Authoritarian leadership style

Last updated

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]

Contents

Background

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.[ citation needed ] Authoritarian leaders construct gaps and build distance between themselves and their followers with the intention of stressing role-distinctions. [6] [ 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. [7]

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. [8]

Views of authoritarian leaders

A common belief of many authoritarian leaders is that followers require direct supervision at all times, or else they would not operate effectively. [6] 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. [9]

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.” [6] 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. [10]

Communication patterns

Ways to properly incorporate authoritarian leadership

Effects of authoritarian leadership communication styles

Downfalls

Examples of authoritarian leaders

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. [30]

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. [30]

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. [30]

Related Research Articles

Industrial and organizational psychology "focuses the lens of psychological science on a key aspect of human life, namely, their work lives. In general, the goals of I-O psychology are to better understand and optimize the effectiveness, health, and well-being of both individuals and organizations." It is an applied discipline within psychology and is an international profession. I-O psychology is also known as occupational psychology in the United Kingdom, organisational psychology in Australia and New Zealand, and work and organizational (WO) psychology throughout Europe and Brazil. Industrial, work, and organizational (IWO) psychology is the broader, more global term for the science and profession.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Leadership</span> Quality of one individual or group influencing or guiding others based on authority

Leadership, is defined as the ability of an individual, group, or organization to "lead", influence, or guide other individuals, teams, or organizations.

The path–goal theory, also known as the path–goal theory of leader effectiveness or the path–goal model, is a leadership theory developed by Robert House, an Ohio State University graduate, in 1971 and revised in 1996. The theory states that a leader's behavior is contingent to the satisfaction, motivation and performance of his or her subordinates. The revised version also argues that the leader engages in behaviors that complement subordinate's abilities and compensate for deficiencies. According to Robert House and John Antonakis, the task-oriented elements of the path–goal model can be classified as a form of instrumental leadership.

Organizational behavior or organisational behaviour is the "study of human behavior in organizational settings, the interface between human behavior and the organization, and the organization itself". Organizational behavioral research can be categorized in at least three ways:

Power distance is the unequal distribution of power between parties, and the level of acceptance of that inequality; whether it is in the family, workplace, or other organizations.

Transformational leadership is a theory of leadership when a leader's behaviors influence their followers and inspire them to perform beyond their perceived capabilities. Transformational leadership inspires people to achieve unexpected or remarkable results. Transformational leaders work with teams or followers beyond their immediate self-interests to identify necessary change. They create a vision to guide the change through influence and inspiration. These changes are executed in tandem with committed group members and involve self-interests. This elevates the follower's ideals, maturity levels, and concerns for achievement. Transformational leadership is an integral part of the Full Range Leadership Model and gives workers autonomy over specific jobs, as well as the authority to make decisions once they have been trained. This induces a positive change in the followers' attitudes and the organization. Transformational leaders typically perform four distinct behaviors, known as The 4 I's. These behaviors are inspirational motivation, idealized influence, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration.

Management consists of the planning, prioritizing, and organizing work efforts to accomplish objectives within a business organization. A management style is the particular way managers go about accomplishing these objectives. It encompasses the way they make decisions, how they plan and organize work, and how they exercise authority.

A toxic leader is a person who abuses the leader–follower relationship by leaving the group or organization in a worse condition than it was in originally. Toxic leaders therefore create an environment that may be detrimental to employees, thus lowering overall morale in the organization.

Transactional leadership is a type of leadership style that focuses on the exchange of skills, knowledge, resources, or effort between leaders and their subordinates. This leadership style prioritizes individual interests and extrinsic motivation as means to obtain a desired outcome. It relies on a system of penalties and rewards to achieve short-term goals.

The leader–member exchange (LMX) theory is a relationship-based approach to leadership that focuses on the two-way (dyadic) relationship between leaders and followers.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Situational leadership theory</span> Business model


Situational Leadership is the idea that effective leaders adapt their style to each situation. No one style is appropriate for all situations. Leaders may use a different style in each situation, even when working with the same team, followers or employees.

Participative decision-making (PDM) is the extent to which employers allow or encourage employees to share or participate in organizational decision-making. According to Cotton et al., the format of PDM could be formal or informal. In addition, the degree of participation could range from zero to 100% in different participative management (PM) stages.

Despite a large body of positive psychological research into the relationship between happiness and productivity, happiness at work has traditionally been seen as a potential by-product of positive outcomes at work, rather than a pathway to business success. Happiness in the workplace is usually dependent on the work environment. During the past two decades, maintaining a level of happiness at work has become more significant and relevant due to the intensification of work caused by economic uncertainty and increase in competition. Nowadays, happiness is viewed by a growing number of scholars and senior executives as one of the major sources of positive outcomes in the workplace. In fact, companies with higher than average employee happiness exhibit better financial performance and customer satisfaction. It is thus beneficial for companies to create and maintain positive work environments and leadership that will contribute to the happiness of their employees.

Counterproductive work behavior (CWB) is employee's behavior that goes against the legitimate interests of an organization. This behavior can harm the organization, other people within it, and other people and organizations outside it, including employers, other employees, suppliers, clients, patients and citizens. It has been proposed that a person-by-environment interaction (the relationship between a person's psychological and physical capacities and the demands placed on those capacities by the person's social and physical environment.) can be utilized to explain a variety of counterproductive behaviors. For instance, an employee who is high on trait anger is more likely to respond to a stressful incident at work with CWB.

Cross-cultural psychology attempts to understand how individuals of different cultures interact with each other. Along these lines, cross-cultural leadership has developed as a way to understand leaders who work in the newly globalized market. Today's international organizations require leaders who can adjust to different environments quickly and work with partners and employees of other cultures. It cannot be assumed that a manager who is successful in one country will be successful in another.

Substitutes for leadership theory is a leadership theory first developed by Steven Kerr and John M. Jermier and published in Organizational Behavior and Human Performance in December 1978.

A leadership style is a leader's method of providing direction, implementing plans, and motivating people. Various authors have proposed identifying many different leadership styles as exhibited by leaders in the political, business or other fields. Studies on leadership style are conducted in the military field, expressing an approach that stresses a holistic view of leadership, including how a leader's physical presence determines how others perceive that leader. The factors of physical presence in this context include military bearing, physical fitness, confidence, and resilience. A leader's conceptual abilities include agility, judgment, innovation, interpersonal tact, and domain knowledge. Leaders are characterized as individuals who have differential influence over the setting of goals, logistics for coordination, monitoring of effort, and rewards and punishment of group members. Domain knowledge encompasses tactical and technical knowledge as well as cultural and geopolitical awareness.

Abusive supervision is most commonly studied in the context of the workplace, although it can arise in other areas such as in the household and at school. Abusive supervision has been investigated as major cause of negative outcomes in managing employees. Studies have been conducted to investigate the link between abusive supervision and different workplace events.

Narcissism in the workplace involves the impact of narcissistic employees and managers in workplace settings.

In evolutionary psychology and evolutionary anthropology, dual strategies theory states humans increase their status in social hierarchies using two major strategies known as dominance and prestige.

References

  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. 1 2 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. 1 2 3 Hackman, M. Z., & Johnson, C. E. (2009). Leadership: A Communication Perspective (5th ed.). Long Grove, IL, Waveland Press.
  7. 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
  8. 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.
  9. 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
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 1 2 3 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.
  16. 1 2 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 1 2 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
  25. 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.
  26. Authoritarian Leadership: Use Sparingly! (n.d.). Retrieved November 15, 2013, from http://www.educational-business-articles.com/authoritarian-leadership.html
  27. 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
  28. 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.
  29. 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.
  30. 1 2 3 Britannica. (n.d). Engelbert Dollfuss. Retrieved March 21, 2012 from, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/168274/Engelbert-Dollfuss