An autocratic leader
will always be successful in an organisation
What is autocratic leadership?
Leadership is, writes Shackleton (1995), about recognising
a goal and having the motivational power to influence a group
towards achieving that goal. Successful leadership therefore
means that this goal is achieved by the leader and their group.
There are many different means and styles of leadership, one
of which is by autocratic means. Autocratic leadership is
based upon an approach whereby the manager retains the maximum
amount of power that they can. All decisions are derived from
this leader and no consultation takes place. We shall examine
the applicability of an autocratic leadership style in contemporary
organisations and also look at some alternative styles.
 |
"I needed help with my reasearch and my essay on appointing management in Asian countries. The resources that I found were quite limited and not what I had expected. Luckily Degree Essays filled the void and helped me to become who I am today! " - James K |
Autocratic leadership is a more traditional and classical
approach to management relying upon threats and punishment
to influence its employees. – something which Beardwell
and Holden (2001) would call a “hard” approach
to leadership. This method, according to UT (2001) is effective
for many reasons;
· When there is limited time to make a decision
· When there are new and untrained employees who do
not know how to perform certain tasks
· When effective supervision can be provided only by
orders and instruction
· When employees do not respond to other leadership
styles
· When work must be integrated with other departments
Mintzberg (1979) described situations in which an autocratic
style was most applicable. Entrepreneurial organisations are
normally smaller businesses which develop from the ideas and
entrepreneurial spirit of one person. This person is responsible
for their organisation and makes all the decisions –
the characteristics of an autocrat. The nature of these smaller
organisations and the relative lack of formalisation mean
that autocratic leadership is commonplace in this particular
part of industry. These organisations typically operate in
rapidly changing environments with limited stability and hence
decisions regarding all aspects of the business must be made
quickly and boldly.
Autocratic styles do have a number of criticisms though.
UT (2001) argues that whilst the previously listed benefits
apply in certain situations the following act as disadvantages
to the process;
· When employees expect to have their opinions heard
· When employees become dependent upon the manager
· When there is low morale, high staff turnover and
absenteeism
· When employees become fearful, tense and resentful
Autocratic leadership is becoming less and less
feasible in the modern workplace. Steers et al (1985) describe
five reasons why employees produce low levels of productivity.
These are; unappealing rewards, weak reference to performance-rewards,
distrust of management, desire to have greater job control,
lack of involvement. Referring back to some characteristics
of autocratic management - namely total leadership control,
lack of consultancy and mutual distrust – it is clear
that there is great correlation between productive work and
style of leadership. These facts would seem to suggest that
an autocratic management style results in reduced productivity.
Modern employees are more resistant to exerted influence and
power and this shows in their work. So what alternatives are
there to autocratic leadership and how are they used to increase
the motivation of the workers?
Leadership Styles
In simple terms it is generally agreed that there are four
basic themes of leadership which are autocratic, democratic,
bureaucratic and laissez-faire.
Tannenbaum and Schmidt (1973) defined these four styles in
communicative terms as being basically to tell, to sell, to
consult and to join. Relating back to the “hard”
approach of leadership these methods range from extremely
hard to soft. McGregor (1960) devised a famous pair of theories
entitled simply X and Y. Theory X leaders are typically autocratic
and have a hard approach to management theorising that people
inherently dislike work and need to be forced to make an adequate
effort. Theory Y on the other hand explains that people falling
into this category will operate using more self-control and
are motivated to work by responsibility. Depending upon the
leadership style adopted the manager will have a style based
roughly around either theory X or Y. Whether or not the approach
works depends upon many characteristics of which the main
one is whether or not the workforce accept it. This suggests
that the success of a leader is dependent largely upon the
relationship of this leader with the workforce. Is it a question
of employee-management relations?
As stated there are other means of leadership
as well as autocracy. Bureaucratic leadership happens by managing
according to procedure and the leader acts as a rule enforcer.
This style is useful in larger and more risk-averse organisations
where legislation and procedure is a large factor and where
vast sums of money can be won or lost because of these. Similarly
it is useful where employees are performing dangerous tasks,
which may be simplified by a routine method and where set
standards are key. The danger of bureaucracy is that employees
may feel disinterested and get bored with their prescribed
tasks – they may do only what is expected of them and
nothing more. This leaves no room for creativity which is
hugely important today in terms of innovating and prospering.
Autocracy and bureaucracy are hard styles of
leadership but to a large degree have become outdated. A lack
of trust and low level of autonomy was cited previously as
a reason for poor motivation to work and this is applicable
in these harder managerial methods. Bennis et al (1994) argue
that modern organisations have reduced power due to the growth
of trade unions and hence mutual communication and consultation
is vital to ensure a healthy working relationship. If contemporary
employees do not feel they have desirable conditions to work
in then they will make this known and work will suffer as
a consequence. But what do these workers want? We have seen
what causes their work to suffer but what can be done to ensure
that this does not happen?
Motivation
In order to answer the previous question we must investigate
what motivates employees. Maslow’s (1943) hierarchy
of needs shows us a basic concept of what makes us tick as
human beings in terms of health, money, esteem amongst other
factors. Whilst a criticism of this model is that is not really
based upon organisations this model can aid us in understanding
more general motivations. Typical motivations described by
the Institute of Personnel and Development (1997) include
pay, trust of management, job satisfaction, fairness and delivery
of managerial promises. Equity theory is a philosophy proposed
to explain these motivations in simpler terms. The basic premise
of equity theory is that treatment is fair and that fundamentally
I get an equated reward from my work that you get from your
work.
A democratic leadership style may deliver some
of these key motivational triggers. A democratic leader will
develop a plan to help their employees to improve their own
performance and job satisfaction. They will also encourage
employees to share in decision-making processes and recognise
quality performance. It is at its most applicable when the
organisation houses a higher level of highly skilled employees
or when problems need to be solved. Democracy encourages team
building and participation and can benefit the organisation
in allowing increased creativity and morale.
Employee Involvement (EI) is a means of allowing
employees to become more involved in decision making and have
more influence over their jobs. Marchington et al (1992) write
of means of implementing schemes based around EI such as quality
circles whereby a representative cross-section of employees
are chosen to meet and resolve problems in conjunction with
the democratic leader. This says a study by Pasmore and Friedlander
(1982) is of great benefit to the organisation in that they
found when the suggestions of the employees were taken up
overall employee performance grew significantly.
EI is related to autonomy. Autonomy is important
to workers as it gives them a sense of freedom. It is argued
that employees work far more productively when they are allowed
to work without supervision and are allowed freedom to decide
for themselves how their job is done – the polar opposite
of autocracy. However, this is largely dependent upon the
individual as it can also be argued that this lack of supervision
may lead to the worker taking liberties and slacking from
their task.
Employee-Leader Relationship
Mullins (1999) suggests several democratic philosophies which
may lead to improved relations and improved productivity.
They are;
· Consideration, respect and trust
· Recognition and credit to employees
· Involvement and availability within and to the employees
· Fair and equitable treatment
· Individual treatment of employees
These philosophies relate further to the relationship
between employee and leader. This is where democratic leadership
is beneficial in opposition to autocracy in that in the vast
majority of scenarios the workforce will respond better under
this style of command. Democratic management allows employees
the feeling of involvement and increased freedom. This in
turn leads to job satisfaction and improved motivation which
in turn lead to increased quality of work.
Democratic leadership, whilst conducive to employees,
is not particularly appealing to many managers - particularly
those who class themselves as entrepreneurs. Leaders such
as this may feel threatened by a more democratic style. Similarly
when time is short and mistakes cannot be made then autocracy
is the better style in terms of decision making.
One step onwards from democracy is laissez-faire
leadership - whereby employees are left to make their own
decisions with total autonomy. This method is effective when
the skill level and competence of employees is high or when
employees are known to be trustworthy and have a high level
of pride in their own work. Where laissez-faire falls down
is when the decisions made are poor. This style lends itself
to a scenario in which there is insecurity due to a lack of
support and feedback.
Comparison of Managerial Philosophies
So, in essence the main leadership styles fall into two main
categories - autocratic and democratic - with many sub-styles
bridging the gap. These different styles are applicable in
different situations and organisational contexts. The chosen
or adopted leadership style is the main factor that influences
employee motivation and hence it is vital in ensuring sound
productivity. Let us look at the factors that influence which
style is more useful. Blake and Mouton (1978) and their Managerial
Grid describe management philosophies by comparing concern
for production with concern for people - which is known as
a human resource approach. A perfect approach would be to
have high concern for both but this is rarely possible. The
table below shows what Tannenbaum and Schmidt (1973) feel
are the key points that define a desirable leadership style
in relation to the subordinate/employee and the situation;
Leader Subordinate Situation
Confidence Need for independence Organisational structure
Inclination Tolerance of ambiguity Nature of problem
Values Interest Time constraints
Knowledge and experience
To a large degree the background of the manager
and the politics they prescribe to will determine the approach
along with the culture and values of the organisation- but
whether it will succeed or not is another matter. Leadership
is a skill and is not easy.
Autocratic or Democratic? The Motivation
Question
So, does an autocratic style of leadership always ensure organisational
success? The simple answer is no it does not. A style of leadership
can never ensure success but what it can do is to aid that
process and coerce it into being a success. Autocratic styles
of leadership are becoming less and less applicable but there
are still many contexts in which they work. Entrepreneurial
organisations - especially in their early and formative years
- rely upon this style as without it there would be no conviction
and effective decision making. Where it fails is in larger
organisations where employees hold greater power and there
is a more formalised culture. Democracy in decision making
and involving them is key to maintaining employee motivation
which is vital for the productivity of the company.
Autocracy does work - to use a modern-day example
just look at how Sir Alex Ferguson manages Manchester United
- but it is becoming more and more outdated as employees gain
more power in the workplace. To be motivated they need the
factors in place that give them this and more and more this
involves democracy. If the organisation cannot provide this
then they will suffer as a consequence.
|
