(upbeat music) - 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. (majestic music) This video is the first
in a three part series on the 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 centralized
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 leaders
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, and 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 of 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
didn't get aggressive under an autocratic leader, they basically shut down. So in terms of strengths and weaknesses, let's start with these 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. Have you ever worked
for a democratic leader? After this lesson you might
notice some characteristics that you have in common
with this leadership style. This is the second lesson
in a three part series, be sure to take a look
at the other lessons on the autocratic leadership style and the laissez-faire style. To help us visualize it, We see the democratic leadership style in characters like Captain Jean-Luc Picard from "Star Trek." Dick Winters, the
Commander of Easy Company in the "Band of Brothers" and Nova Prime, played by Glenn Close in
"Guardians of the Galaxy." These characters echo what we see in the democratic leadership style. Democratic leaders take
a collaborative approach with their followers. Even though democratic leaders, still have a position of power and still make many of the big decisions, they prefer to get feedback
and input from followers to help leaders shape those decisions. They like to listen to a range of opinions to make sure they're hearing
about all the good options. They have what you call a two heads are better than one philosophy. A leader might even test
ideas with followers and say, "Hey, here's what I was thinking of doing, "what do you think?" Or, "I've been hearing negative feedback "about this external
vendor we've been using. "What has been your
experience with this vendor?" In cases like these, the leader may still make
the ultimate decision, but at other times democratic
leaders may delegate power to followers when they can, especially when those
decisions directly influence the followers jobs. This is called a decentralized
approach to power and authority that contrasts
with the centralized approach of autocratic leaders. In other words, as the official leader, a democratic leader still has
the right to make decisions, just like the autocratic leader, but instead delegates those decisions and provides the freedom to followers to make the best choices possible. So let's say a department, a team is about to purchase new computers. A democratic leader would
likely give some basic criteria on cost or compatibility, but then delegate the final decision, and each follower would
purchase their own computer. I'd like to make an
important point about this. If a decision goes badly, the democratic leader is not off the hook. They are still responsible
for the outcomes and for the team decisions. So they're not handing their
power and responsibility over, they can't delegate their accountability. They just believe the best
decisions will be made with lots of input from their followers. In terms of power distance, democratic leaders tend to
have more equal relationships between themselves and followers. So they establish a low power distance compared to autocratic leaders. The gap between the
leader, and the follower does not feel as obvious. To make that concrete, democratic leaders would
be more approachable and friendly in conversations and make efforts to
connect with followers. They have good communication
and might ask followers, about their projects and about
their lives outside of work and react more spontaneously
in conversations. To be clear, democratic leaders, still have what French and
Raven call legitimate power that is tied to their position, but they don't emphasize that. They tend to rely more on
mutually beneficial relationships with followers to have that influence. They trust their followers
to provide helpful feedback, and to make good decisions. In terms of outcomes,
many followers prefer to work for this type of leader. I was recently looking at a 2019 study on the leadership styles of headmaster's over the teachers they supervise in the "Journal of Education,
Teaching and Learning." And these authors found
that the headmaster's with the democratic style of leadership, had a clear, positive influence in handling discipline
situations with teachers. It's important to note that the autocratic and laissez-faire headmaster's
did still address discipline and showed some
effectiveness with followers, but the democratic style
was the most effective. It was more effective than laissez-faire. And then lastly, autocratic leaders were the least effective. So those other styles,
still were effective just not as effective
as democratic leaders. Let's look at the ups
and downs of the style. We'll start with these strengths. Democratic leaders tend to make high-quality informed decisions. They gather lots of
input so their decisions are very likely to be
supported and executed by their followers. Followers of democratic
leaders can get more creative and innovative because they are given room to practice problem-solving. Democratic leaders get
consistent long-term productivity out of their followers and
this is a key difference between democratic and autocratic leaders. When an autocratic leader leaves the room, their followers do not work as hard. In contrast, democratic
leaders, followers work hard, whether they are in the
room observing or not. Followers are bought into the decisions, goals and directions. These leaders have also good
communication with followers and not surprisingly, followers have a high satisfaction level when working under democratic leaders. In terms of drawbacks
we see mainly weaknesses in certain situations. So first, when a
situation is high pressure and time is short, like a crisis, maintaining the democratic style probably will not help much. If something suddenly
happens to an organization, it might be the best response
is the quickest response. And sometimes that means
the democratic leader is not going to be able
to take a lot of time to gather input and feedback, they're not going to have
the luxury of collaborating in a situation like that. I like to use the metaphor
of professional sports. When there are just a few
seconds left on the clock, and your team is down by one point. That's not the time to have a long democratic collaborative discussion. A democratic style is not
going to fit that situation. A second weakness shows up in situations that sometimes require a judgment call on the part of a leader, because
consensus is not possible. And you may have to make a decision that fractures the harmony
of the group for a while. A third weakness shows up
when you have a follower, who is not particularly trustworthy. So, if the leader is a team
player, but the follower is not the democratic leadership style may not be as suitable for that follower. Overall though the democratic style is largely viewed as the most effective of the three styles we're looking at. Most research sees it that way and most people with practical experience, see it that way too. It doesn't fit all situations equally, but it's a solid leadership style for most people, most of the time. So my question for you is, Does this sound like
your style of leadership? If so you're probably off to a good start. Most followers will do
well under your style. Just recognize that some situations may call for another approach. As mentioned, this is the second video in a three part series
on leadership styles, be sure to take a look at the lesson on the autocratic and laissez-faire
styles in those videos. At its core, the
laissez-faire leadership style is about giving your people space to work so they can be at their best. And many followers, like this style, but this style does not
have the best reputation and practice, so let's take a look. We are at the end of a three part series. The first two videos
are about the autocratic and democratic leadership styles. And we're starting with some
of the earliest research on this from the late 1930s
by Lewin, Lippitt and White. They did a series of
studies on how adult leaders with one of these three styles interacted with groups of
children to see how it worked out. A brief history of the term
laissez-faire goes like this. It means let do or let them do it. It's a French term that
was originally about how to handle the economy. At its root it's about the government not interfering with the economy, just let it go, how it's going to go. Don't interfere. People in leadership
studies took the sentiment and imported the term to describe the hands-off leadership style. These leaders, back off and
give followers lots of room, and space, and autonomy to
make their own decisions and solve their own problems. Ronald Reagan, their
president was often mentioned as a classic laissez-faire leader. He once said directly in fact, "Surround yourself with the
best people you can find, "delegate authority and don't interfere "as long as the policy,
you've decided upon "is being carried out." In other words, let them do it. Because of this, some
critics call this style a zero leadership style. In other words, some people say, it's not really leadership at all, but I think there's more
to this as we will see. To make it more concrete some examples of laissez-faire leadership on TV and movies would be Ron
Swanson from "Parks and Rec." He's a classic hands-off leader. He even says he has a
libertarian philosophy which is about less government. Michael Scott from "The Office," he's at least some aspects of his style are giving people space
to work or not work as the case may be. But my favorite example is Frigga, she's Thor's mother in
the Marvel Universe. But you know as I was looking into this I noticed that there aren't
a lot of clear cut examples of the laissez-faire leadership style in TVs and in movies, and I think it's because
it's a hands-off style. So on screen it doesn't
look like much is happening. It doesn't translate to the
viewer as leadership behaviors when you're looking at it,
it's not obvious like that. But you see a positive example in Frigga. So Thor's mother and we'll
have a little science fiction moment here. She's the queen of Asgard, but she doesn't have a top-down style even though she's a queen. In most instances she stays out of the day-to-day operations of Asgard. She's not about pushing her authority but she does have authority. She just comes in at key moments
for example to nudge Thor, or to counsel the king,
or to encourage Loki. People come to her for guidance and she helps them figure it out without telling them what to do. She's a bit hands-off, but
these examples give you a taste of what it looks like in daily life. Compared to autocratic
leaders and democratic styles, the laissez-faire leader will
give some overall directions and deadlines and goals and resources, but they will then encourage
you to do it on your own. They will have fewer meetings. They're less likely to check
in on you for progress updates, and they're not going to observe
you or watch you very much. It's a philosophy of non interference. So when they do interact with you they are more likely to listen
and give some general advice and not as likely to micromanage you. They're not going to
tell you how to do it. And this is because
they have a lot of trust in their people. If you come to them for advice in fact, they might tell you what
they would do personally, but ultimately they expect that you'll take that conversation, and go make your own decisions. And it can be a very
empowering style in this way. Followers feel freedom,
agency and responsibility for their project. And that's really the whole key. Laissez-faire leaders
believe that their followers are at their best and are
most motivated by autonomy. Followers will do great if
you just let them do it. So let's begin to look at
whether or not this is effective. Many followers prefer this style compared to working
with autocratic leaders. In Lewin's study, 70% of
participants preferred the laissez-faire style of leadership. Only 30% preferred autocratic leaders, and in practice some successful
leaders use this style. Warren Buffett is currently the fourth wealthiest person in the world. He runs Berkshire Hathaway, and
he's a laissez-faire leader. And he's famous for only scheduling about three or four meetings per month. So he's not watching people very closely, but he can do this because
he has a key feature in common with most effective
laissez-faire leaders, and it's a feature that
Ronald Reagan mentioned. The best case scenario
is that these leaders surround themselves with
the very best people they can possibly find. If you're only dealing with
followers who are the smartest, most educated, self-motivated
and competent people, then you really don't need to
supervise them very closely. They know how to do it. They're excited to do it. So giving them space to
do their work makes sense. But this style is not generally effective. There are lots of studies that say this amount of freedom, can
cause stress for followers. In fact, in Lewin's original study some participants preferred working under autocratic leaders. These participants said about
their laissez-faire leaders, "He had too few things for us to do," and, "He let us figure
things out too much." The ambiguity and lack of
clarity can be stressful for some followers, but still head-to-head 70% of Lewin's participants
preferred laissez-faire leaders, over autocratic leaders. In the video on the
democratic leadership style, I mentioned the 2019
study on leadership styles of headmaster's over the
teachers they supervised. The author's note that all
three styles were effective in dealing with discipline issues. And when they rank them the
democratic leadership style was the best, next was laissez-faire, And the last was the autocratic style. But they were still all
effective to some degree. So yes, leadership in
the laissez-faire style can be effective, but it may
not be the most effective in most situations. Let's clarify a few
misunderstandings about this style. In the real world, no effective leaders are completely hands-off,
that's really not leadership. No leader can avoid accountability. The leader is still on
the hook for results. So laissez-faire leaders
still expect results from their followers. At minimum, they establish
goals, milestones and provide resources to help
their followers move forward. What makes them different
from the other styles, is they leave almost all of
the day-to-day execution, up to their followers. Another point of clarification is that this style sometimes has a bad reputation because people make a huge mistake, and they think it means
lazy, which it doesn't. Lazy is that common
word that means a person is unwilling to work hard,
the words just sounds similar. But laissez-faire again which is French has an entirely different motivation. It's about providing
autonomy to your followers so they can work on their own. A summary of their pros
and cons goes like this. On the positive side and
there are some positives, it works great in some situations, namely, when your followers
are highly motivated, skilled and educated. If you're leading high-end,
engineers, doctors, lawyers, professors, and
other top flight professionals then it can work really well. It can work well in creative industries where people are driven. In these situations the
laissez-faire leadership style can be very satisfying for followers. It can be very motivating
because followers can lead a more creative life and in the workplace and think of solutions that
the leader might not think of. It also requires less top-down pressure and direct supervision, so it frees the leader to
think about the bigger goals of the organization. On the negative side, it only works well in specific situations. So the big criticism is that
it results in low productivity in most cases. For many situations followers,
do not use the autonomy, mainly as a way to be more productive. It's not useful when competence
and motivation are low. Ambiguity is another big problem, followers can get really stressed out when they're confused and lack direction. And the laissez-faire style
is not going to help much in that case. It also involves other risks. If your followers are
not doing a good job, it might be that a hands-off approach doesn't help you notice the problem. It can also create more rooms
for undesirable activities like bullying or conflict
that you don't notice. Some people will take
advantage of this freedom and autonomy in other words to do things other than working hard. In some of the laissez-faire
leadership style can work in an ideal situation. But when real problems do come up leaders should really
adapt to the situation and take a more hands-on
approach when needed. So feel free to watch the
other two videos in this series on the autocratic and
democratic leadership styles. (upbeat music)
