuraisingam (2012) studied the impacts of autocratic leadership styles on public and private and public school teachers.
As in other studies, the researchers found that autocratic leadership styles correlated negatively with job satisfaction.
Autocratic Leadership and Group Stability
Many scholars view autocratic leadership as the most efficient solution to group conflicts that involve the distribution of scarce resources or the provision of public goods (Hardin, 1968; Hobbes, 1651; Messick and Brewer, 1983; Solson, 1965; Vugt et al., 2003).
However, Vugt et al. (2003) have tried to challenge this view by studying the longer-term consequences of autocratic leadership styles.
In particular, the researchers hypothesized that autocratic leaders would threaten group stability by provoking members to evict the group, thus removing resources.
In Vugt et al.’s study, people worked together in small groups on a task involving the distribution of public goods. They had either autocratic, democratic, or laissez-faire leaders.
In the autocratic and democratic conditions, participants received success feedback at random, whereas in the laissez-faire condition, they received either fake success feedback or no feedback on the outcome. After engaging in each investment task, the group members could leave and join a different group for a subsequent task.
As predicted, those in the autocratic condition were more likely to choose to switch groups than those in other leadership conditions. The proportion of exciters in the autocratic condition was high enough that many groups would have failed due to not having enough members needed to produce the goods.
Thus, at least in conditions where it is straightforward to leave a group, Vugt et al. (2003) argued that autocratic leadership is not a viable solution (Ziller, 1965). These results persisted regardless of whether or not the group ultimately succeeded.
When polled, the group members in the autocratic leader condition tended to give the same reasoning for their stay or exit choices: under autocratic leadership, group members were unhappy about the amount of control they could exercise over the decision-making process (Vugt et al., 2003).
Broader research supports these findings. Some, such as Bass (1990) and Yukl (1989), have argued that the primary difference between autocratic and democratic leadership lies in the amount of control that group members have over the decision-making process.
Researchers have also found that how much people feel like they have control over the process of decision-making has more of an effect than how much people feel like they have control over the decisions themselves.
According to the exit-voice hypothesis (Hirschman, 1970), there is a trade-off in how much people are willing to exit the group and voice their dissatisfaction in a dysfunctional group.
Namely, if group members lack opportunities to voice their concerns, they will resort to exit; in situations where they are absent, they resort to voice (Vugt et al., 2003).
Advantages
Although it has been called “obsolete” (Weiskittel, 1999) and garners largely negative attention, the autocratic style of leadership can be beneficial in some instances, such as when decisions need to be made quickly and without consulting large groups of people.
Provides Direction
Autocratic leadership can provide direction. For example, consider a small group of students that has a tendency to miss deadlines for an upcoming assignment. In this case, a strong leader — perhaps a student particularly keen on receiving a high mark — may either be assigned the role of leader or take on the task on their own.
The student may then break down the assignment into tasks, assign their peers clear roles and responsibilities, and establish deadlines, making it more likely that the group will finish a project on time with equal contributions on each member’s part.
Relieves Pressure
Autocratic leadership can also relieve pressure in cases where decisions have potentially momentous consequences. For example, military leadership may prefer an autocratic style during a country’s civil war.
This autocratic style allows group members to become highly skilled in performing their duties — rather than diffusing their time and resources into decision-making. Ultimately, this may contribute to group success when the group must perform at a higher level and under greater stress levels than usual.
Offers Structure
The autocratic leadership style can also offer structure in highly complex systems. For example, say that a drama teacher must coordinate an entire school play — from the actors to the costuming and set design.
Through a strong leadership style where all group members have been assigned specific tasks, a deadline, and rules to follow, the teacher may be able to ensure that the play runs smoothly with less confusion than would occur if the group members came to decisions democratically.
Disadvantages
Although autocratic leadership can occasionally be useful for group efficiency and organization, there are many cases where it can be problematic, ultimately leading to low group morale, resentment, and possible group instability.
Discourages Group Input
Autocratic leadership, by definition, discourages group input. In response, group members may feel that they cannot contribute creative solutions to group problems and that their knowledge and expertise have been overlooked. Research has supported this conclusion.
For instance, Guo (2018), in a study of supervisors in Nigeria and China, found a significant negative relationship between authoritarian leadership and creativity. This became especially evident in environments where employees feared their workers and chose to be silent for fear of reprimand.
This relationship also had a strong effect when employees had little “psychological capital” — low scores on traits such as self-assurance.
Key Takeaways
- Autocratic or authoritarian leadership is characterized by the control of an individual over the decisions that impact a group with little-to-no input from group members.
- Kurt Lewin and his colleagues were the first to characterize autocratic leadership as one of three leadership styles — the other two being democratic and laissez-faire.
- By most definitions, autocratic leadership involves limited input from stakeholders, a highly structured environment, and clearly defined rules and processes. This generally makes subordinates feel they cannot contribute to the decision-making process.
- Autocratic leadership is useful in certain situations, such as when decisions need to be made quickly and efficiently — for example, in resource allocation during a natural disaster. However, autocratic leadership often decreases group member morale and endangers group stability.
Further Information
- Wang, H., & Guan, B. (2018). The positive effect of authoritarian leadership on employee performance: The moderating role of power distance. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 357.
- Gastil, J. (1994). A meta-analytic review of the productivity and satisfaction of democratic and autocratic leadership. Small Group Research, 25(3), 384-410.
Which group would use an autocratic leadership style?
An autocratic leadership style might be utilized in environments that require strong direction and unquestionable authority. This could include the military, law enforcement agencies, or manufacturing sectors where safety and procedure adherence are paramount.
It might also be used in crisis situations where swift and decisive action is necessary. However, it’s less suitable in settings that require creativity, innovation, and collaborative decision-making, like many tech or design firms.
What is the difference between authoritarian and autocratic leadership?
Authoritarian and autocratic leadership styles share similarities in that they both involve a high degree of control and decision-making power concentrated in the leader. However, there are subtle differences.
Autocratic leaders make decisions without input or consultation from others. They set policies and procedures and expect subordinates to follow without question.
While making most decisions themselves, authoritarian leaders can be more manipulative or coercive, maintaining control by creating an environment of fear or through strict discipline. This style may involve more feedback (although largely one-way) than the autocratic style.
In practice, these terms are often used interchangeably, and the exact definitions can vary slightly depending on the source.
What are the disadvantages of autocratic leadership?
Disadvantages of autocratic leadership include stifling creativity and innovation, as input from team members is rarely sought. It can also lead to low employee morale, high turnover, and a lack of personal growth for team members.
Lastly, it relies heavily on the leader, creating a risk if the leader is absent or makes poor decisions.
What are the advantages of autocratic leadership?
Autocratic leadership can result in quick decision-making, as only one person makes the decisions. It can be effective in situations requiring strong direction and control, like crisis management.
This style can also ensure consistency in operations, and it’s beneficial when team members are inexperienced and need clear, direct instructions.
References
Anthony M.K., Standing T.S., Glick J., et al. (2005) Leadership and nurse retention. Journal of Nursing Administration 35 (3),146–155.
Bass, B. M., & Stogdill, R. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications. Simon and Schuster.
Cherry K. (2006). Leadership Styles. Retrieved from: http://psychology.about.com/od/leadership/
Guo, L., Decoster, S., Babalola, M. T., De Schutter, L., Garba, O. A., & Riisla, K. (2018). Authoritarian leadership and employee creativity: The moderating role of psychological capital and the mediating role of fear and defensive silence. Journal of Business Research, 92, 219-230.
Hardin (1968). The tragedy of the commons.. Science (New York, N.Y.), 162(3859), 1243–1248.
Harms, P. D., Wood, D., Landay, K., Lester, P. B., & Lester, G. V. (2018). Autocratic leaders and authoritarian followers revisited: A review and agenda for the future. The Leadership Quarterly, 29 (1), 105-122.
Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states (Vol. 25). Harvard university press. Hobbes, T (1651/1939).
Leviathan. New York: Modern Library Koukkanen L. & Katajisto J. (2003) Promoting or impending empowerment? Nurses assessment of their work environment Journal of Nursing Administration 33, 209–215.
Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., & White, R. K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created “social climates”. The Journal of Social Psychology, 10 (2), 269-299.
Maboko, D. R. (2012). Nursing leadership in an academic hospital in Gauteng. Journal of nursing management, 20 (7), 912-920.
Messick, D. M., Wilke, H., Brewer, M. B., Kramer, R. M., Zemke, P. E., & Lui, L. (1983). Individual adaptations and structural change as solutions to social dilemmas. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44 (2), 294.
Murphy, L. (2005). Transformational leadership: a cascading chain reaction. Journal of Nursing Management, 13 (2), 128-136.
Nadarasa, T., & Thuraisingam, R. (2014). The influence of principals’ leadership styles on school teachers’ job satisfaction–study of secondary school in Jaffna district. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 4 (1), 1-7.
Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Strachota, E., Normandin, P., O’Brien, N., Clary, M., & Krukow, B. (2003). Reasons registered nurses leave or change employment status. JONA: The Journal of Nursing Administration, 33 (2), 111-117.
Van Vugt, M., Jepson, S. F., Hart, C. M., & De Cremer, D. (2004). Autocratic leadership in social dilemmas: A threat to group stability. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40 (1), 1-13.
Weiskittel, P. (1999). The concept of leadership. Nephrology Nursing Journal, 26 (5), 467.
Yukl, G. A. (1989). Leadership in organizations. Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: 1364 Prentice-Hall.
Ziller, R. C. (1965). Toward a theory of open and closed groups. Psychological Bulletin, 6 4(3), 164.
