Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Jump to content

Authoritarian leadership style

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An authoritarian leadership style is described as being as "leaders' behavior that asserts absolute authority and control over subordinates and [that] demands unquestionable obedience from subordinates."[1] Such a leader has full control of the team, leaving low autonomy within the group. The group is expected to complete the tasks under very close supervision, while unlimited authority is self-bestowed by the leader. Subordinates' responses to the orders given are either punished or rewarded. A way that those that have authoritarian leadership behaviors tend to lean more on "...unilateral decision-making through the leader and strive to maintain the distance between the leader and his or her followers."[2]

Background

[edit]

Authoritarian leaders are commonly referred to[citation needed] as "autocratic" leaders. They sometimes, but not always, provide clear expectations for what needs to be done, when it should be done, and how it should be done. There is also a clear divide between the leader and the followers.[3] Bob Altemeyer conducted research on what he labeled right-wing authoritarianism (RWA), and presented an analysis of the personality-types of both the authoritarian leaders and the authoritarian followers.[4]

Authoritarian leaders make decisions independently with little or no input from others.[5] They uphold stringent control over their followers by directly regulating rules, methodologies, and actions.[6] Authoritarian leaders construct gaps and build distance between themselves and their followers with the intention of stressing role-distinctions.[7][need quotation to verify] This type of leadership dates back to the earliest[citation needed] tribes and even empires. It is often used in present-day when there is little room for error, such as construction jobs or manufacturing jobs.[8]

Authoritarian leadership typically fosters little creativity in decision-making. Lewin also found that it is more difficult to move from an authoritarian style to a democratic style than vice versa. Abuse of this style is usually viewed as controlling, bossy and dictatorial. Authoritarian leadership is best applied to situations where there is little time for group discussion.[3]

Some approaches to leading make a virtue of limiting or eschewing authoritarian traits.[9]

Views of authoritarian leaders

[edit]

A common belief of many authoritarian leaders is that followers require direct supervision at all times, or else they would not operate effectively.[7] This belief is in accordance with one of Douglas McGregor's philosophical views of humankind, Theory X. This concept proposes that it is a leader's role to coerce and control followers because people have an inherent aversion to work and will abstain from it whenever possible. Theory X also postulates that people must be compelled through force, intimidation, or authority, and controlled, directed, or threatened with punishment in order to get them to accomplish the organizational needs.[10]

In the minds of authoritarian leaders, people who are left to work autonomously will ultimately be unproductive. “Examples of authoritarian communicative behavior include a police officer directing traffic, a teacher ordering a student to do his or her assignment, and a supervisor instructing a subordinate to clean a workstation.” [7] However, studies do show that having some form of authoritarian leader around can produce some improvement through any field of work, and daily tasks with those of authoritarian styles of leadership. In an article titled, "How Authoritarian Leadership Affects Employee's Helping Behavior? The Mediating Role of Rumination and Moderating Role of Psychological Ownership," states that having this form of leadership actually helps. However, this is done by having the other party instill the same effort by the other party. This means that the other party has to positive behaviors, have commitment, are wanting to work, and respect the leadership above them, they are willing to see growth and have achievement throughout the relationship of the leader and the citizen.[11]

Communication patterns

[edit]
  • Downward, one-way communication (i.e. leaders to followers, or supervisors to subordinates)[12]
  • Controls discussion with followers[13]
  • Dominates interaction
  • Independently/unilaterally sets policy and procedures[14]
  • Individually directs the completion of tasks
  • Does not offer constant feedback
  • Rewards acquiescent obedient behavior and punishes erroneous actions[15]
  • Poor listener
  • Uses conflict for individual gain
  • Limited communication and control[16]
  • Can increase perceptions of abusive behavior.[16]
  • Cultural background affects how authoritarian leadership is viewed.[16]

Ways to properly incorporate authoritarian leadership

[edit]
  • Always explain rules: it allows your subordinates to complete the task you want to be done efficiently. [17]
  • Be consistent: if you are to enforce rules and regulations, make sure to do so regularly so your subordinates take you seriously. This will form a stronger level of trust.[17]
  • Respect your subordinates: always recognize your subordinates' efforts and achievements.[18]
  • Educate your subordinates by enforcing rules: do not present them with any surprises. This can lead to problems in the future due to false communication.[19]
  • Listen to suggestions from your subordinates, even if you do not incorporate them.[20]

Effects of authoritarian leadership communication styles

[edit]
  • Increase in productivity when the leader is present [21]
  • Produces more accurate solutions when the leader is knowledgeable [22]
  • Is more positively accepted in larger groups [23]
  • Enhances performance on simple tasks and decreases performance on complex tasks [24]
  • Increases aggression levels among followers [25]
  • Increases turnover rates [26]
  • Successful when there is a time urgency for completion of projects
  • Improves the future work of those subordinates whose skills are not very applicable or helpful without the demands of another [27]

Downfalls

[edit]
  • Long-term use can cause resentment from subordinates.[19]
  • It has been found by researchers that these types of leaders lack creative problem solving skills
  • Without proper instruction and understanding from subordinates, confusion may arise[28]
  • A lot of emotional strain and stress for workers can be created because of authoritarian leadership. When leaders use a lot of pressure and control, it can lead to burnout and possibly lower job satisfaction. Workers may feel stressed when they think their efforts aren't being recognized or unfairly criticized. Over time, this can affect their motivation and overall well-being.[29]
  • Authoritarian leadership is connected to higher employee turnover over time. Research suggests that this leadership style can reduce job satisfaction and engagement, making employees feel less connected to the organization and more likely to leave. While it may effectively achieve short-term goals, the lack of collaboration can create a workplace environment where employees feel undervalued or overly controlled. This can contribute to more employees leaving, especially when workers seek roles with more autonomy or supportive leadership styles.[30]

Examples of authoritarian leaders

[edit]

Engelbert Dollfuss, chancellor of Austria from 1932 to 1934, destroyed the Austrian Republic and established an authoritarian regime based on conservative Roman Catholic and Italian Fascist principles. In May 1932 when he became chancellor, Dollfuss headed a conservative coalition led by the Christian Social Party. When faced with a severe economic crisis caused by the Great Depression, Dollfuss decided against joining Germany in a customs union, a course advocated by many Austrians. Severely criticized by Social Democrats, Pan-German nationalists, and Austrian Nazis, he countered by drifting toward an increasingly authoritarian regime.[31]

The Italian leader Benito Mussolini became Dollfuss' principal foreign ally. Italy guaranteed Austrian independence at Riccione (August 1933), but in return Austria had to abolish all political parties and reform its constitution on the Fascist model. In March 1933, Dollfuss’ attacks on Parliament culminated that September in the permanent abolition of the legislature and the formation of a corporate state based on his Vaterländische Front (“Fatherland Front”); with which he expected to replace Austria’s political parties. In foreign affairs, he steered a course that converted Austria virtually into an Italian satellite state. Hoping therewith to prevent Austria’s incorporation into Nazi Germany, he fought his domestic political opponents along fascist-authoritarian lines.[31]

In February 1934 paramilitary formations loyal to the chancellor crushed Austria’s Social Democrats. With a new constitution of May 1934, his regime became completely dictatorial. In June, however, Germany incited the Austrian Nazis to civil war. Dollfuss was assassinated by the Nazis in a raid on the chancellery.[31]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Cheng, B. S., Chou, L. F., Wu, T. Y., Huang, M. P., & Farh, J. L. (2004). Paternalistic leadership and subordinate responses: Establishing a leadership model in Chinese organizations. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 7(1), 89–117.
  2. ^ Aryee, Samuel; Chen, Zhen Xiong; Sun, Li-Yun; Debrah, Yaw A. (2007). "Antecedents and outcomes of abusive supervision: Test of a trickle-down model". Journal of Applied Psychology. 92 (1): 191–201. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.191. ISSN 1939-1854. PMID 17227160.
  3. ^ a b Cherry, Kendra. "Lewin's Leadership Styles". About.com Psychology. Web. 14 March 2012. <http://psychology.about.com/od/leadership/a/leadstyles.htm Archived 2012-03-24 at the Wayback Machine>.
  4. ^ Altemeyer, Bob (1998). "The Other "Authoritarian Personality"". Advances in Experimental Social Psychology Volume 30. Vol. 30. pp. 47–92. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60382-2. ISBN 9780120152308.
  5. ^ Kania, Richard R.E.; Davis, Richards P. (19 September 2014) [2008]. "Glossary". Managing Criminal Justice Organizations: An Introduction to Theory and Practice (2, revised ed.). Amsterdam: Elsevier. p. 259. ISBN 9781317522157. Retrieved 23 December 2024. authoritative/authoritarian leader[:] similar to an autocratic leader, an authoritarian freely uses the authority and power of one's office to make decisions and take actions with little or no input from others in the organization.
  6. ^ Bender, Billie (9 August 2019). "Study of Political Leadership: A Comparativist Perspective". Handbook of Political Leadership. Waltham Abbey, Essex: ED-Tech Press. pp. 280–281. ISBN 9781839473920. Retrieved 23 December 2024. Authoritarian leaders uphold stringent control over their followers by directly regulating rules, methodologies, and actions.
  7. ^ a b c Hackman, M. Z., & Johnson, C. E. (2009). Leadership: A Communication Perspective (5th ed.). Long Grove, IL, Waveland Press.
  8. ^ Leadership-Toolbox. (2008). Leadership Styles: Authoritarian Leadership. Retrieved November 15, 2013, from http://www.leadership-toolbox.com/autocratic-leadership.html Archived 2015-05-02 at the Wayback Machine
  9. ^ For example: Chapoutot, Johann (18 April 2023) [2020]. Free to Obey: How the Nazis Invented Modern Management. Translated by Rendall, Steven. New York: Europa Editions. ISBN 9781609458041. Retrieved 23 December 2024. [...] the German economic miracle was nourished by the 'delegation of responsibility' for which more than 200,000 managers were trained by Reinhard Höhn [de] and his teams between 1956 and 1972, and almost 500,000 afterward, up until his death in the year 2000. Höhn's method of management, which was hierarchical without being authoritarian, offered 'co-workers' the enjoyment of a structured freedom that left them free to succeed by achieving, in the best possible way, a goal that they themselves had not defined. [...] In dozens of works and in thousands of seminars, [Höhn] transformed transformed Auftragstaktik into 'management by delegation,' which was supposed to be anti-authoritarian and thus certifiably democratic and bundesrepublikanisch.
  10. ^ Clark, D. (2010). Theory x and theory y. Big Dog & Little Dog’s Performance Juxtapostion. Retrieved March 26, 2012, from http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/history/xy.html
  11. ^ Avey, James B.; Avolio, Bruce J.; Crossley, Craig D.; Luthans, Fred (February 2009). "Psychological ownership: theoretical extensions, measurement and relation to work outcomes". Journal of Organizational Behavior. 30 (2): 173–191. doi:10.1002/job.583. S2CID 18751504.
  12. ^ Schuh, Sebastian C.; Zhang, Xin-an; Tian, Peng (September 2013). "For the Good or the Bad? Interactive Effects of Transformational Leadership with Moral and Authoritarian Leadership Behaviors". Journal of Business Ethics. 116 (3): 629–640. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1486-0. ISSN 0167-4544. S2CID 144400566.
  13. ^ Shen, Yimo; Chou, Wan-Ju; Schaubroeck, John M. (2019-07-04). "The roles of relational identification and workgroup cultural values in linking authoritarian leadership to employee performance". European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. 28 (4): 498–509. doi:10.1080/1359432X.2019.1615453. ISSN 1359-432X. S2CID 181859722.
  14. ^ Wang, Honglei; Guan, Bichen (2018). "The Positive Effect of Authoritarian Leadership on Employee Performance: The Moderating Role of Power Distance". Frontiers in Psychology. 9: 357. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00357. ISSN 1664-1078. PMC 5876282. PMID 29628902.
  15. ^ Gu, Qinxuan; Hempel, Paul S.; Yu, Mingchuan (April 2020). "Tough Love and Creativity: How Authoritarian Leadership Tempered by Benevolence or Morality Influences Employee Creativity". British Journal of Management. 31 (2): 305–324. doi:10.1111/1467-8551.12361. ISSN 1045-3172. S2CID 159356914.
  16. ^ a b c Kiazad, Kohyar; Restubog, Simon Lloyd D.; Zagenczyk, Thomas J.; Kiewitz, Christian; Tang, Robert L. (August 2010). "In pursuit of power: The role of authoritarian leadership in the relationship between supervisors' Machiavellianism and subordinates' perceptions of abusive supervisory behavior". Journal of Research in Personality. 44 (4): 512–519. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2010.06.004.
  17. ^ a b Potipiroon, Wisanupong; Chumphong, Orisa (2024-10-28). "Authoritarian leadership and firm-level voluntary turnover among SMEs in Thailand: Does benevolent leadership matter?". International Journal of Emerging Markets. 19 (10): 3182–3201. doi:10.1108/IJOEM-07-2021-1144. ISSN 1746-8809.
  18. ^ Li, Sitan; Li, Juan (2021-12-01). "Fostering trust: Authoritarian, benevolent, and moral paternalistic leadership styles and the coach–athlete relationship". Social Behavior and Personality. 49 (12): 1–11. doi:10.2224/sbp.10452. ISSN 0301-2212.
  19. ^ a b Duan, Jinyun; Wang, Tingxi; Xu, Yue; Zhu, Yue (June 2023). "Employee Status and Voice Under Authoritarian Leadership: An Attachment Perspective". Journal of Business and Psychology. 38 (3): 607–619. doi:10.1007/s10869-022-09845-9. ISSN 0889-3268.
  20. ^ Busse, Ronald; Regenberg, Sam (November 2019). "Revisiting the "Authoritarian Versus Participative" Leadership Style Legacy: A New Model of the Impact of Leadership Inclusiveness on Employee Engagement". Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies. 26 (4): 510–525. doi:10.1177/1548051818810135. ISSN 1548-0518.
  21. ^ Shaw, Marvin E. (1955). "A comparison of two types of leadership in various communication nets". The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 50 (1): 127–134. doi:10.1037/h0041129. PMID 13232941.
  22. ^ Cammalleri, J. A.; Hendrick, H. W.; Pittman Jr, W. C.; Blout, H. D.; Prather, D. C. (1973). "Effects of different leadership styles on group accuracy". The Journal of Applied Psychology. 57 (1): 32–37. doi:10.1037/h0034184. PMID 4784749.
  23. ^ Vroom, F. C.; Mann (June 1960). "Leader Authoritarianism and Employee Attitudes1". Personnel Psychology. 13 (2): 125–140. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1960.tb02460.x.
  24. ^ Rudin, S. A. (1964). "Leadership as Psychophysiological Activation of Group Members: A Case Experimental Study". Psychological Reports. 15 (2): 577–578. doi:10.2466/pr0.1964.15.2.577. S2CID 143606038.
  25. ^ Day, Robert C.; Hamblin, Robert L. (1964). "Some Effects of Close and Punitive Styles of Supervision". American Journal of Sociology. 69 (5): 499–510. doi:10.1086/223653. S2CID 145548226.
  26. ^ Ley, R. (1966). "Labor turnover as a function of worker differences, work environment, and authoritarianism of foremen". The Journal of Applied Psychology. 50 (6): 497–500. doi:10.1037/h0024045. PMID 5978044.
  27. ^ Authoritarian Leadership: Use Sparingly! (n.d.). Retrieved November 15, 2013, from http://www.educational-business-articles.com/authoritarian-leadership.html
  28. ^ About.com: Psychology. What is Authoritarian Leadership?. (2013). Retrieved November 15, 2013, from http://psychology.about.com/od/leadership/f/autocratic-leadership.htm Archived 2013-12-05 at the Wayback Machine
  29. ^ Day, Robert C.; Hamblin, Robert L. (March 1964). "Some Effects of Close and Punitive Styles of Supervision". American Journal of Sociology. 69 (5): 499–510. doi:10.1086/223653. ISSN 0002-9602.
  30. ^ Ley, Ronald (1966). "Labor turnover as a function of worker differences, work environment, and authoritarianism of foremen". Journal of Applied Psychology. 50 (6): 497–500. doi:10.1037/h0024045. ISSN 1939-1854.
  31. ^ a b c Britannica. (n.d). Engelbert Dollfuss. Retrieved March 21, 2012 from, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/168274/Engelbert-Dollfuss
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Authoritarian_leadership_style&oldid=1264736433"