So You Are an Autocratic Leader?

AUTOCRATIC leaders are ‘self-styled’ leaders.

You know the type: the ‘take charge’ kind of person who is used to making the big decisions, and usually revels in them.

However, as with any leadership style - there are pros and cons to being an autocratic leader.

Because most autocratic leaders will not take advice from others, they tend to make all the decisions, and often do not trust their colleagues with their input.

In other words, it is ‘their way or the highway’ - and woe betide any staff member who tries to stand up to them.

Former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd was renowned for his autocratic leadership style, and the consequences of this are now etched in political history.

Of course, autocratic leaders get results.

However, the carnage they can leave behind is often a heavy price to pay.

Nevertheless, when an organisation has strict protocols and processes to follow, being an autocratic leader can be advantageous.

For example, telephone call centres usually run much more smoothly under this type of leadership, as this type of work does not generally, involve a great deal of creativity or ‘out of the box’ thinking.

Indeed, as leadership expert Suzanne Lucas explains in a recent thebalance.com article, being an autocratic leader can have some real advantages, especially when the person involved is brilliant and visionary.

Take the case of Steve Jobs and Apple, for example.

He knew exactly what he wanted and how to achieve it.

However, if you got in his way, you generally didn’t last long in the organisation.

Unfortunately, not all autocratic leaders were as successful as Jobs.

Famous retail entrepreneur Martha Stewart actually went to jail in 2004 for insider trading, although she has since bounced back to appear in the hit US TV show The Apprentice and successfully re-enter business.

Like Jobs, Stewart was an ‘ideas person’ and thrived on ‘micro-management’.

Obviously, this approach works well for many leaders.

However, to avoid losing ‘the bigger picture’ - it is advisable for most autocratic leaders to have a ‘second-in-charge’.

This helps keep them both honest and accountable, and allows them to adopt a more ‘democratic’ leadership style.

In the case of CEOs, this ‘calming influence’ could be the company Board, whose members are able to offer valuable advice and direction when the autocratic leader will not listen to anyone else.

Other more specific areas to benefit from autocratic leadership include the military, manufacturing, and construction.

Obviously, having someone take tight control in areas where safety or the welfare of workers is at stake is a good thing.

This leadership style helps get things done quickly and efficiently, can improve communications (since there is generally just the one line of communication), and better coordinates the end result.

Unfortunately for creative workers however, having an autocratic boss can also be frustrating, mainly because their talent is often under-recognised or under-utilised.

A lack of involvement in the decision-making process can also lead some staff to become depressed and unmotivated, causing them to resent the leader and become stressed, tense and even fearful.

This happens especially if the autocratic leader is weak, incompetent, or has low ethical and moral standards.

Lastly, worker dissatisfaction can also increase when autocratic leaders make decisions based on their ego, rather than sound management principles.

This type of negative behaviour is also a definite sign the leadership style is not working, and that the organisation needs to do something about the problem.