- Have you ever worked
for an autocratic leader, or even more importantly, do you have an autocratic
leadership style yourself? Let's look at the ins and outs. (tranquil rousing tones) This video is the first
in a three-part series on these styles of leadership. Be sure to take a look at the democratic and laissez-faire styles
in the next two videos. Foundational leadership
research started in the 1930s. Lewin, Lippitt and White
wrote an article, in 1939, in the Journal of Social Psychology, that many researchers still
cite as the big first study that kicked off this area of research. Lewin and his co-authors asked
the question in their study, "Is not the democratic
group life more pleasant "but authoritarianism more efficient?" People then and now have a lot of opinions about the different styles of leadership. Lewin and his co-authors set out to get some research-driven
answers to these questions. We'll look at more of
their research in a moment. To help visualize it, there are some well-known autocratic leaders in movies, like Darth Vader from Star Wars, Captain Sobel in the Band of Brothers, and Miranda Priestly in
The Devil Wears Prada, played by Meryl Streep. These are obviously exaggerations, but they all have autocratic
tendencies in common. A basic description of the
autocratic style goes like this. It is an authoritarian
boss-centered approach to leadership and management. The term autocratic is
perhaps more commonly used than the term authoritarianism, but essentially they mean the same thing. These leaders assume full
control of the group, the goals and the decisions. These leaders centralize
decision-making and power. Some researchers describe this approach as an absolute-control approach for the leader over the entire operation. When it comes to communication, it's no surprise that they
have a top-down approach, and they dictate instructions,
policies and activities to the group, and they
expect followers to comply. It's a control-compliance relationship. These leaders take little or
no input from group members. They are not asking
followers for their feedback. They make decisions based upon their own perspective of a situation. When it comes to decision making, I picture the autocratic
leader coming into a room and just telling people what to do. In terms of how they relate to followers, autocratic leaders establish
a high power distance between themselves and everybody else. There are clear unequal power dynamics going on between the
leader and the followers. And that's because these
leaders rely heavily on their positions of authority. French and Raven call
this legitimate authority. When you are an official manager, you have a job description that explains your official authority
and responsibilities that come with that position. The autocratic leader's
power in other words, comes from their job title. In contrast, autocratic leaders don't rely on their strong relationships
and influence to lead. You don't usually see
autocratic leaders socializing and connecting with their
followers in warm ways. They don't eat meals together with subordinates, for example. They don't get to know
them personally very much. They distance themselves
relationally from others in ways that show that inequality. So let's talk more about the research by Lewin and his co-authors. These authors did experiments leading groups of 10-year-olds in fact. And to me, it's interesting that this research started
with a teacher-student dynamic. If you think of the various teachers that you have had over your life, it's possible that some of
them had an autocratic style. The children were put into
a number of small groups and they were asked to
perform various tasks, like making theatrical
masks, painting murals, carving soap and making model airplanes. The adults then acted as the teachers and used a variety of leadership
styles with those groups, autocratic, democratic
and laissez-faire styles. The researchers then watched
how the children responded to the different leadership styles. They also interviewed the
children and the parents to get their perspective on how their experience
was under each leader. So, what exactly did they find? Well, this early research
had mixed results, but it laid the foundation
for how we still to this day think about autocratic leaders. Under autocratic leaders, followers were more
aggressive toward each other. In some versions of the experiments, the children were 30 to
40 times more aggressive than they were under a democratic leader. This was at times a general aggression among all the group members, but was sometimes focused on
one particular group member where say, four members of the group ganged up on a person, a scapegoat, to the point where that
participant quit the group. Participants tended to be more productive when the autocratic
leader was watching them and directly supervising them, but there was usually a
sharp rise in aggression when the autocratic leader left the room. In other experiments, participants were much more resigned and apathetic, and they did get aggressive
under an autocratic leader. They basically shut down. So, in terms of strengths and weaknesses, let's start with the strengths. This style can be useful
when a quick decision, a decisive decision is necessary. For example, when there's
a crisis situation, there's not enough time to
gather everybody together and get lots of feedback. Sometimes a delayed
decision will be much worse than the leader just making
a decision on their own. It's also useful when you
have low-skilled workers who essentially need
to be told what to do. And this aligns with part of
what Hersey and Blanchard's model of situational leadership says. When a follower has low
skill and low motivation, their model says you have to focus almost entirely on tasks and
using directive communication. Also, when there's a leadership void and people lack direction, then it's better to have
an autocratic leader. Also, if there's already lots of conflict, an autocratic leader can
basically suppress the conflict among participants in the short run. This doesn't solve the underlying problem that's causing the conflict,
but this style can be used to contain conflict in the short run. So, autocratic leadership may
not be your favorite style, but it is still a style that works under certain circumstances,
at least in the short run. However, in the long
run, many people believe that the drawbacks clearly
outweigh the advantages. This is a very demanding
and stressful style for both leader and follower. It requires constant hands-on attention, because followers will
wait to be told what to do. That's the norm this style establishes. The leader gives orders and subordinates comply with those orders. Most followers won't take initiative under an autocratic leader, and participants make more
persistent demands for attention from autocratic leaders. So, since followers are not
taking action on their own, leading this way requires
constant pressure for the leader and the followers. Also, followers will work hard
when the boss is watching, that's true, which is a
positive aspect of this, but they act out when the
leader leaves the room, when the leader literally
steps out of the room. Another problem is turnover,
which is very expensive. Followers are more likely to
exit a group or an organization when they are working
under an autocratic leader. This has been shown in a 2004 article by Van Vugt, Jepson and Hart, in the Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology. As we wrap up, my question is this. Does this style sound like
your leadership style? If so, clearly it can work
under certain circumstances, but only under limited circumstances. In general, most followers do not thrive under autocratic leaders. Be sure to take a look at the next video in this three-part series on
democratic leadership style.
