Autocratic Leadership: What You Need to Know

What is autocratic leadership and should you use it?

To best answer this question, we first need to look at what leadership is and at leadership styles as a whole a little bit closer.

What is leadership?

Leadership, put simply, is the process of guiding people toward the accomplishment of a goal through influence. (We dive deeper into this in our article: The REAL Definition of Leadership (That You Need to Know Right Now).

Leadership isn’t about you or me, it’s about the mission, the goal, what we are trying to accomplish, and it’s about serving your team to accomplish the mission.

Your whole purpose is to work through and with your team to make the mission or goal happen. To do that, you do everything you can to support and get them there.

Some misconceptions about leadership styles

That’s one reason some of the concepts about leadership styles are off. Often when people talk about leadership styles, they say you need to discover your “style” to be the best leader you can be.

But as we just saw, leadership isn’t about you: It’s about doing what needs to be done to help your team accomplish the mission (we dive more into leadership styles and some of the misunderstandings here.)

Leadership isn’t about the style you like or are comfortable with, it’s about following principles of leadership and serving your team.

How this applies to autocratic leadership

When we discuss autocratic leadership, we can discuss what it is and when certain aspects of it can be helpful (or not), but autocratic leadership isn’t just a style you pick.

If you use certain aspects of it, it’s because it’s what is needed at the moment, not because it’s what you like and are comfortable with (or because of insecurity or ego).

With that being said, what is autocratic leadership?

What autocratic leadership is

Autocratic leadership is usually defined by some to all of these characteristics:

  • Top-down, centralized decision-making with limited input from team members – the leader makes all the decisions themselves without consultation or talking with anyone.
  • Absolute authority and unilateral control – the leader directs and controls all decisions and details.
  • Implementation of strict rules and regulations.
  • Rigid, highly structured environments.
  • One-way communication from the leader down.
  • Limited delegation and empowerment of team members.
  • A reliance on demands and orders.
  • Use of punishments and threats.

Autocratic leaders may also be seen as egotistical, lacking empathy, and bossy.

While this is a generalized view of what many consider autocratic leadership, some refer to it in just certain aspects, as we will discuss later.

Examples of autocratic leadership

One common example is many of the businesses that were run during and after the Industrial Revolution. There was often a visible separation between management and the employees. Management made all the decisions, and the employees were to do their jobs without questions asked. Input was not welcome or received.

The military is often given as an example for autocratic leadership as well. And for sure, there are militaries that exhibit it now as well as in the past in varying capacities. A commander or leader controls everything (or tries to), gives orders, and others follow it.

However, the frequent blanket mentality that the military is a default 100% autocratic organization isn’t accurate (you can read Team of Teams or Jocko Willink’s books, among others, to see this truth – we’ll also discuss this more later).

When autocratic leadership “works” (and its perceived advantages)

What are some of the potential, or perceived, advantages of using autocratic leadership? Here are some thoughts that you may read when searching online:

  • Quicker decision-making
  • A strong sense of direction and clarity, as it all comes from one person
  • Faster implementation of strategies
  • High productivity
  • Consistency, again, as it’s all from one person

It’s often stated that there are certain environments where autocratic leadership works. Examples include:

  • The military
  • Surgeons or nurse managers
  • Low-skilled workers
  • Crisis situations
  • Highly-regulated industries or environments
  • New or inexperienced teams
  • Startups in the early stages

I also read in one study that said people who are more uncertain about themselves or their abilities like having a more autocratic leader.

Why this isn’t as clearcut as it may seem to be

The problem with much of the above is that when you look deeper into it, those examples aren’t quite accurate. Let me explain why.

First, it depends on how one defines autocratic leadership

Often when people start saying that autocratic leadership is effective in certain industries or situations, such as a crisis situation, they are saying it’s useful because the leader is making the decision, sometimes without consulting others. However, in general, when they are stating that it’s useful, they don’t seem to be including the other negative aspects that is often related to being autocratic.

In other words, they are defining autocratic leadership by the fact that the leader makes decisions.

Autocratic leadership and decision-making

However, it’s important to point out that autocratic leadership isn’t decision-making only—it’s everything together.

And there’s never a reason to exhibit many of those qualities, period.

When you make a decision with or without consultation, it doesn’t mean by default you are being “autocratic”—it just means you are making a decision. It’s decision-making.

There are times to consult and decide, there are times to have a group decision, there are times to have others make the decision, and there are times when you should just decide as the leader.

Making a decision unilaterally at times without consultation doesn’t by default mean you are “autocratic,”, it just means, ideally, that it was what the situation called for.

It’s not about your “style,” it’s about the situation and what the situation needs.

What about the different industry examples where it’s said to be “useful?”

Whether it’s nursing or as a surgeon during surgery or a crisis situation or even with the military, yes, there are times that, as a leader, you just make the decision. The situation calls and warrants it, for whatever reason.

However, good leaders still listen. A good nurse manager or surgeon wants others to speak up if they are about to make a mistake or if someone sees something they don’t. Willink talks about it with the military.

Even in crisis mode, you may be making quick decisions, but you still want to listen so that you can make the best decisions.

Inexperienced workers/teams

With inexperienced workers or inexperienced teams, you may give more commands and directions, but your goal and mentality is about growing them to be self-functioning, not to autocratically control everything they do.

And truth is, as we gain “knowledge” and “experience,” we sometimes get blinded and only see things through a certain lens. Often new people see things from a different perspective that can help us if we are willing to listen.

Regulated industries

It’s similar with highly regulated industries: you may make many decisions. It may be strict what people can and can’t do for various reasons. However, that doesn’t mean you don’t listen or are “controlling” or never consult or don’t empower others to make decisions.

The military

When it comes to the military, if you’ve read Jocko Willink’s books, you know he doesn’t promote the autocratic mentality. In fact, a big principle he promotes is Decentralized Command.

The leaders and soldiers know the commander’s intent, the purpose, the goal, and they make decisions based on it to accomplish the mission. The commander is not out there controlling every move and instance that their teams make.

In fact, Jocko Willink in Extreme Ownership, when talking about his unit’s urban training, said that in the first few days, the SEAL leaders tried to control every detail and direct every maneuver, but it didn’t work. He then said:

“In a striking realization that military units throughout history have come to understand by experience, it became clear that no person had the cognitive capacity, the  physical presence, or the knowledge of everything happening across a complex battlefield to effectively lead in such a manner.”

Team of Teams, It’s Your Ship, and Turn the Ship Around are other examples of military leaders showing something different than autocratic leadership.

The truth about the “advantages”

Sometimes autocratic is praised because it makes decisions faster.

However, while being autocratic and always making the decision without consultation may make some decisions faster, it doesn’t mean they will be good decisions.

Speed doesn’t equal quality.

There are times to make decisions unilaterally without consultation. But it’s also wise to get consultation with many decisions, and it’s even wise to push decision-making down to the people closest to the problem versus trying to control it at the top.

In fact, that’s why we often get those painful, useless policies, because leaders at the top are often more detached than they realize. Instead of listening or getting those near the problem to make the decision, they just pass policies that hurt instead of help, and when they don’t work, they blame the people at the bottom and implement more rules and policies instead of realizing it was them.

You may not be as informed as you think you are because you aren’t as close to the problem as others, so the decisions you make may not solve the problem.

Also, when you make all the decisions, it makes you a bottleneck. People always have to wait for you to decide instead of solving it then.

In fact, empowering others to make decisions is the way to make the fastest decisions in a business.

And, frequently, great ideas come from people who are new because they come in with a different perspective and aren’t stuck in a routine, a rut, or a set way of thinking. 

You also don’t have to be autocratic to give a clear, strong sense of direction or even to provide consistency. What you have to have is a clear purpose from the top that is lived out and followed purposefully.

It also depends on how you define “effective”

Some of what is considered autocratic may “work” at times, but it depends on what you mean by “works.”

Technically, some things “work,” at least short-term, but it doesn’t mean that it’s effective long-term or anywhere near as effective as it could be if something else was used.

You may get higher performance, for example, by ordering people around or controlling everything, but it will likely be for the short-term, because, long-term, you demotivate employees, make poorer decisions, create higher turnover, etc.

Also, when a leader is unilaterally controlling everything, everything revolves around them, and when they leave, it leaves a gap.

They may have been “successful” when they were in charge pushing things (though likely it would have been even more successful if they had empowered people), but when they leave, things fall apart.

When they fall apart, they think it shows how great they were, but in reality, it shows how ineffective they were as a leader, because succession, developing leaders and the people around them, is an important part of leadership.

Great leaders leave companies and teams running well without them.

Negative Impacts of Autocratic Leadership

Here are some negatives that often come with autocratic leadership (note that many of these intertwine together):

Lowers morale and motivation of employees

A big part of motivation is autonomy. When you take away autonomy, when employees must just do “what they are told,” when they have no choice in what they do, when they have no say in their work, it’s demotivating and demoralizing.

You end up getting less productivity, less innovation, and less initiative.

Lack of ownership

Similarly, when you make all the decisions and control everything, it’s not their work, it’s yours. It’s not their decision, it’s yours.

If something messes up, they are just “following orders.”

When you take choice and autonomy away from people, you lose out on all the benefits that come from your people taking ownership of their work.

Lack of innovation

The autocratic mentality also kills innovation.

When you don’t listen, you don’t hear new ideas. When people live in fear of making mistakes or when the mentality is to just “do as you’re told,” people aren’t innovating.

And when that happens, new ideas aren’t coming, and you miss out on possibilities and greater movement forward because of that.

Higher turnover

When morale and motivation is low, when people feel micromanaged, when they have no autonomy in their work, when it’s a “just do as you’re told” mentality, people don’t like working there, so they leave.

Ineffective communication

Autocratic communication is often one way – top down. There often isn’t any listening. When listening doesn’t happen, worse decisions are made, problems aren’t solved as effectively (if at all), and it is, again, demotivating.

During meetings, people may agree in person, but then they argue and trash the idea or decision in the hallways or in their “side meetings.”

People are also more likely to work against things because communication is one way, their choice and autonomy is removed, and it can become an act of rebellion against that.

Lack of employee growth, succession options, and leadership dependency

When you control everything, your people aren’t growing-they are just doing as they are told.

When you make all the decisions and try to solve all the problems, your people aren’t doing it, and they aren’t learning how to do it well or practicing it.

When you leave, everything will fall apart because it all depended on you.

Hurts your influence as a leader

Leadership is built on influence. When you don’t listen to people, control them, and show no trust, how much influence are you going to have with them?

Not much.

And since leadership is built off influence, your ability to lead will be handicapped.

Bringing it all together

If you look at all the aspects that many consider autocratic leadership, it’s not healthy, and it doesn’t make good leadership.

Making the decision doesn’t mean you are being autocratic. You can gather input and still make the decision. There are even times you may not consult when the situation warrants it. It’s based on situation and need, not style.

What makes you autocratic is when you include the other commonly taught aspects of it.

When the times come when you give commands and make those big quick decisions, etc., what makes those times work well for you is when beforehand you built the influence by listening and building trust and relationships with your team.

However, if you are one to control all the decisions, or your organization is heavily top-down, that could be a sign you are leaning toward being autocratic.

What matters most, however, is not what “style” you use, but the principles of leadership you follow.

Leadership isn’t about style, but principles. Follow good principles of leadership, and you can be good at leadership. Don’t, and you will fail.

The reason many aspects of autocratic leadership don’t work is that they go against good principles of leadership.

To learn more about some of the principles of leadership and what makes a good leader, check out one of our articles on principles here or my book on leadership, Essential Leadership: 65 Lessons Every Leader Needs to Know.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top