For the long term, an autocratic style can be more damaging than good, but sometimes you have to get things done. They decide the procedures, regulations, and policies. Most appropriately, if tasks have to be completed with great urgency and are time critical, setting clear tasks and expectations whilst making the decisions seems a logical step, as often there is no time for discussion. This ensures subordinates have time to let the changes sink in, even though they know they might not be able to prevent them from happening. Finally, the paternalistic autocratic leadership can benefit environment such as the operating theatre. The decision-making process is usually unilateral, and they accomplish goals by directing people.
The word auto means self and cratic means rule. This is done to have a unified technique of attending a call. In a tightly controlled environment, where power is concentrated, the autocratic model can also fail to inspire or change. For example, autocracies in history have tumbled down rapidly, once the subjects have gathered enough support in changing the system. After all, there is no rational basis to challenge the direction provided. They end up failing to consult with them, come up with poor solutions to problems, and hurt the overall success of the project and the group.
Effective managers can improve productivity and employee morale and reduce turnover. Like the Laissez-Faire management style, employees in these environments are highly skilled and motivated, but take it a step further as they are also highly educated, self directed, and know a great deal more about the work than management. This manager dictates orders to employees and expect that they do exactly as required. Leadership may feel to keep up with new trends. The resentment is worse if highly skilled or knowledgeable members of the group feel that their knowledge and skills are wasted because they are not allowed to make contributions to decision-making.
Persuasive Also similar to autocratic management styles, a persuasive leader maintains the final decision-making control. This belief is in accordance with one of 's philosophical views of humankind,. Howell Raines is a classic example of how an autocratic style can be used successfully in a highly-demanding industry. This is aimed at giving equal opportunities to everybody. Followers Become Passive-Aggressive One method of dealing with this type of person is to become somewhat Burton, 2016.
In areas where creative thinking is a key, people are empowered to make decisions, and leadership is decentralized, the autocratic direction will likely be unpopular. Authoritarian leadership typically fosters little creativity in decision-making. They are mainly focused on providing employment and education opportunities. List of the Disadvantages of Autocratic Leadership 1. Many industry analysts might argue that it was Martha's autocratically demanding style that allowed her to flourish in the entertainment industry, which is an extremely competitive environment. This leadership style is unsuited to build trusting relationships. Furthermore, in industries where security and secrecy are paramount, certain information might not even be available to subordinates and this would not lead to efficient or correct decision-making.
At the extreme, autocratic leadership can take the form of a dictatorship. It does not offer a sense of professional ownership. If the leader is knowledgeable and effective, then the organization will benefit. This will drive down morale and could have a detrimental impact on engagement. The style is useful in a number of different contexts including: When People Perceive a Crisis.
Roles and tasks are clearly defined, and workers are expected to follow these directions without question while being consistently checked and supervised. By virtue of their position and job responsibilities, they not only control the efforts of the team, but monitor them for completion —often under close scrutiny This style is reminiscent of the earliest tribes and empires. During his experiments, Lewin also noted the autocratic style to be demoralizing at times. They like to be told exactly what to do and are grateful someone is stepping up and taking control of what might be a chaotic situation. If you need to enforce punishments, or indeed rewards, always do so with a consistent approach.
Autocratic leadership can therefore be a tricky leadership style and it does come with its own pros and cons. Their style must adhere to the policies and procedures set forth by the organization, and they must be able to achieve company objectives. That said, there are benefits to using this authoritarian leadership. There exist an open-end communication, through which the subordinates can communicate directly with the other members of the organisation, be it top level or bottom level. Appropriate when team members are experienced, qualified and professional. They have a sense of ownership in the future of the group, and this spurs them on to do their best with the tasks that are assigned to them. Therefore, autocratic leaders are expected to have a good amount of expertise and experience in the area they are being brought in to address.
Following is a critique of autocratic leaderships styles, along with its pros and cons. We have all run into someone who dominates the conversation, who ignores almost everything we say, who tends to speak louder when questioned, and with an intensity or forcefulness if they sense doubt or disagreement. This was the case in terms of Blue Cross of California. Description: Affirmative action is directed at increasing the number of people, from certain parts of the society, within business or educational institutions or in areas where their presence is low. This leadership style survives by default because it comes naturally to most leaders, especially in times of low morale or insubordination. Inform and educate before you enforce.