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 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 the rest of the group. They uphold stringent control over their followers by directly regulating rules, methodologies, and actions. Authoritarian leaders construct gaps and build distance between themselves and their followers with the intention of stressing role distinctions. [5] This type of leadership dates back to the earliest tribes and empires. It is often used in present-day when there is little room for error, such as construction jobs or manufacturing jobs. [6]

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]

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. [5] 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. [7]

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.” [5] 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. [8]

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. [21]

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. [21]

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. [21]

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, both as a research area and as a practical skill, encompasses the ability of an individual, group, or organization to "lead", influence, or guide other individuals, teams, or entire 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.

The Pygmalion effect is a psychological phenomenon in which high expectations lead to improved performance in a given area and low expectations lead to worse. It is named after the Greek myth of Pygmalion, the sculptor who fell so much in love with the perfectly beautiful statue he created that the statue came to life. The psychologists Robert Rosenthal and Lenore Jacobson present a view, that has been called into question as a result of later research findings, in their book Pygmalion in the Classroom; borrowing something of the myth by advancing the idea that teachers' expectations of their students affect the students' performance. Rosenthal and Jacobson held that high expectations lead to better performance and low expectations lead to worse, both effects leading to self-fulfilling prophecy.

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.

In psychology, the right-wing authoritarian (RWA) is a personality type that describes somebody who is highly submissive to their authority figures, acts aggressively in the name of said authorities, and is conformist in thought and behavior. The prevalence of this personality type in a population varies from culture to culture, as a person's upbringing and education play a strong role in determining whether somebody develops this sort of personality.

Transformational leadership is a theory of leadership where a leader works with teams or followers beyond their immediate self-interests to identify needed change, creating a vision to guide the change through influence, inspiration, and executing the change in tandem with committed members of a group; This change in self-interests elevates the follower's levels of maturity and ideals, as well as their concerns for the achievement. It is an integral part of the Full Range Leadership Model. Transformational leadership is when leader behaviors influence followers and inspire them to perform beyond their perceived capabilities. Transformational leadership inspires people to achieve unexpected or remarkable results. It 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 as a whole. Transformational leaders typically perform four distinct behaviors, also known as the four Is. These behaviors are inspirational motivation, idealized influence, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration.

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.

Situational Leadership Theory, now named the Situational Leadership Model, is a model created by Dr. Paul Hersey and Dr. Ken Blanchard, developed while working on the text book, Management of Organizational Behavior. The theory was first introduced in 1969 as "Life Cycle Theory of Leadership". During the mid-1970s, Life Cycle Theory of Leadership was renamed "Situational Leadership Theory."

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.

Narcissistic leadership is a leadership style in which the leader is only interested in themself. Their priority is themselves – at the expense of their people/group members. This leader exhibits the characteristics of a narcissist: arrogance, dominance and hostility. It is a sufficiently common leadership style that it has acquired its own name. Narcissism is most often described as unhealthy and destructive. It has been described as "driven by unyielding arrogance, self-absorption, and a personal egotistic need for power and admiration".

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 an antecedent to negative subordinate workplace outcome." "Workplace violence has combination of situational and personal factors". The study that was conducted looked at the link between abusive supervision and different workplace events.

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

Machiavellianism in the workplace is a concept studied by many organizational psychologists. Conceptualized originally by Richard Christie and Florence Geis, Machiavellianism refers to a psychological trait concept where individuals behave in a cold and duplicitous manner. It has in recent times been adapted and applied to the context of the workplace and organizations by many writers and academics.

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. 1 2 3 Hackman, M. Z., & Johnson, C. E. (2009). Leadership: A Communication Perspective (5th ed.). Long Grove, IL, Waveland Press.
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. Authoritarian Leadership: Use Sparingly! (n.d.). Retrieved November 15, 2013, from http://www.educational-business-articles.com/authoritarian-leadership.html
  20. 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
  21. 1 2 3 Britannica. (n.d). Engelbert Dollfuss. Retrieved March 21, 2012 from, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/168274/Engelbert-Dollfuss