essay on autocratic leadership

Autocratic Leadership Style

Charlotte Nickerson

Research Assistant at Harvard University

Undergraduate at Harvard University

Charlotte Nickerson is a student at Harvard University obsessed with the intersection of mental health, productivity, and design.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul Mcleod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

On This Page:

The autocratic leadership style is characterized by individual control over all decisions and little input from group members. Autocratic leaders typically make choices based on their ideas and judgments and rarely accept advice from followers.

This leadership style involves clear direction, unilateral decision-making, and strict control over organizational activities. While it can lead to quick decision-making, it may discourage creative collaboration and lower employee morale.

Characteristics

Scholars generally agree that autocratic leadership styles share three major characteristics in common:

Limited input from stakeholders

Autocratic leaders make most, if not all, group decisions, leaving little room for feedback. This leadership style may voice efficiency when decisions need to be made quickly; however, this can potentially have repercussions on group morale.

For example, according to traditional management advice (Harms et al., 2018), employees who are not trusted with decisions or important tasks may question the value to bring to a company — a journalist who spends weeks doing extensive research for a story may face lowered morale if an autocratic editor decides not to publish the story simply because it was not to their taste.

Highly structured environment

Autocratically structured groups and organizations tend to be rigid in a way that clearly defines who has power. This, again, increases efficiency.

However, the strangeness of autocratic environments may also demotivate those working under the leader. For instance, a team member who knows their manager is constantly monitoring their activity may be motivated to complete their job solely out of fear.

Clearly defined rules and processes

Groups under autocratic leadership tend to have clearly defined roles, rules, and processes.

This may, however, result in those under the leader feeling as though their input is not valued. Overall, clearly defined rules and processes tend to discourage creativity and differential thinking.

Autocratic Leadership in Nursing

Traditionally, many nurses have been led using autocratic leadership styles, and these historical influences still permeate contemporary practice (Murphy, 2005). Autocratic leadership can be mirrored in organizational philosophies and disempowered staff.

Several researchers, such as Maboko (2011), have conducted studies of the impact of various leadership styles on nurse performance and morale. According to Koukkanen and Kaatajisto (2003), authoritarian leadership is an obstacle to empowerment in nursing, as it is detrimental to important functions of nursing management such as listening, conflict management champion nurses, communication, and the feeling that workers are agents of change.

Maboko attempted to examine the nursing leadership style at an academic hospital in Gauteng, South Africa, where approximately 37% of nurses leave their jobs because they did not receive support from their managers (Strachota et al., 2003).

Using qualitative methods, the researcher found that autocratic leadership tended to cause resentment among nurses and that the style often arose out of hospitals having limited information about other leadership styles — such as transformational and visionary leadership (Maboko, 2011).

Climate, Wealth, and Leadership Culture

Some scholars have described leadership styles as arising from cultural adaptations to noncultural components of the national environment, such as the harshness of a country’s climate or level of national wealth.

Van de Vliert, in an analysis of managerial survey data from 62 cultures, found that autocratic leadership at the organizational level was most prevalent in poorer countries with harsh climates. Meanwhile, autocratic leadership was seen as less effective in rich cultures with harsh climates.

Autocratic Leadership and Job Satisfaction

Numerous studies have drawn links between leadership styles and job satisfaction. Nadarasa and Thuraisingam (2012) studied the impacts of autocratic leadership styles on public and private and public school teachers.

As in other studies, the researchers found that autocratic leadership styles correlated negatively with job satisfaction.

Autocratic Leadership and Group Stability

Many scholars view autocratic leadership as the most efficient solution to group conflicts that involve the distribution of scarce resources or the provision of public goods (Hardin, 1968; Hobbes, 1651; Messick and Brewer, 1983; Solson, 1965; Vugt et al., 2003).

However, Vugt et al. (2003) have tried to challenge this view by studying the longer-term consequences of autocratic leadership styles.

In particular, the researchers hypothesized that autocratic leaders would threaten group stability by provoking members to evict the group, thus removing resources.

In Vugt et al.’s study, people worked together in small groups on a task involving the distribution of public goods. They had either autocratic, democratic, or laissez-faire leaders .

In the autocratic and democratic conditions, participants received success feedback at random, whereas in the laissez-faire condition, they received either fake success feedback or no feedback on the outcome. After engaging in each investment task, the group members could leave and join a different group for a subsequent task.

As predicted, those in the autocratic condition were more likely to choose to switch groups than those in other leadership conditions. The proportion of exciters in the autocratic condition was high enough that many groups would have failed due to not having enough members needed to produce the goods.

Thus, at least in conditions where it is straightforward to leave a group, Vugt et al. (2003) argued that autocratic leadership is not a viable solution (Ziller, 1965). These results persisted regardless of whether or not the group ultimately succeeded.

When polled, the group members in the autocratic leader condition tended to give the same reasoning for their stay or exit choices: under autocratic leadership, group members were unhappy about the amount of control they could exercise over the decision-making process (Vugt et al., 2003).

Broader research supports these findings. Some, such as Bass (1990) and Yukl (1989), have argued that the primary difference between autocratic and democratic leadership lies in the amount of control that group members have over the decision-making process.

Researchers have also found that how much people feel like they have control over the process of decision-making has more of an effect than how much people feel like they have control over the decisions themselves.

According to the exit-voice hypothesis (Hirschman, 1970), there is a trade-off in how much people are willing to exit the group and voice their dissatisfaction in a dysfunctional group.

Namely, if group members lack opportunities to voice their concerns, they will resort to exit; in situations where they are absent, they resort to voice (Vugt et al., 2003).

Advantages 

Although it has been called “obsolete” (Weiskittel, 1999) and garners largely negative attention, the autocratic style of leadership can be beneficial in some instances, such as when decisions need to be made quickly and without consulting large groups of people.

Provides Direction

Autocratic leadership can provide direction. For example, consider a small group of students that has a tendency to miss deadlines for an upcoming assignment. In this case, a strong leader — perhaps a student particularly keen on receiving a high mark — may either be assigned the role of leader or take on the task on their own.

The student may then break down the assignment into tasks, assign their peers clear roles and responsibilities, and establish deadlines, making it more likely that the group will finish a project on time with equal contributions on each member’s part.

Relieves Pressure

Autocratic leadership can also relieve pressure in cases where decisions have potentially momentous consequences. For example, military leadership may prefer an autocratic style during a country’s civil war.

This autocratic style allows group members to become highly skilled in performing their duties — rather than diffusing their time and resources into decision-making. Ultimately, this may contribute to group success when the group must perform at a higher level and under greater stress levels than usual.

Offers Structure

The autocratic leadership style can also offer structure in highly complex systems. For example, say that a drama teacher must coordinate an entire school play — from the actors to the costuming and set design.

Through a strong leadership style where all group members have been assigned specific tasks, a deadline, and rules to follow, the teacher may be able to ensure that the play runs smoothly with less confusion than would occur if the group members came to decisions democratically.

Disadvantages 

Although autocratic leadership can occasionally be useful for group efficiency and organization, there are many cases where it can be problematic, ultimately leading to low group morale, resentment, and possible group instability.

Discourages Group Input

Autocratic leadership, by definition, discourages group input. In response, group members may feel that they cannot contribute creative solutions to group problems and that their knowledge and expertise have been overlooked. Research has supported this conclusion.

For instance, Guo (2018), in a study of supervisors in Nigeria and China, found a significant negative relationship between authoritarian leadership and creativity. This became especially evident in environments where employees feared their workers and chose to be silent for fear of reprimand.

This relationship also had a strong effect when employees had little “psychological capital” — low scores on traits such as self-assurance.

Key Takeaways

• Autocratic or authoritarian leadership is characterized by the control of an individual over the decisions that impact a group with little-to-no input from group members.
• Kurt Lewin and his colleagues were the first to characterize autocratic leadership as one of three leadership styles — the other two being democratic and laissez-faire.
• By most definitions, autocratic leadership involves limited input from stakeholders, a highly structured environment, and clearly defined rules and processes. This generally makes subordinates feel they cannot contribute to the decision-making process.
• Autocratic leadership is useful in certain situations, such as when decisions need to be made quickly and efficiently — for example, in resource allocation during a natural disaster. However, autocratic leadership often decreases group member morale and endangers group stability.

Further Information

• Wang, H., & Guan, B. (2018). The positive effect of authoritarian leadership on employee performance: The moderating role of power distance. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 357.
• Gastil, J. (1994). A meta-analytic review of the productivity and satisfaction of democratic and autocratic leadership. Small Group Research, 25(3), 384-410.

Which group would use an autocratic leadership style?

An autocratic leadership style might be utilized in environments that require strong direction and unquestionable authority. This could include the military, law enforcement agencies, or manufacturing sectors where safety and procedure adherence are paramount.

It might also be used in crisis situations where swift and decisive action is necessary. However, it’s less suitable in settings that require creativity, innovation, and collaborative decision-making, like many tech or design firms.

What is the difference between authoritarian and autocratic leadership?

Authoritarian and autocratic leadership styles share similarities in that they both involve a high degree of control and decision-making power concentrated in the leader. However, there are subtle differences.

Autocratic leaders make decisions without input or consultation from others. They set policies and procedures and expect subordinates to follow without question.

While making most decisions themselves, authoritarian leaders can be more manipulative or coercive, maintaining control by creating an environment of fear or through strict discipline. This style may involve more feedback (although largely one-way) than the autocratic style.

In practice, these terms are often used interchangeably, and the exact definitions can vary slightly depending on the source.

What are the disadvantages of autocratic leadership?

Disadvantages of autocratic leadership include stifling creativity and innovation, as input from team members is rarely sought. It can also lead to low employee morale, high turnover, and a lack of personal growth for team members.

Lastly, it relies heavily on the leader, creating a risk if the leader is absent or makes poor decisions.

What are the advantages of autocratic leadership?

Autocratic leadership can result in quick decision-making, as only one person makes the decisions. It can be effective in situations requiring strong direction and control, like crisis management.

This style can also ensure consistency in operations, and it’s beneficial when team members are inexperienced and need clear, direct instructions.

Anthony M.K., Standing T.S., Glick J., et al. (2005) Leadership and nurse retention. Journal of Nursing Administration 35 (3),146–155.

Bass, B. M., & Stogdill, R. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications . Simon and Schuster.

Cherry K. (2006). Leadership Styles. Retrieved from: http://psychology.about.com/od/leadership/

Guo, L., Decoster, S., Babalola, M. T., De Schutter, L., Garba, O. A., & Riisla, K. (2018). Authoritarian leadership and employee creativity: The moderating role of psychological capital and the mediating role of fear and defensive silence. Journal of Business Research, 92, 219-230.

Hardin (1968). The tragedy of the commons.. Science (New York, N.Y.), 162(3859), 1243–1248.

Harms, P. D., Wood, D., Landay, K., Lester, P. B., & Lester, G. V. (2018). Autocratic leaders and authoritarian followers revisited: A review and agenda for the future. The  Leadership Quarterly, 29 (1), 105-122.

Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states (Vol. 25). Harvard university press. Hobbes, T (1651/1939).

Leviathan. New York: Modern Library Koukkanen L. & Katajisto J. (2003) Promoting or impending empowerment? Nurses assessment of their work environment Journal of Nursing Administration 33 , 209–215.

Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., & White, R. K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created “social climates”. The Journal of Social Psychology, 10 (2), 269-299.

 Maboko, D. R. (2012). Nursing leadership in an academic hospital in Gauteng. Journal of nursing management, 20 (7), 912-920.

Messick, D. M., Wilke, H., Brewer, M. B., Kramer, R. M., Zemke, P. E., & Lui, L. (1983). Individual adaptations and structural change as solutions to social dilemmas. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44 (2), 294.

 Murphy, L. (2005). Transformational leadership: a cascading chain reaction. Journal of Nursing Management, 13 (2), 128-136.

Nadarasa, T., & Thuraisingam, R. (2014). The influence of principals’ leadership styles on school teachers’ job satisfaction–study of secondary school in Jaffna district. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 4 (1), 1-7.

Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Strachota, E., Normandin, P., O’Brien, N., Clary, M., & Krukow, B. (2003). Reasons registered nurses leave or change employment status. JONA: The Journal of Nursing Administration, 33 (2), 111-117.

Van Vugt, M., Jepson, S. F., Hart, C. M., & De Cremer, D. (2004). Autocratic leadership in social dilemmas: A threat to group stability. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40 (1), 1-13.

Weiskittel, P. (1999). The concept of leadership. Nephrology Nursing Journal, 26 (5), 467.

Yukl, G. A. (1989). Leadership in organizations. Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: 1364 Prentice-Hall.

Ziller, R. C. (1965). Toward a theory of open and closed groups. Psychological Bulletin, 6 4(3), 164.

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2023 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

What Is Autocratic Leadership?

Characteristics, Strengths, and Weaknesses of Autocratic Leadership

Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

• Characteristics

Are You an Autocratic Leader?

Autocratic leadership, also known as authoritarian leadership, is a  leadership style characterized by individual control over all decisions and little input from group members.

Autocratic leaders typically make choices based on their ideas and judgments and rarely accept advice from followers. Autocratic leadership involves absolute, authoritarian control over a group.

Like other leadership styles, the autocratic style has both some benefits and some weaknesses. While those who rely on this approach too heavily are often seen as bossy or dictator-like, this level of control can have benefits and be useful in certain situations.

When and where the authoritarian style is most useful can depend on factors such as the situation , the type of task the group is working on, and characteristics of the team members. If you tend to utilize this type of leadership with a group, learning more about your style and the situations in which this style is the most effective can be helpful.

Characteristics of Autocratic Leadership

Some of the primary characteristics of autocratic leadership include:

• Allows little or no input from group members
• Requires leaders to make almost all of the decisions
• Provides leaders with the ability to dictate work methods and processes
• Leaves the group feeling like they aren't trusted with decisions or important tasks
• Tends to create highly structured and very rigid environments
• Discourages creativity and out-of-the-box thinking
• Establishes rules and tends to be clearly outlined and communicated

There are also three primary types of autocratic leadership: Directing (rigid), permissive (slightly more flexible), and paternalistic (strict but balanced with care and concern).

Allows for quick decision-making especially in stress-filled situations

Offers a clear chain of command or oversight

Works well where strong, directive leadership is needed

Discourages group input

Hurts morale and leads to resentment

Ignores or impairs creative solutions and expertise from subordinates

Benefits of Autocratic Leadership

The autocratic style tends to sound quite negative. It certainly can be when overused or applied to the wrong groups or situations. However, autocratic leadership can be beneficial in some instances, such as when decisions need to be made quickly without consulting with a large group of people.

Some projects require  strong leadership  to get things accomplished quickly and efficiently. When the leader is the most knowledgeable person in the group, the autocratic style can lead to fast and effective decisions. The autocratic leadership style can be useful in the following instances:

Provides Direction

Autocratic leadership can be effective in small groups where leadership is lacking . Have you ever worked with a group of students or co-workers on a project that got derailed by poor organization, a lack of leadership and an inability to set deadlines?

If so, the chances are that your grade or job performance suffered as a result. In such situations, a strong leader who utilizes an autocratic style can take charge of the group, assign tasks to different members, and establish solid deadlines for projects to be finished.

These types of group projects tend to work better when one person is either assigned the role of leader or simply takes on the job on their own. By setting clear roles, assigning tasks, and establishing deadlines, the group is more likely to finish the project on time and with everyone providing equal contributions.

Relieves Pressure

This leadership style can also be used well in cases where a great deal of pressure is involved. In situations that are particularly stressful, such as during military conflicts, group members may prefer an autocratic style.

This allows members of the group to focus on performing specific tasks without worrying about making complex decisions. This also allows group members to become highly skilled at performing certain duties, which is ultimately beneficial to the success of the entire group.

Offers Structure

Manufacturing and construction work can also benefit from the autocratic style. In these situations, it is essential that each person have a clearly assigned task, a deadline, and rules to follow.

Autocratic leaders tend to do well in these settings because they ensure that projects are finished on time and that workers follow safety rules to prevent accidents and injuries.

Downsides of Autocratic Leadership

While autocratic leadership can be beneficial at times, there are also many instances where this leadership style can be problematic. People who abuse an autocratic leadership style are often viewed as bossy, controlling, and dictatorial. This can sometimes result in resentment among group members.

Group members can end up feeling that they have no input or say in how things or done, and this can be particularly problematic when skilled and capable members of a team are left feeling that their knowledge and contributions are undermined. Some common problems with autocratic leadership:  

Discourages Group Input

Because autocratic leaders make decisions without consulting the group, people in the group may dislike that they are unable to contribute ideas. Researchers have also found that autocratic leadership often results in a lack of creative solutions to problems, which can ultimately hurt the group from performing.

Autocratic leaders tend to overlook the knowledge and expertise that group members might bring to the situation. Failing to consult with other team members in such situations hurts the overall success of the group.

Hurts Morale

Autocratic leadership can also impair the morale of the group in some cases. People tend to feel happier and perform better when they feel like they are making contributions to the future of the group. Since autocratic leaders typically do not allow input from team members, followers start to feel dissatisfied and stifled.

Is autocratic leadership good or bad?

Autocratic leadership is generally a bad thing when it is used excessively. However, it is important to note that this type of leadership can be useful in certain situations. When group members lack knowledge, need direction, and time is of the essence, autocratic leadership can provide guidance, relieve pressure, and offer the structure that group members need to succeed.

How to Be Successful With Autocratic Leadership

The autocratic style can be beneficial in some settings, but also has its pitfalls and is not appropriate for every setting and with every group. If this tends to be your dominant leadership style, there are things that you should consider whenever you are in a leadership role.  

Listen to Team Members

You might not change your mind or implement their advice, but subordinates need to feel that they can express their concerns. Autocratic leaders can sometimes make team members feel ignored or even rejected.

Listening to people with an open mind can help them feel like they are making an important contribution to the group's mission.

Establish Clear Rules

In order to expect team members to follow your rules, you need to first ensure that guidelines are clearly established and that each person on your team is fully aware of them.

Provide Tools

Once your subordinates understand the rules, you need to be sure that they actually have the education and abilities to perform the tasks you set before them. If they need additional assistance, offer oversight and training to fill in this knowledge gap.

Be Reliable

Inconsistent leaders can quickly lose the respect of their teams. Follow through and enforce the rules you have established. Establish that you are a reliable leader and your team is more likely to follow your guidance because you have built trust with them.

Recognize Success

Your team may quickly lose motivation if they are only criticized when they make mistakes but never rewarded for their successes. Try to recognize success more than you point out mistakes. By doing so, your team will respond much more favorably to your correction.

Try our fast and free quiz to find out if you tend towards autocratic leadership or one of the other styles.

While autocratic leadership does have some potential pitfalls, leaders can learn to use elements of this style wisely. For example, an autocratic style can be used effectively in situations where the leader is the most knowledgeable member of the group or has access to information that other members of the group do not.

Instead of wasting valuable time consulting with less knowledgeable team members, the expert leader can quickly make decisions that are in the best interest of the group. Autocratic leadership is often most effective when it is used for specific situations. Balancing this style with other approaches including  democratic  or transformational styles can often lead to better group performance.

Wang H, Guan B. The positive effect of authoritarian leadership on employee performance: The moderating role of power distance . Front Psychol. 2018;9:357. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00357

St. Thomas University. What is autocratic leadership? How procedures can improve efficiency .

Rosing F, Boer D, Buengeler C. When timing is key: How autocratic and democratic leadership relate to follower trust in emergency contexts .  Front Psychol . 2022;13:904605. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.904605

• Cragen, JF, Wright, DW, & Kasch, CR. Communication in Small Groups: Theory, Process, and Skills. Boston: Wadsworth; 2009.
• Daft, RL. The Leadership Experience. Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning; 2015.

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Authoritarian leadership styles and performance: a systematic literature review and research agenda

• Open access
• Published: 04 April 2022
• Volume 73 , pages 841–871, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Elia Pizzolitto   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4569-1365 1 ,
• Ida Verna   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3838-341X 1 &
• Michelina Venditti   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7269-0707 1  

52k Accesses

16 Citations

Explore all metrics

Although authoritarian leadership styles are often associated with negative performance, work climate deterioration, increased power distance, and centralized control, contradictory empirical evidence has emerged in the literature. In this paper, we perform a systematic literature review with three aims: (1) understand the effects of authoritarian leadership styles on performance, (2) study the temporal and geographical evolution of the scientific debate, and (3) establish a research agenda for the future. The results show that in the last two decades, the interest for the field has shifted from Western to Eastern countries. Moreover, many authors encourage leaders to increase or decrease their degree of authoritarian leadership depending on the context to more effectively connect leadership with performance. Therefore, leadership should be studied in light of a more complex approach that considers hybrid leadership styles and their effects on performance. Finally, we discuss our study’s limitations and managerial implications.

Similar content being viewed by others

The virtue of a controlling leadership style: Authoritarian leadership, work stressors, and leader power distance orientation

Leni Chen, Xu Huang, … Judy Jiang

Authoritarian leadership and task performance: the effects of leader-member exchange and dependence on leader

Zhen Wang, Yuan Liu & Songbo Liu

Meta-Analysis Study on the Effect of Managers’ Leadership Behaviors on Work Performance of Employees

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

Authoritarian leadership styles involve high levels of control over subordinates (Chiang et al. 2020 ). Authoritarian leaders tend to use their authority, which is ensured by organizational hierarchies, to demand absolute obedience of their followers (de Hoogh et al. 2015 ). Superiors adopting these leadership styles tend to centralize their power and accentuate the power distance between them and their subordinates (Schaubroeck et al. 2017 ). Evidence in the literature has shown that authoritarian leaders press their subordinates to achieve demanding objectives and to follow the rules (Li et al. 2018 ; Karakitapoğlu-Aygün et al. 2021 ). Although at first glance, these leadership styles may not seem to ensure a good work climate or facilitate high performance (Shen et al. 2019 ), the empirical literature has shown contrasting results during the last decades.

Authoritarian leadership styles are often associated with negative performance, complex leader–follower relationships, and high intentions of followers to leave (Schaubroeck et al. 2017 ). For example, Chiang et al. ( 2020 ) showed that the work climate worsens if authoritarian leaders operate by suppressing subordinates’ emotions. Schuh et al. ( 2012 ) showed that subordinates’ effort could be limited if superiors act as authoritarian leaders. Schaubroeck et al. ( 2017 ) demonstrated the direct relationship between subordinates’ disapproval of power distance and adverse effects of directive leadership on performance. Therefore, authoritarian leadership styles seem to clash with the high dynamism of the new globalized and hyperconnected markets.

Nevertheless, several studies have identified specific conditions under which authoritarian leadership styles can positively affect workgroup performance. For example, positive results can be achieved in workgroups characterized by high levels of traditionality and guided by authoritarian leaders (Shen et al. 2019 ). Directive leadership can ensure good outcomes when rewards are low, group size is large, and failure is not too costly (Rahmani et al. 2018 ). Moreover, authoritarian leaders can succeed in workgroups with low team power struggles (de Hoogh et al. 2015 ) and high participation (Sagie 1996 ). Finally, Karakitapoğlu-Aygün et al. ( 2021 ) highlighted that authoritarian leadership styles can positively affect communication if authority is not exaggerated. These contrasting results highlight the need for a comprehensive review of the evolution of the scientific debate on this topic.

Furthermore, cultural prejudice about the effectiveness of authoritarian leadership styles should be addressed in light of the complexity of new businesses. For example, authoritarian and paternalistic leadership styles are “still predominant in many Asian cultures” (Shen et al. 2019 : 498), where Confucianism is widespread and applied in business (Shen et al. 2019 ). In particular, the literature highlights the “necessity of challenging the deeply rooted beliefs held by many Chinese managers that authoritarian leadership is an effective leadership strategy” (Li et al. 2019 : 951). Nevertheless, authoritarian leadership styles are popular in contemporary business organizations worldwide (Chiang et al. 2020 ). Therefore, empirical evidence reveals a contradiction between organizational theory and practice: even though authoritarian leadership styles are formally considered ineffective, management employs this kind of leadership in practice worldwide. The literature highlights the importance of “leadership styles prevalent in the culture under investigation and examines its cultural roots and dominant psychological mechanisms” (Chen et al. 2014 : 813). Consequently, questions arise about the evolution of the authoritarian leadership concept and applications of authority in leaders’ behaviors.

A considerable number of literature reviews have debated the effects of leadership styles on performance. For example, Yahaya and Ebrahim’s ( 2016 ) review on this topic was limited to transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles. Harrison et al. ( 2016 ) devoted their systematic review to entrepreneurial leadership and its effects on performance. Georgakakis et al. ( 2019 ) analyzed the role assumptions of CEOs and top management teams, organizing them into theoretical categories. However, their research did not classify authoritarian leadership styles depending on these assumptions. Laureani and Antony’s ( 2017 ) comprehensive literature review discussed the effects of a general conceptualization of leadership and its effects on Lean Six Sigma. Servant leadership’s effects on performance were debated by Langhof and Güldenberg ( 2019 ) and Parris and Peachey ( 2013 ). The general effects of leadership on performance were discussed by Asrar-ul-Haq and Anwar ( 2018 ). To summarize, although the literature highlights the importance of leadership for performance, we could not find a review devoted to authoritarian leadership styles and their outcomes.

For these reasons, we concentrated on authoritarian leadership styles–i.e., authoritarian, autocratic, directive, and paternalistic leadership – to explore literature findings of their effects on performance. In particular, we perform a systematic literature review (SLR) to answer the following research questions:

RQ1: What are the effects of authoritarian leadership styles on performance?

RQ2: What has been the temporal and geographical evolution of the scientific debate concerning the effects of authoritarian leadership styles on performance?

RQ3: How does the discussion about authoritarian leadership styles make sense in light of the strong dynamism of new markets?

The article is structured as follows. We define the key concepts, i.e., authoritarian, autocratic, directive, and paternalistic leadership. After that, we describe in detail the methodology employed for the selection and analysis of the literature. The subsequent descriptive analysis shows the results of publications’ years, typologies, and fields and the evolution of authors’ and statistical units’ origins over time. Then, we develop the content analysis with a conceptual map of the field, an analysis of the most employed theories, the themes that emerged, and the future research opportunities identified by the authors of selected articles. Finally, we conclude our article with a general discussion of the results and indications for the future expansion of this study.

2 Definitions of key concepts

In this study, we refer to four leadership styles: authoritarian, autocratic, directive, and paternalistic. In this section, we present four definitions derived from the extracted articles' content in our dataset. In the past, the literature treated authoritarian, autocratic, and directive leadership styles interchangeably (Chiang et al. 2020 ). However, commonalities and differences have emerged during the most recent debate.

Authoritarian leadership styles “include exercising discipline, authority, and control over followers” (Karakitapoğlu-Aygün et al. 2021 : 475). They demand that employees meet high work standards and reprimand employees for poor performance (Wang et al. 2013 ; Lee et al. 2019 ). To achieve these goals, authoritarian leaders exhibit high self-confidence and plan their actions to ensure that their subordinates do not challenge their authority. Authoritarian, autocratic, and directive leaders limit “followers’ autonomy and self-determination, whereby leaders control followers via impersonal procedures and rules” (Li et al. 2019 : 931). They provide “clear directions and expectations regarding compliance with instructions” (Sanchez-Manzanares et al. 2020 : 840). After that, they tend to centralize decisions and limit subordinates’ opportunities to express their opinions (Yun et al. 2005 ).

In addition to revealing commonalities among authoritarian leadership styles, the literature shows substantial differences. According to Chiang et al. ( 2020 ), authoritarian and autocratic leadership styles differ in two main characteristics. First, evidence in the literature does not associate autocratic with destructive leadership styles, while authoritarian leadership is often associated with the ‘dark side’ of leadership. Second, autocratic leaders are task-oriented and therefore are accepted by subordinates. Authoritarian leaders, instead, trigger feelings such as fear of distrust. Moreover, authoritarian and directive leaders differ in the way they give subordinates feedback. In particular, “a directive leader focuses on providing guidance”, while an authoritarian leader “focuses on controlling and making demands of subordinates” (Chiang et al. 2020 : 1085).

Moreover, authoritarian behaviors are part of the construct of paternalistic leadership, which “combines strong discipline and authority with fatherly benevolence and moral integrity in a personalistic atmosphere” (Wu et al. 2012 : 97). Therefore, paternalistic leaders have a genuine interest in subordinates’ well-being in both their professional and private lives (Hiller et al. 2019 ). The construct of paternalistic leadership consists of three dimensions: authoritarianism, benevolence, and morality (Chen et al. 2014 ; Chou et al. 2015 ; Hiller et al. 2019 ). The most crucial difference between paternalistic leaders and authoritarian, autocratic, and directive leaders is the benevolent side of this style. While morality could be associated with directive leadership and authority could be ascribed to authoritarian and autocratic styles, benevolence can be ascribed only to paternalistic behaviors.

3 Methodology

SLR is a methodology characterized by a rigorous protocol (Denyer and Tranfield 2009 ; Post et al. 2020 ), in which authors’ interpretation and creativity are limited to achieve the highest possible level of objectivity (Boell and Cecez-Kecmanovic 2015 ; Snyder 2019 ). According to most authors who have debated the SLR methodology, the SLR procedure is a fit when a researcher seeks proof in the literature to answer specific research questions. Our research examines a small group of leadership styles, i.e., authoritarian styles, and their effects on firm and employee performance. Given this level of specificity, the SLR was the best available methodology for answering our questions.

The protocol we chose for our SLR was proposed by Wolfswinkel et al. ( 2013 ), who introduced the application of grounded theory (GT) for developing content analyses in SLRs. GT (Corbin and Strauss 1990 ; Strauss and Corbin 1997 ) is a research method based on the interpretative paradigm about sociological research, which interprets the processes underlying a specific phenomenon. Using open, axial, and selective coding (Table 1 ), the research starts from a set of documents and organizes their contents into subthemes, themes, and, eventually, superordinate structures.

The advantage of using GT is that researchers concentrate on concepts and theories to reveal themes debated in the literature during the analysis; the themes are not decided before the study (Wolfswinkel et al. 2013 ). Given that our research was not driven by any previous convictions about the effects of authoritarian leadership styles on performance and was not influenced by cultural prejudice, GT was the best possible choice to develop our content analysis. Table 1 shows the detailed steps of the protocol we followed, and Fig.  1 shows a PRISMA 2020 (Page et al. 2021 ) flowchart that displays the process of the extraction and selection of relevant articles.

Extraction and inclusion of relevant contributions: PRISMA 2020 (Page et al. 2021 )

4 Descriptive analysis of the dataset

4.1 publications’ years, typologies, authors, and fields.

Figure  2 shows the number of theoretical (orange) and empirical (blue) publications per year. From 1966 to 2000, the average number of publications was 0.49 per year. During the following decade, the average was one per year. Finally, from 2011 to 2021, the average number of publications was 2.45 per year. Moreover, the average number of authors per document increased over time. From 1966 to 2000, the average number of authors per publication was 2.06. From 2001 to 2010, the average was 3.00. Finally, from 2011 to 2021, the average was 3.85. Therefore, the increasing number of publications and authors involved in the debate demonstrates the increasing interest in the topic. In particular, the distribution of articles per year shows a considerable focus on empirical research. In the dataset, 47 articles are empirical, and only seven are theoretical.

Number of publications per year

Our research covered a wide range of journals and fields. The fields interested in the topic also changed over time, as shown in Fig. 3 a and b. From 1966 to 2010, 48% of the articles were published in organizational psychology journals. In the next decade, this percentage decreased to 29%. Organization studies journals published 19% of the articles from 1966–2010, while from 2011 to 2021, this percentage increased to 22%. From 1966 to 2010, there were two articles published in general psychology journals, and in the next decade, there were none. General management, ethics, and social responsibility journals published 11% of the articles from 1966 to 2010 and 18% from 2011 to 2021. Finally, a new considerable area emerged during the last decade of analysis: international business and area studies journals published 15% of the articles from 2011 to 2021.

a Fields (1966–2010). b Fields (2011–2021)

To summarize, during the analyzed period, the topic was debated in journals in the fields of psychology, organization studies, general management, ethics, and social responsibility. During the last decade, international business and area studies journals emerged as a new and relevant field interested in debating issues related to authoritarian leadership styles. The wide range of fields that debate the topic reflect its multifaceted nature. More specifically, the considerable number of viewpoints considered in discussing authoritarian leadership styles and their effects on performance reveal the complexity of the topic. Moreover, the influences of so many different fields on the scientific debate justify the vast number of contradictory results in empirical research. The considerable number of different scientific viewpoints demonstrates the phenomenological nature of the field. Therefore, the wide variety of areas and the increasing amount of contrasting empirical evidence should be seen as an opportunity and not as a limitation.

4.2 Evolution of authors’ origins over time

The total number of authors included in the dataset is 148. The authors’ origins evolved over time (Fig.  4 a and b). Between 1966 and 2010, most authors were from the USA (43, 66.15%), 6 were from Switzerland (although they were all concentrated in one article), five were from Canada (7.69%), four were from Israel (6.15%), and the rest were from Norway, Australia, France, or Finland.

a Authors’ origins (1966–2010). b Authors’ origins (2011–2021)

During the following decade, interest in the field shifted from Western to Eastern countries. Although most of the authors remained from the USA (29, 27.88%), China emerged with 23 authors (22.12%), Taiwan with 12 authors (11.54%), and Hong Kong with five authors. Together, Eastern countries contributed 40 authors, representing 38.46% of the total. Other countries represented during this period included the UK with ten authors (9.62%) and the Netherlands with four authors (3.85%).

To summarize, Western authors dominated the field of authoritarian leadership from 1966 to 2011, but Eastern countries emerged in the field during the last decade. The rapid development of Eastern economies, together with the increasing scientific competencies of the Eastern population, allowed these countries to participate in this debate. Comparing the current situation with the future conditions of the field in the next ten years would be interesting to verify whether this shift in scientific interest will be amplified by the continuous improvement of the Eastern scientific community’s participation. Moreover, authoritarian leadership styles are typical in most Eastern businesses. Therefore, it would be interesting to verify whether research on authoritarian leadership by Eastern authors will improve the empirical knowledge of the field.

4.3 Evolution of statistical units’ origins over time

A statistical unit is the unit of research observation: it is an entity–or set of entities–for which data are collected. The evolution of statistical units’ origins over time was similar to the evolution of the authors’ origins (Fig. 5 a and b). Many of the 47 empirical papers in our dataset involved collaboration between authors from different countries (e.g., Chiang et al. 2020 ). Similarly, some papers used a sample of statistical units from different countries (e.g., Sutcliffe 1999 ; Wang et al. 2018 ).

a Statistical units’ origins (1966–2010). b Statistical units’ origins (2011–2021)

Before 2011, more than 70% of the empirical papers employed statistical units from North America: 62.50% from the USA and 8.33% from Canada. Only three papers employed statistical units from Israel. After 2010, the data shifted. Only four studies employed statistical units from North America, and all of them were from the USA. The presence of Eastern countries increased substantially. Nine papers employed Chinese statistical units, five used statistical units from Taiwan, one used statistical units from Japan, and one used statistical units from Turkey. Therefore, after 2010, 66.67% of empirical papers employed Eastern or Middle-Eastern statistical units.

5 Content analysis

In this section, we present the content analysis of the articles included in our dataset. We start with a conceptual map based on the work of Menz ( 2011 ) (Fig.  6 ). After that, we show the most commonly used theories in the articles. Further, we identify the results of our grounded analysis of themes that emerged during the content analysis. Finally, authors’ suggestions for future research are discussed.

Conceptual map of the field

To design the conceptual map in Fig.  6 , we identified the main aim of each article in the database. We thus revealed three of the most significant general components of the scientific debate, i.e., context, actions, and consequences/outcomes, and we grouped the evidence that emerged from the content analysis into these three elements. After that, we found that mediators and moderators of leadership effects on outcomes/consequences were analyzed in detail by the considered literature.

5.1 Theories employed in the extracted articles

Table 2 shows the employed theories that appeared more than once in the dataset. Moreover, we show the leadership styles considered by the articles in which we found the theories.

Paternalistic leadership is associated with Confucianism. Chen et al. ( 2014 referred to two pillars of Confucianism, i.e., hierarchy and relationalism. The former pillar involves respect for superiors, and the latter indicates that individuals with close relationships tend to “exchange favors beyond instrumental purposes” (Chen et al. 2014 : 799). Wei et al. ( 2016 ) considered Confucian concepts of reflection ( si ), heart ( qing ), and mind-heart ( xin ) to achieve a more comprehensive framework of leaders’ compassionate actions. Specifically, through these three concepts, the authors integrated the framework of compassion with the Confucian perspective.

Attribution theory aims to explain how subordinates or followers react to their perception of their leaders’ behavior. Kipnis et al. ( 1981 ) used attribution theory to study employee evaluation. In particular, they referred to the power usage model to highlight that managers’ perceptions of “who is in charge of employee’s behavior” (Kipnis, 1981 : 324) are the most critical variable for managers’ evaluation of their employees. Moreover, Schuh et al. ( 2012 ) used attribution theory to study how followers seek leaders’ signals to perceive their behaviors. Finally, Wang et al. ( 2013 ) used this theory to understand the impact of leaders’ gender on subordinates’ performance.

Chang et al. ( 2003 ) used path-goal theory to identify four categories of leadership: participative, supportive, directive, and achievement-oriented. Kahai et al. ( 2004 ) added path-goal theory to adaptive structuration theory to predict the effects of two kinds of leadership, i.e., participative and directive.

Finally, contingency theory and cognitive resource theory were among the most used theories. For example, Yun et al. ( 2005 ) used contingency theory to show the different effects of leadership styles that adapt to different trauma conditions. Murphy et al. ( 1992 ) used cognitive resource theory to relate leaders’ technical training to group members’ performance.

5.2 Identified themes

This paragraph describes the results of our grounded analysis of the 43 articles’ contents. In particular, we show the effects of authoritarian leadership style on the different typologies of performance highlighted by the authors. Figure  7 summarizes the results, highlighting the differences within the four leadership styles analyzed in terms of authority, power, attitude towards followers, and effectiveness. In the following section, we start from the authoritarian leadership style, and finish with paternalistic leadership.

Authoritarian, autocratic, directive, and paternalistic leadership styles

5.2.1 Authoritarian leadership style and performance

Authoritarian leadership exercises control and authority over followers, limiting their autonomy and self-determination, and is often associated with the “dark side” of leadership (Chiang et al. 2020 ). The articles considered in this literature review which were devoted explicitly to this leadership style are relatively recent, and, in most cases, authors present studies in which the analyzed samples comprise Asian participants.

Authoritarian leadership and team performance In general, results in regard to the effects of authoritarian leadership on performance are coherent. In particular, most of the publications in our sample showed that authoritarian leadership had adverse (e.g., Scully et al. 1994 ), or, in some cases, insignificant (e.g., Chen et al. 2017 ) effects. A positive relation between authoritarian leadership and team performance was found by Fodor ( 1976 ), but this is a relatively isolated result.

Moreover, authoritarian leadership affects followers’ organizational and relational identity, often reducing their intention to stay (e.g., Schaubroeck et al. 2017 ; Shen et al. 2019 ) and suppressing emotions (e.g., Chiang et al. 2020 ). In particular, authoritarian leaders’ lack of any emotional side leads to negative team performance, as verified by Chiang et al. ( 2020 ), who recently analyzed this phenomenon in relation to three large public Japanese companies.

Authoritarian leadership and in-role and extra-role performance Two articles debated the relations between authoritarian leadership style and in-role and extra-role performance. Schuh et al. ( 2012 ) considered a sample of 114 Chinese subordinate–supervisor dyads, finding that the leaders’ authoritarian behavior had adverse effects on the two typologies of performance in the context of highly transformational leadership. In the context of low transformational leadership, however, the effects were not significant.

More recently, Karakitapoğlu-Aygün et al. ( 2021 ) considered Turkish, Taiwanese, and US employees and found that, although in the Asian context people are more willing to tolerate authoritarian leadership styles, leaders’ authoritarian behavior can compromise the quality of communication, which is a critical moderator of followers’ performance.

Authoritarian leadership and job performance Schaubroeck et al. ( 2017 ) considered the Chinese high-tech field and its employees and supervisors, demonstrating that an authoritarian leadership style promoted the worst job performance within contexts in which subordinates’ power distance was not accepted by subordinates. In contexts in which the power distance was accepted, authoritarian leadership had no significant effects on job performance. Moreover, Shen et al. ( 2019 ) monitored how the indirect adverse effects of authoritarian leadership style on job performance varied according to the traditionality of groups and found significant effects, at least for groups with a low level of traditionality.

Authoritarian leadership style limits followers’ self-efficacy and proactivity, as demonstrated by Li et al. ( 2019 ) in the context of the dyadic relations between Chinese leaders and followers. Moreover, an authoritarian leadership style can limit innovation and creativity (Lee et al. 2019 ).

5.2.2 Autocratic leadership style and performance

Although autocratic leadership shares its main characteristics with authoritarian leadership, it is less destructive and it is task-oriented; therefore, it tends to be associated with a higher level of acceptance by followers. In the set of articles we studied, autocratic leadership was not considered in Eastern Countries, although some authors hypothesized that it could be more accepted in such contexts (e.g., Misumi & Peterson 1985 ).

In general, autocratic leadership style can have both positive and negative effects on performance, depending on the contextual conditions (De Hoogh et al. 2015 ). In 1971, Rosenbaum and Rosenbaum considered the effects of autocratic leadership on task performance. Through an experiment which involved US students, they verified that the effects of this leadership style were positive on performance in a highly stressed condition but not on satisfaction. Ten years later, Kipnis et al. ( 1981 ) analyzed the effects of autocratic behaviors on leaders’ evaluation of their followers. Given this leadership style does not leave decision-making power to followers, it leads to a worse performance, both at team and individual level. This condition leads leaders to evaluate followers more poorly.

Finally, autocratic leadership, like authoritarian leadership, promotes better performance in contexts in which hierarchy is well-accepted by followers (De Hoogh et al. 2015 ). Nevertheless, autocratic leadership can compromise the team’s psychological self-confidence, worsening performance.

5.2.3 Directive leadership style and performance

Directive leaders exercise discipline and control over followers but, instead of focusing on making demands, they focus on providing guidance and feedback (Chiang et al. 2020 ). A coherent baseline can be identified during the entire period of directive leadership development in the literature, from Shaw and Blum ( 1966 ) to Yi et al. ( 2021 ). In particular, the latter made a critical contribution to the interpretation of directive leadership and its effects on performance, identifying an inverse U relation between the two variables. Although Yi et al.’s ( 2021 ) article is not a review, its results represent one of the more effective summaries to have emerged in the worldwide empirical literature to date. In fact, most of the literature has concentrated on finding specific situations in which a directive leadership style can have negative and positive effects on different typologies of performance.

Although the positive effects of directive leadership on performance and satisfaction could be considered counterintuitive at first sight, a convincing reason for their existence was provided by Kahai et al. ( 2004 ) through an analysis of cognitive evaluation theory. In particular, “structures external to an individual, such as leader directiveness, have control and informational components” (Kahai et al. 2004 : 94). The two components affect, respectively, the conformity of behaviors and perceived competence. The informational component allows a reduction of perceived role ambiguity and an increase in followers’ trust in leaders and motivation (Kahai et al., 2004 ; Chen et al., 2017 ).

Few articles explicitly found situations in which directive leadership leads only to adverse performance effects. For example, in the context of car dealers in North Europe, Chang et al. ( 2003 ) identified that customer focus could be compromised by a directive leadership style, adversely affecting quantitative parameters of performance measurement (e.g., productivity and profitability).

Directive leadership and task performance When the directive leadership literature first began to develop, academic analysis was concentrated in North America, especially the United States. In particular, tests in the first years were performed through laboratory experiments that involved undergraduates, and directive leadership was already seen to produce positive and negative effects on performance depending on the context. Shaw and Blum ( 1966 ) analyzed the effectiveness of directive leadership for task performance by studying changes in the task structures, and their experiment found that directive leaders managed more structured tasks better.

Nevertheless, not all studies have supported this finding. For example, Kahai et al. ( 2004 ) found a reduction of the positive effects of directive leadership for highly structured tasks. Therefore, the level of task structure which causes directive leadership to be more or less effective on performance remains an open issue.

Directive leadership and team performance: highly technical contexts Another relevant example is the work published by Murphy et al. ( 1992 ) that analyzed highly technical contexts. In particular, they demonstrated how, in such contexts, directive leadership could be effective in terms of team performance, but it has to be associated with the technical knowledge of leaders. This finding was confirmed by Sutcliffe ( 1999 ), who analyzed performances in business process reengineering through quantitative methods and the participation of IT executives from North America and Europe. The highly technical content of the context determined the greater efficacy of directive leadership in assignment and task facilitation, objective definition, and team performance. These findings were confirmed more recently by Rahmani et al. ( 2018 ), who verified how projects characterized by high knowledge intensity need directive leadership to be completed effectively.

Moreover, Hansen and Nørup ( 2017 ) considered a Danish ICT context and found that the concurrent employment of directive and participative leadership was the best possible strategy for perceived performance during project implementation. Similar results have been presented in the past. For example, Tjosvold ( 1984 ) identified that directive leaders’ warmth and sincere interest in followers’ productivity were effective mediators of work-related performance.

Further information on highly technical circumstances was provided by Yun et al. ( 2005 ) in a US medical context. In particular, their work highlighted how the directive leadership style promoted different effects depending on specific contextual elements. The study showed that such effects changed depending on the seriousness of the problem and teams’ experience, with positive effects found at high levels of problem seriousness and low levels of team experience.

The same context was considered by Tschan et al. ( 2006 ) in Switzerland, where the authors identified positive effects of directive leadership on team performance. The study was performed in two phases, and it was found, in particular, that directive leadership had an additive effect, showing more effectiveness in the second phase for groups that had already obtained good results in the first.

Directive leadership and team performance: unstable and dynamic contexts Hmieleski and Ensley ( 2007 ), who analyzed the context of the fastest-growing US startups, verified that directive leadership is better adapted to dynamic and unstable contexts in which decisions should be taken immediately. This tendency was confirmed by Lorinkova et al. ( 2013 ), who involved some US students in their study and demonstrated that team performance in groups guided by directive leaders was positive in the short run and stabilized thereafter. At the beginning of project implementation, the context is unstable, tasks are not permanently assigned, and competencies are yet to be developed. In such contexts, directive leadership is more effective.

Mossholder et al. ( 1990 ) had already found similar results by integrating time in their study of leadership. In fact, the longer the duration of dyadic relations, the less followers are affected by leaders’ behaviors. In particular, directive leadership is initially more effective in complex contexts (e.g., engineering). Over time, followers become confident in their competencies, and non-directive styles are the best choice for satisfaction and job performance. Sanchez-Manzanares et al. ( 2020 ) further confirmed such effects in the Spanish context. Their study verified that when pressure is strong, directive leadership is more effective for team performance and adaptation.

Given that leadership is a highly phenomenological construct, not all the studies found significant relationships between directive leadership and team performance. For example, Faraj and Sambamurthy ( 2006 ), who also analyzed a technological context (i.e., information systems development projects) in the USA, found nothing to support this relationship.

Directive leadership and team performance: Asian contexts Although there has been a particularly notable recent contribution from Eastern authors to the literature on directive leadership, interesting works have been published by Asian academics previously. These publications suggested that this typology of leadership style is more accepted in Eastern countries than in Western areas. Nevertheless, we identified a tendency among Eastern authors to suggest that smoothing the directive side of leadership can foster better performance. For example, Sagie ( 1996 ) developed a study which involved the participation of students in Israel and underlined that directive leadership produced positive results but that, at the same time, when leaders used a more communicative approach to define goals in a participative way, the positive effects on team performance increased.

An interesting comparison can be made between Somech ( 2006 ) and Hmieleski and Ensley ( 2007 ), who considered the effects of directive leadership on team performance, starting from different levels of team homogeneity. In this sense, interpreting directive leadership as a mediator or moderator of such an effect, Somech ( 2006 ) considered the Israeli context and analyzed in-depth the effects of directive leadership style on in-role performance and team innovation, considering different levels of team homogeneity. In particular, a more homogeneous team, in terms of professional backgrounds and abilities, can put more pressure to achieve conformity. In this case, directive leadership promotes better performance. In contrast, an analysis of the US context by Hmieleski and Ensley ( 2007 ) highlighted that top management team heterogeneity could lead to positive results if a directive leadership style is adopted. Therefore, to achieve better performance, directive leadership should be associated with top management team heterogeneity and low-level team homogeneity.

5.2.4 Paternalistic leadership and performance

The paternalistic leadership style is traditionally described as a construct composed of three dimensions: authority, morality, and benevolence. Nevertheless, Wang et al. ( 2018 ) published an innovative interpretation of this leadership style. In particular, they stated that previous literature joined three separate styles: benevolence-dominant paternalistic leadership, in which benevolence dominates over authority; authoritarianism-dominant paternalistic leadership, in which authority dominates over benevolence; and classical paternalistic leadership, in which no dimension dominates. Therefore, the definition and foundation of paternalistic leadership style can be considered an open issue in the literature.

In general, paternalistic leadership is based on Confucian philosophy, which is particularly studied in Eastern contexts, in which it is present and appreciated (Shen et al. 2019 ). In the set of articles we studied, almost all the articles analyzed Asian statistical units, and there was a general tendency to consider paternalistic leadership an effective style in terms of performance.

Paternalistic leadership and task performance Chan et al. ( 2012 ) and Chou et al. ( 2015 ) considered the effects of paternalistic leadership on task performance. The former concentrated on the authoritarian and benevolent components of this leadership style in relation to Chinese supervisor–subordinate dyads. The benevolent dimensions were shown to be a moderator of the adverse effects caused by the authoritarian dimension on task performance, organization-based self-esteem, and organizational citizenship behavior toward the organization. The latter, which focused on the Taiwanese military, considered the authoritarian and moral dimensions of paternalistic leadership and found that, in such a context, high levels of both dimensions were the most widespread and appreciated by followers.

Paternalistic leadership, job performance, and trust Numerous studies have considered the effects of the paternalistic leadership style on work and job performance, and Wu et al. ( 2012 ) studied such effects by analyzing supervisor–subordinates dyads in the Chinese context. Although paternalistic leadership has already been associated with positive performance, the researchers identified international justice as a possible mediator of this relation, both for job performance and organizational citizenship behavior.

Wang et al. ( 2018 ), who compared dyads in Taiwanese and US contexts through their innovative vision of paternalistic leadership, verified that if the authoritarian dimension dominates leaders’ style, the effects on job performances are adverse. In contrast, if benevolence is dominant, or if there is an equilibrium between the two dimensions, the effects are positive. The same results were obtained by Hiller et al. ( 2019 ), who explained that adverse effects could extend to organizational citizenship behavior, creativity, turnover intention, and counterproductive attitudes.

Chen et al. ( 2014 ) found significant influences of all three dimensions of paternalistic leadership for in-role and extra-role performance. Their results were similar to those of previous studies: the authoritarian dimension negatively affected the two typologies of performance differently from the other two dimensions. Moreover, affective trust was a significant mediator between benevolent and moral dimensions and role performance.

The meta-analysis carried out by Legood et al. ( 2020 ) demonstrated that affective trust could effectively predict followers’ performance. Moreover, this study remarked that specific conditions exist which foster the effectiveness of the paternalistic leadership style. In particular, trust is promoted by a paternalistic leadership style when the power distance is low. When the power distance increases, however, the benevolent dimension should be more and more dominant to ensure a positive work-related performance.

5.2.5 Directive leadership vs. empowering and participative leadership styles

Numerous articles have debated the differences between directive and empowering leadership styles. Specifically, empowering leadership is a style focused on “sharing power with employees and increasing their responsibility and autonomy to perform their work” (Sanchez-Manzanares et al. 2020 : 840). Most articles debating this comparison state that directive and empowering leadership styles have different and significant effects on performance, with limited exceptions (e.g., Faraj & Sambamurthy 2006 ).

In stressful contexts, directive leadership showed higher effectiveness in regard to team adaptation and performance (Sanchez-Manzanares et al., 2020 ). In contrast, in less complicated situations, empowering leadership has a positive effect on team performance (Yun et al. 2005 ).

Empowering and directive leadership were also compared according to levels of team homogeneity. In particular, Hmieleski and Ensley ( 2007 ) examined the US startup context. They found that, in unstable environments, a directive leadership style was more effective for firm performance when top management teams were heterogeneous, while empowering leadership positively affected performance when top management teams were homogeneous. In stable environments, however, the effects were the opposite.

Other studies performed in similar contexts gave different results in regard to comparisons of directive and participative leadership styles. Rahmani et al. ( 2018 ) found that directive leadership is more effective than participative leadership in fields with high knowledge intensity, whereas Hansen and Nørup ( 2017 ) found that employing a directive and participative leadership style combination is the best strategy for implementing projects in ICT environments. The same results were obtained in an experiment performed by Sagie ( 1996 ).

Moreover, through experiments, Sauer ( 2011 ) found that the effectiveness of leaders depends on their position in the firm. In particular, low-status leaders are perceived as more effective if they adopt a directive style, while high-status leaders are perceived as more effective if they adopt a participative leadership style. Somech ( 2006 ) found that when groups are functionally heterogeneous, the participative leadership style is more effective than the directive style, which is ineffective in functionally homogeneous groups. Directive leadership can reduce role ambiguity and, therefore, increase the quantity of communication. Thus, directive and participative leadership can positively affect group performance and satisfaction (Kahai et al. 2004 ).

5.3 Further research opportunities

This section presents further research opportunities that selected articles’ authors identified in their research. We found four main areas of interest (Table 3 ). First, replications of studies in different cultural contexts were widely suggested by authors. Second, further research opportunities examining novel and multiple leadership styles were identified. Third, emotions and perception were suggested as promising further research opportunities. Finally, authors identified the need to analyze the power of moderator and mediator variables influencing the relationship between leadership styles and performance.

6 Discussion

In this paper, we performed an SLR to achieve a better understanding of authoritarian leadership styles on the different typologies on performance considered in the literature. Although the literature presents considerable evidence highlighting the need for leaders to adapt to different contexts (e.g., Yun et al., 2005 ; Chiang et al., 2020 ), our findings showed that, when leaders limit the authoritarian component of their styles, there are more contexts in which the considered leadership styles can be effective. The level of authority, discipline, and control over followers decreases as leaders move from authoritarian to paternalistic leadership styles, passing through autocratic and directive styles.

There is a general consensus among researchers that the authoritarian style is the worst leadership style for performance. Differenly, the autocratic leadership style is more task-oriented and tends to be more accepted by followers (Chiang et al. 2020 ). It has positive effects on performance in very stressful environments. In contrast, the directive leadership style has been shown to produce positive effects on performance in a considerable number of contexts, and it has been most frequently demonstrated to be an effective strategy for numerous typologies of performance in unstable, dynamic, and highly technical environments. Paternalistic leadership has been shown to be the most balanced style. Its three dimensions (i.e., authority, morality, and benevolence) lead to better effects on performance, especially when the benevolent and moral dimensions dominate the authority one.

Finally, although authoritarian leadership styles are more accepted in Eastern countries (e.g., Karakitapoğlu-Aygün et al. 2021 ), the literature showed a tendency to ask that the “dark side” of leadership style be smoothed, even in Asian contexts. Smoothing the authoritarian side of leadership could be obtained through better communication (e.g., Karakitapoğlu-Aygün et al. 2021 ; Sagie 1996 ) or through leaders’ sincere interest in their followers’ lives and productivity (Tjosvold 1984 ).

In the following section, we present the limitations of our work, propose a research agenda for further in-depth analysis in line with our study, and discuss the practical implications of our paper.

6.1 Limitations and research agenda

The principal outcome of our study is the finding that a considerable number of mediators, moderators, and specific conditions can change the effects of authoritarian leadership styles on performance. In particular, the leadership style appears to be a complex condition that cannot be superficially ascribed to a single and peculiar style detached from other leadership models that supervisors may apply. It is, instead, a changing condition: leaders are often able to change their degree of authority in line with objectives, followers’ behaviors, and other specific conditions (Kahai et al. 2004 ). For example, paternalistic leaders can increase or decrease leadership dimensions (i.e., authoritarian, benevolence, and morality) depending on the context, actions, subordinates’ behaviors, and desired outcomes.

Given that a discussion about single and detached leadership styles does not make sense in light of the dynamism of the new globalized and hyperconnected markets, the study of hybrid leadership styles is still open and promising. The in-depth analysis of specific circumstances in which leaders can change the degree of a specific dimension of their leadership styles is a critical stimulus for future researchers. In particular, authoritarian leaders are suitable units of analysis: the literature widely recognizes that more democratic leadership styles (e.g., empowering) positively affect performance. Instead, authoritarian leaders have to increasingly adapt their style, which collides with the changing conditions of jobs, markets, and diffuse beliefs about the negative impact of exaggerated authority (Sauer 2011 ). Therefore, in future research, examining authoritarian leadership styles will probably be the key to achieving an in-depth understanding of hybrid leadership styles.

Moreover, we encourage future researchers to overcome two limitations of our paper. The first relates to the conceptual map we drawn in Fig.  6 . The thematic map shows three main groups of evidence: context, actions, and consequences/outcomes. These three dimensions are connected in a linear relationship that starts from the context and produces the effects on performance. Nevertheless, Dourish ( 2004 ) suggests that in fields where the phenomenological nature of results is undeniable (as it is for leadership), context is much more than a starting point. In particular, “from a phenomenological perspective […] context does not describe a setting; it is something that people do. It is an achievement, rather than an observation; an outcome, rather than a premise” (Dourish 2004 : 22). Therefore, we encourage further research to find theoretical and empirical evidence of performance effects on leadership. In particular, are leaders willing and able to change their style depending on previous performance?

The second limitation of our work is that the comparison we made between authoritarian and non-authoritarian leadership styles (§5.2.5) was not the final aim of our article. It was a secondary result. However, it underlined a critical starting point for further research opportunities. In particular, we encourage future researchers to explore in much more detail the differences among leadership styles in their effects on performance. We call for research reviewing a broader range of leadership styles to highlight the main differences in their outcomes. We are aware that this is a demanding objective. Therefore, in our opinion, meta-analyses should help organize the considerable number of papers published on the topic. In particular, a restriction in the time range of articles extracted could support researchers in limiting bias and reducing the time needed for the analysis.

6.2 Managerial implications

While the theoretical implications of our study are clear, since we fill the gap concerning the effects of authoritarian leadership styles on performance, this review also has relevant practical implications. In particular, we identified three groups that could benefit form the managerial implications: leaders, top management teams, and recruiters and human resources management (HRM).

Leaders should be aware of their leadership styles (Chiang et al. 2020 ; Karakitapoğlu-Aygün et al. 2021 ). Given that under specific conditions, authoritarian leadership is effective, leaders have to be trained to understand the nature of their behaviors. To achieve this demanding objective, they have to gain in-depth knowledge of each leadership style’s positive and negative effects. As a consequence, they should be able to limit the degree of their authority and their centralizing tendency. There are several opportunities to help leaders achieve this goal. For example, HRM can design jobs with autonomous features (Li et al. 2019 ) and encourage regular feedback between superiors and subordinates (Karakitapoğlu-Aygün et al. 2021 ).

Top management teams should design the work environment to enhance creativity, share ideas, incentivize collaboration and information sharing, and encourage participation (Lee et al. 2019 ; Shen et al. 2019 ) to stimulate authoritarian leaders to reduce the power distance between them and subordinates. Planning work activities in line with democratic ideas can help followers identify with their leaders. Moreover, supervisors should be trained to clearly express their projects for their subordinates, especially in terms of their learning and professional achievements (Chen et al. 2017 ). Furthermore, leaders should be subjected to psychological training to improve their ability to understand the structure of their teams and the personality of their subordinates.

Finally, in the last decade, the literature has reconsidered the strategic role of HRM (e.g., Pizzolitto and Verna 2020 ; 2022 ). Given the evidence that emerged during this review, the fundamental effects of strategic HRM interventions can dramatically affect leadership and, consequently, performance. Recruiters should select managers depending on the leadership styles required by the specific conditions of workgroups, markets, and business needs. For example, evidence in the literature suggests that changing and complex conditions can be better managed through directive leaders (e.g., Lorinkova et al. 2013 ; Sanchez-Manzanares et al. 2020 ). In calmer situations, more empowering leadership styles are more effective. Therefore, recruiters have to be careful in their selections, considering the training and compensation needed for adapting managers’ leadership styles to business needs. In specific situations, hiring a directive leader can be an efficient choice (e.g., Yun et al. 2005 ; Lorinkova et al. 2013 ).

7 Conclusions

We performed this study to answer three research questions. The first concerned the effects of authoritarian leadership styles on performance. Although there is a consensus that an exceedance of authority, power distance, pressure, and impositions on subordinates can worsen performance, contrasting results about the specific effects of authoritarian leadership styles emerged in the literature. In particular, several publications highlight positive and negative outcomes of authoritarian, autocratic, and directive behaviors. A considerable number of specific conditions can indeed affect the effects of authoritarian styles on performance. The conditions of leadership are changing, and leaders should adapt and combine their styles to enhance performance (Hansen & Nørup 2017 ; Sanchez-Manzanares et al. 2020 ; Yun et al. 2005 ).

The second research question concerned the temporal and geographical evolution of the scientific debate on authoritarian leadership styles. We identified a revolution in the origins of interest for this topic during the last two decades. In particular, while before 2000, authors from Western countries were the most prolific in the field, after 2000, Eastern authors emerged with a considerable number of contributions. Given the diffusion of these leadership typologies in Asia, these publications enriched the scientific debate with important empirical papers and novel ideas for further research opportunities.

Finally, the third research question reflected on the effectiveness of scientific discussion on authoritarian leadership in light of the high dynamism of new and hyperconnected markets. In our opinion, the scientific debate has to concentrate on hybrid leadership styles and their effects on performance. Moreover, researchers should focus on leaders’ ability to change the degree of authority in their leadership styles depending on the specific conditions of their workgroups. Therefore, the discussion about authoritarian leadership styles still makes sense, but it should be ascribed to a viewpoint inspired by complexity.

Asrar-ul-Haq M, Anwar S (2018) The many faces of leadership: proposing research agenda through a review of literature. Future Bus J 4:179–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fbj.2018.06.002

Article   Google Scholar  

Boell SK, Cecez-Kecmanovic D (2015) Debating systematic literature reviews (SLR) and their ramifications for IS: a rejoinder to mike chiasson, briony oates, Ulrike Schultze, and Richard Watson. J Inf Technol 30:188–193. https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2015.15

Chan SCH, Huang X, Snape E, Lam CK (2012) The Janus face of paternalistic leaders: authoritarianism, benevolence, subordinates’ organization-based self-esteem, and performance. J Organ Behav 34:108–128. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1797

Chang TZ, Chen SJ, Polsa P (2003) Manufacturer channel management behavior and retailers’ performance: an empirical investigation of automotive channel. Supply Chain Manag: Int J 8:132–139. https://doi.org/10.1108/13598540310468733

Chen T, Li F, Leung K (2017) Whipping into shape: construct definition, measurement, and validation of directive-achieving leadership in Chinese culture. Asia Pac J Manag 34:537–563. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-017-9511-6

Chen XP, Eberly MB, Chiang TJ, Farh JL, Cheng BS (2014) Affective trust in Chinese leaders. J Manag 40:796–819. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311410604

Chiang JTJ, Chen XP, Liu H, Akutsu S, Wang Z (2020) We have emotions but can’t show them! authoritarian leadership, emotion suppression climate, and team performance. Hum Relat 74:1082–1111. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726720908649

Chou WJ, Sibley CG, Liu JH, Lin TT, Cheng BS (2015) Paternalistic leadership profiles. Group Organ Manag 40:685–710. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601115573358

Corbin JM, Strauss A (1990) Grounded theory research: procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qual Sociol 13:3–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00988593

de Freitas JG, Costa HG (2017) Impacts of lean six sigma over organizational sustainability. Int J Lean Six Sigma 8:89–108. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijlss-10-2015-0039

de Hoogh AHB, Greer LL, den Hartog DN (2015) Diabolical dictators or capable commanders? an investigation of the differential effects of autocratic leadership on team performance. Leadersh Q 26:687–701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.01.001

Denyer D, Neely A (2004) Introduction to special issue: innovation and productivity performance in the UK. Int J Manag Rev 6:131–135. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-8545.2004.00100.x

Denyer D, Tranfield D (2009) Producing a systematic review. In: Buchanan DA, Bryman A (eds) The Sage handbook of organizational research methods. SAGE Publications, Los Angeles, CA, pp 671–689

Google Scholar  

Dourish P (2004) What we talk about when we talk about context. Pers Ubiquitous Comput 8:19–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-003-0253-8

Faraj S, Sambamurthy V (2006) Leadership of information systems development projects. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 53:238–249. https://doi.org/10.1109/tem.2006.872245

Fodor EM (1976) Group stress, authoritarian style of control, and use of power. J Appl Psychol 61:313–318. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.61.3.313

Georgakakis D, Heyden MLM, Oehmichen JDR, Ekanayake UIK (2019) Four decades of CEO–TMT interface research: a review inspired by role theory. Leadersh Q 5:101354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2019.101354

Hansen MB, Nørup I (2017) Leading the implementation of ICT innovations. Public Adm Rev 77:851–860. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12807

Harrison C, Paul S, Burnard K (2016) Entrepreneurial leadership: a systematic literature review. Int Rev Entrep 14:235–264

Hiller NJ, Sin HP, Ponnapalli AR, Ozgen S (2019) Benevolence and authority as WEIRDly unfamiliar: a multi-language meta-analysis of paternalistic leadership behaviors from 152 studies. Leadersh Q 30:165–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.11.003

Hing LSS, Bobocel DR, Zanna MP, McBride MV (2007) Authoritarian dynamics and unethical decision making: high social dominance orientation leaders and high right-wing authoritarianism followers. J Pers Soc Psychol 92:67–81. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.67

Hmieleski KM, Ensley MD (2007) A contextual examination of new venture performance: entrepreneur leadership behavior, top management team heterogeneity, and environmental dynamism. J Organ Behav 28:865–889. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.479

Kahai SS, Sosik JJ, Avolio BJ (2004) Effects of participative and directive leadership in electronic groups. Group Organ Manag 29:67–105. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601103252100

Karakitapoğlu-Aygün Z, Gumusluoglu L, Erturk A, Scandura TA (2021) Two to Tango? A cross-cultural investigation of the leader-follower agreement on authoritarian leadership. J Bus Res 128:473–485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.02.034

Keupp MM, Palmié M, Gassmann O (2011) The strategic management of innovation: a systematic review and paths for future research. Int J Manag Rev 14:367–390. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2011.00321.x

Kipnis D, Schmidt S, Price K, Stitt C (1981) Why do I like thee: is it your performance or my orders? J Appl Psychol 66:324–328. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.66.3.324

Langhof JG, Güldenberg S (2019) Servant Leadership: a systematic literature review—toward a model of antecedents and outcomes. Ger J Hum Resour Manag 34:32–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/2397002219869903

Laureani A, Antony J (2017) Leadership and Lean Six Sigma: a systematic literature review. Total Qual Manag Bus Excell 30:53–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2017.1288565

Lee A, Legood A, Hughes D, Tian AW, Newman A, Knight C (2019) Leadership, creativity and innovation: a meta-analytic review. Eur J Work Organ Psychol 29:1–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432x.2019.1661837

Legood A, van der Werff L, Lee A, Den Hartog D (2020) A meta-analysis of the role of trust in the leadership- performance relationship. Eur J Work Organ Psychol 30:1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432x.2020.1819241

Li G, Rubenstein AL, Lin W, Wang M, Chen X (2018) The curvilinear effect of benevolent leadership on team performance: the mediating role of team action processes and the moderating role of team commitment. Pers Psychol 71:369–397. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12264

Li R, Chen Z, Zhang H, Luo J (2019) How do authoritarian leadership and abusive supervision jointly thwart follower proactivity? a social control perspective. J Manag 47:930–956. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206319878261

Liao Y, Deschamps F, Loures EdFR, Ramos LFP (2017) Past, present and future of Industry 4.0 - a systematic literature review and research agenda proposal. Int J Prod Res 55:3609–3629. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2017.1308576

Lorinkova NM, Pearsall MJ, Sims HP (2013) Examining the differential longitudinal performance of directive versus empowering leadership in teams. Acad Manag J 56:573–596. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0132

Mossholder KW, Niebuhr RE, Norris DR (1990) Effects of dyadic duration on the relationship between leader behavior perceptions and follower outcomes. J Organ Behav 11:379–388. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030110505

Menz M (2011) Functional top management team members. J Manag 38:45–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311421830

Misumi J, Peterson MF (1985) The performance-maintenance (PM) theory of leadership: review of a japanese research program. Adm Sci Q 30:198. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393105

Murphy SE, Blyth D, Fiedler FE (1992) Cognitive resource theory and the utilization of the leader’s and group members’ technical competence. Leadersh Q 3:237–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(92)90014-7

Nguyen DH, de Leeuw S, Dullaert WEH (2016) Consumer behaviour and order fulfilment in online retailing: a systematic review. Int J Manag Rev 20:255–276. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12129

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM et al (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ (clinical Research Ed) 372:n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71

Parris DL, Peachey JW (2013) A systematic literature review of servant leadership theory in organizational contexts. J Bus Ethics 113:377–393. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1322-6

Pizzolitto E, Verna I (2020) Vocational identity development and the role of human resources management. a systematic literature review. Eur Sci J 16:52. https://doi.org/10.19044/esj.2020.v16n34p80

Pizzolitto E, Verna I (2022) Resource orchestration theory and electronic human resources management configuration. In: Exploring Digital Resilience. Challenges for People and Organisations. Springer series: Lecture Notes in Information Systems and Organisation (LNISO). In press.

Post C, Sarala R, Gatrell C, Prescott JE (2020) Advancing theory with review articles. J Manag Stud 57:351–376. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12549

Rahmani M, Roels G, Karmarkar US (2018) Team leadership and performance: combining the roles of direction and contribution. Manag Sci 64:5234–5249. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2017.2911

Rosenbaum LL, Rosenbaum WB (1971) Morale and productivity consequences of group leadership style, stress, and type of task. J Appl Psychol 55:343–348. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0031458

Sagie A (1996) Effects of leader’s communication style and participative goal setting on performance and attitudes. Hum Perform 9:51–64. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327043hup0901_3

Sanchez-Manzanares M, Rico R, Antino M, Uitdewilligen S (2020) The joint effects of leadership style and magnitude of the disruption on team adaptation: a longitudinal experiment. Group Organ Manag 45:836–864. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601120958838

Sauer SJ (2011) Taking the reins: the effects of new leader status and leadership style on team performance. J Appl Psychol 96:574–587. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022741

Schaubroeck JM, Shen Y, Chong S (2017) A dual-stage moderated mediation model linking authoritarian leadership to follower outcomes. J Appl Psychol 102:203–214. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000165

Schuh SC, Zhang XA, Tian P (2012) For the good or the bad? Interactive effects of transformational leadership with moral and authoritarian leadership behaviors. J Bus Ethics 116:629–640. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1486-0

Scully JA, Sims HP, Olian JD, Schnell ER, Smith KA (1994) Tough times make tough bosses: a meso analysis of ceo leader behavior. Leadersh Q 5:59–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(94)90006-x

Shaw ME, Blum JM (1966) Effects of leadership style upon group performance as a function of task structure. J Pers Soc Psychol 3:238–242. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0022900

Shen Y, Chou WJ, Schaubroeck JM (2019) The roles of relational identification and workgroup cultural values in linking authoritarian leadership to employee performance. Eur J Work Organ Psychol 28:498–509. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432x.2019.1615453

Snyder H (2019) Literature review as a research methodology: an overview and guidelines. J Bus Res 104:333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039

Somech A (2006) The effects of leadership style and team process on performance and innovation in functionally heterogeneous teams. J Manag 32:132–157. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305277799

Strauss A, Corbin J (1997) Grounded theory in practice, 1st edn. SAGE Publications Inc, New York

Sutcliffe N (1999) Leadership behavior and business process reengineering (BPR) outcomes. Inf Manag 36:273–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-7206(99)00027-0

Tjosvold D (1984) Effects of leader warmth and directiveness on subordinate performance on a subsequent task. J Appl Psychol 69:422–427. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.69.3.422

Tschan F, Semmer NK, Gautschi D, Hunziker P, Spychiger M, Marsch SU (2006) Leading to recovery: group performance and coordinative activities in medical emergency driven groups. Hum Perform 19:277–304. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327043hup1903_5

Vecchio RP (1990) Theoretical and empirical examination of cognitive resource theory. J Appl Psychol 75:141–147. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.75.2.141

Vrontis D, Christofi M (2021) R&D internationalization and innovation: a systematic review, integrative framework and future research directions. J Bus Res 128:812–823. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.03.031

Wang AC, Chiang JTJ, Tsai CY, Lin TT, Cheng BS (2013) Gender makes the difference: the moderating role of leader gender on the relationship between leadership styles and subordinate performance. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 122:101–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.06.001

Wang AC, Tsai CY, Dionne SD, Yammarino FJ, Spain SM, Ling HC, Huang MP, Chou LF, Cheng BS (2018) Benevolence-dominant, authoritarianism-dominant, and classical paternalistic leadership: testing their relationships with subordinate performance. Leadersh Q 29:686–697. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.06.002

Wei H, Zhu Y, Li S (2016) Top executive leaders’ compassionate actions: an integrative framework of compassion incorporating a confucian perspective. Asia Pac J Manag 33:767–787. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-016-9463-2

Wolfswinkel JF, Furtmueller E, Wilderom CPM (2013) Using grounded theory as a method for rigorously reviewing literature. Eur J Inf Syst 22:45–55. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2011.51

Wu M, Huang X, Li C, Liu W (2012) Perceived interactional justice and trust-in-supervisor as mediators for paternalistic leadership. Manag Organ Rev 8:97–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8784.2011.00283.x

Yahaya R, Ebrahim F (2016) Leadership styles and organizational commitment: literature review. J Manag Dev 35:190–216. https://doi.org/10.1108/jmd-01-2015-0004

Yi Y, Chen Y, He X (2021) CEO leadership, strategic decision comprehensiveness, and firm performance: the moderating role of TMT cognitive conflict. Manag Organ Rev 3:1–36. https://doi.org/10.1017/mor.2021.10

Yun S, Faraj S, Sims HP (2005) Contingent leadership and effectiveness of trauma resuscitation teams. J Appl Psychol 90:1288–1296. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1288

Download references

Open access funding provided by Università degli Studi G. D'Annunzio Chieti Pescara within the CRUI-CARE Agreement. The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Business Economics, University G. D’Annunzio–Chieti-Pescara, Viale Pindaro, 42, 65122, Pescara, PE, Italy

Elia Pizzolitto, Ida Verna & Michelina Venditti

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection, analysis and first draft were performed by EP. All authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript and contributed to its final version. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elia Pizzolitto .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors have no relevant financial or nonfinancial interests to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The original online version of this article was revised: The funding note was missing.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Pizzolitto, E., Verna, I. & Venditti, M. Authoritarian leadership styles and performance: a systematic literature review and research agenda. Manag Rev Q 73 , 841–871 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-022-00263-y

Download citation

Received : 31 May 2021

Accepted : 23 February 2022

Published : 04 April 2022

Issue Date : June 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-022-00263-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Human resource management
• Authoritarian leadership
• Paternalistic leadership
• Directive leadership
• Autocratic leadership
• Performance
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Pursue the Next You in 2024 with a 20% Tuition Reduction on May Courses!

Autocratic Leadership Explained: What is Autocratic Leadership?

Last Updated May 5, 2022

Think about the leaders you most admire. These professionals probably have a lot in common, but we would guess there are also significant differences in their leadership styles. Effective leaders don’t all lead in the same way. The best leaders you know might have dramatically different ways of leading. These techniques might fall neatly under one category, or they might be a combination of several defined leadership styles.

In this article, we’ll define autocratic leadership, detail the characteristics of autocratic leaders, explain the advantages and disadvantages of an autocratic mindset, and discuss the future of this leadership style.

What is Autocratic Leadership?

Autocratic leadership is an authoritarian model in which leaders have absolute control. You might summon to mind Napoleon Bonaparte or Queen Elizabeth I: leaders with complete, top-down control over their empires. Autocratic leaders make decisions based on their personal ideas of what is best and typically accept very little input from followers, with the expectation that group members will fall in line with their directives. 

Psychologist Kurt Lewin developed a foundational leadership framework in the 1930s, defining three major leadership styles: autocratic, democratic , and laissez-faire. Lewin’s work is the foundation for many later treatises on leadership. In Lewin’s definition, autocratic leaders “make decisions without consulting their team members, even if their input would be useful.”

Although Lewin coined the term, the idea of autocratic leadership has been around for quite a while and it’s a core tenet of classic management theory , which became popular in the early 20th century. This theory posits that consulting groups of subordinates is unnecessary. Instead, the leader makes a decision, and that decision is conveyed in a top-down manner for all employees to follow. 

Autocratic Leadership Styles and Approaches

Author and psychologist Daniel Goleman, who wrote the best-seller “Emotional Intelligence” in 1995, discusses leadership styles and behaviors in his later book, “Primal Leadership.” He defines six emotional leadership styles, two of which cover traits of autocratic leaders. 

According to Goleman, authoritative, or visionary leaders are inspiring, setting out a common goal and expecting teams to find their own way there. Coercive, or commanding leaders , on the other hand, use tight control and the threat of punishment to make sure teams fall in line. These two leadership styles summarize the two approaches to autocratic leadership: inspirational or dictatorial. 

You could also define these two approaches as directing—employees are told what to do and how to do it, with little room for input—and permissive, which provides directives while leaving more room for creativity in the “how.” A third approach to autocratic leadership, paternalistic, bridges the gap between directing and permissive styles. The leader has the final say, but employee wellbeing is his or her primary objective. 

Characteristics of Autocratic Leaders

Wondering if you’ve experienced autocratic leadership—or whether you’re an autocratic leader yourself? There are four key traits of autocratic leaders:

• The leader accepts limited to no input.
• The leader makes all the decisions.
• The leader directs their team’s methods and processes.
• The leader creates structured and often rigid environments.

Examples of Autocratic Leaders

Many empire builders and leading figures throughout history have been autocratic leaders—including Genghis Khan and Margaret Thatcher— however, we’ll provide two more recent examples of autocratic leadership: Richard Nixon and Elon Musk. 

While Nixon was a complex leader and person, many of his major presidential decisions were characterized by his leadership style. Regarded as a foreign affairs expert, President Nixon often did not trust the advice of others, regardless of their expertise, and relied on his own experience and desires to make decisions, which were then conveyed to his staff and the U.S. military. 

Elon Musk exemplifies the creative side of autocratic leadership. While Musk’s business ventures have been driven by his unique vision, Musk takes very little input and often makes impulse decisions that haven’t been vetted by team members. For example, Musk’s infamous 2018 tweet in which he announced he’d be taking Tesla private got Musk in still-unresolved trouble with the SEC. 

Autocratic Leadership Pros and Cons 

Psychologist Douglas McGregor developed the idea of Theory X and Theory Y in the 1960s. According to McGregor, Theory X leaders are authoritarians who view their subordinates pessimistically and believe that their teams need to be directed, punished or rewarded in order to achieve organizational goals. McGregor’s theory exemplifies some of the drawbacks of autocratic leadership. 

Cons of autocratic leadership

• Degrades trust and morale: Autocratic leadership discourages input, which can make teams feel like their ideas are ignored and they’re unable to contribute.
• Dependent on the leader: Organizational success is entirely dependent on the leader and their ideas, which can endanger the stability of the organization.

Pros of autocratic leadership

• Quick decision making: Because the leader has the final say, decisions can be made and conveyed efficiently, an attribute that becomes handy during a crisis.
• Clearly defined structure: Clear rules and procedures are in place and every employee knows what to do and how to do it, which can benefit rule-followers , who thrive when they’re told what to do. However, this leadership style is only preferred by 21% of employees, according to a 2019 survey by Leadership IQ.

Many of the pitfalls of autocratic leadership come from underdeveloped emotional intelligence, a soft skill you can develop with the help of an organizational leadership certificate .

Future of the Autocratic Leadership Style

Autocratic leadership is often considered the leadership style of the past. When you picture what it means to be a boss, you might pull from TV depictions of bad leaders. Think “Mad Men” or “The Office”: Top-down bosses who don’t accept input or tolerate dissent. 

While there’s a positive side to autocratic leadership, the leader of the future exemplifies high emotional intelligence , demonstrating “soft skills such as communication, creative and collaborative problem-solving and conflict management,” skills that are often incompatible with autocratic styles of leadership. Leadership as dictatorship is in the rear window—the boss of the future has a softer side.

Related Articles

Take the next step in your career with a program guide!

By completing this form and clicking the button below, I consent to receiving calls, text messages and/or emails from BISK, its client institutions, and their representatives regarding educational services and programs. I understand calls and texts may be directed to the number I provide using automatic dialing technology. I understand that this consent is not required to purchase goods or services. If you would like more information relating to how we may use your data, please review our privacy policy .

Leadership Styles: Democratic, Autocratic and Laissez-Faire Essay

Introduction, comparison of the leadership styles, differences in leadership styles and related problems.

Leadership determines success in organizations. Each leader has a unique leadership style he or she uses to lead or influence others within an organization. Leaders inspire employees to work towards certain organizational objectives (Daft, 2005). They influence change in employees and help organizations to achieve their desired goals. Leadership is the act of providing guidance or inspiration to others.

Thus, a leader guides or directs employees towards a particular goal. In the workplace, a manager’s leadership strategies and personal traits define his or her leadership style.

Each leadership style is effective for a particular situation and thus, an effective leader should approach each situation with a different style. A leader may adopt two or more of these styles in inspiring others to achieve particular organizational goals. The common leadership styles include democratic (participative), autocratic and laissez-faire (Daft, 2005). Specific personal traits and values define an individual’s leadership style.

Each leader has certain traits that are characteristic of a particular leadership style. The writer’s leadership style is the participative leadership style, which is often regarded as an effective leadership approach in an organizational context. One of the distinguishing traits of democratic leaders is that they tend to involve group members in decision-making (Daft, 2005).

Thus, besides providing guidance, participative leaders engage their subordinates and incorporate their input into the final decision. Such leaders seek the views of their staff, but have the ultimate say during decision-making. The involvement of employees inspires and motivates them to become more creative and innovative.

In organizations, democratic leaders share their decision-making role with their staff by engaging them in seeking solutions for work-related problems. They gather information from employees, which they rely on to make a decision. According to McNichol and Hamer (2007), the participative approach, compared to the other styles, enhances the productivity of employees for a prolonged period of time as it encourages cooperation and increases staff morale.

Moreover, in organizations, a democratic leader formulates a performance evaluation plans that allow employees to evaluate their work. Since performance appraisals are crucial to staff development and organizational success, the democratic leadership style helps organizations to achieve their goals and objectives. Besides encouraging staff participation, democratic leaders allow employees to develop their careers by encouraging career growth and development through promotions and rewards.

The democratic leadership style is effective in certain scenarios. It is applicable when organizations want to implement new systems or seek solutions to workplace problems. It is also most effective when the leader wants to involve employees in decision-making or inform them about the issues affecting their performance (Daft, 2005). Leaders should adopt a democratic approach when seeking for ways of enhancing staff job satisfaction and career growth.

A complex problem in an organization can be solved through the involvement of employees as they understand the challenges affecting them. Thus, a democratic leadership approach is required when seeking a solution for complex organizational problems.

A participative style is also applicable when the leader wants to cultivate a culture of teamwork and cooperation among employees. However, the democratic leadership style may be less effective in some situations. For instance, when a decision is urgent, due to time constraints, it would be impractical to seek the input of all employees.

In contrast, in an autocratic leadership, also called authoritarian leadership, the leader and his or her subjects are distinct in terms of their roles and responsibilities. An autocratic leader issues directives on “what needs to be done, when it should be done, and how it should be done” (Daft, 2005, p. 69). Unlike a democratic leader who makes a decision after consulting his or subordinate staff, an autocratic leader does not consult anyone when making a decision.

This tends to stifle creativity and innovation in the organization as employees are required to adhere to specific rules and procedures. Moreover, autocratic leaders tend to be controlling and dictatorial while participative leaders are democratic. Under autocratic leadership, the manager has the power and authority to make unilateral decisions without consulting the staff. In contrast, democratic leaders allow their employees to play an active role in the decision-making process.

According to McNichol and Hamer (2007), autocratic leaders are “punitive, task-oriented, authoritative and controlling individuals” (p. 67). On the other hand, democratic leaders are “participative, consensual and employee-centered” (McNichol & Hamer, 2007, p. 68). Autocratic leaders, unlike democratic leaders, make independent and unilateral decisions that employees are expected to follow.

They also encourage adherence to rules and procedures. In contrast, democratic leaders give staff autonomy, which is essential for personal growth. Both approaches motivate employees through rewards. The situations where the autocratic leadership style is effective include when the staff is new and unfamiliar with their tasks or work procedures, when supervision requires specific instructions or when there is no time to seek staff input.

A charismatic leader inspires his or her followers to support his or her vision for the organization. They are very enthusiastic in what they believe. Charismatic leaders are also transformational, which makes them good project managers (Daft, 2005). However, charismatic leaders tend to have less trust in their team members and thus, organizational performance may be affected when the leader is incapacitated or leaves his employment. Such leaders initiate change in organizations or teams through charisma and influence.

The charismatic leadership style is similar to the participative style in many respects. First, both styles are worker-oriented. However, a participative leader involves his or her subordinate staff in decision-making while a charismatic leader encourages employees to make personal decisions.

Also, unlike a participative leader, a charismatic leader does not make the final decision; rather, he or she delegates the decision-making role to his or staff. Both styles are useful when seeking employee support and goodwill for a particular course of action.

Effective Leadership

Effective leadership is essential for organizational success. A successful leader must understand his or her leadership style as well as those of others. Daft describes good leaders as “those who are deeply interested in others and can bring out the best in them” (2005, p. 118).

Thus, it is by understanding the leadership styles of the others that a leader can learn to use an appropriate leadership approach to motivate others. It also helps leaders to hire or assign the right candidate an appropriate leadership role in an organization. As a democratic leader, the writer uses each of the leadership styles to manage his subordinates in the workplace. In particular, the writer uses the charismatic, transformative, bureaucratic and autocratic leadership styles to address different situations in the workplace.

The writer uses the charismatic style to influence his subordinates to support his ideas. Daft (2005) writes that effective managers motivate their staff to work towards achieving certain goals and objectives.

Thus, a participative leader who understands how each leadership style affects workplace behavior and attitudes would use a style that suits a particular situation to achieve the desired outcomes. For instance, a charismatic style would allow a participative leader to develop a vision for the future and influence his staff to follow him.

On the other hand, an autocratic leadership style works well during crises. A task-oriented approach enforces measures that must be followed by everyone to help the organization maneuver through crises. A participative leader can use an autocratic leadership style to turnaround a company or help employees to handle work-related challenges. Strict deadlines, independent decisions and quick responses to certain situations, which are characteristics of an autocratic leadership style, are effective when a firm is going through a crisis.

When anticipating a transformation, the participative leadership style can be useful. It allows a leader to engage staff in strategic discussions, address their concerns and respond to the challenges associated with the change. Changes such as mergers and layoffs require a participative style to prevent possible chaos, turnover or industrial action. In this situation, an autocratic style would increase employee resistance to the change, affect morale and output, and increase turnover.

A participative approach is also useful during decision-making. Since informed decisions require facts or data, engaging the staff would help a leader evaluate different alternatives before choosing the best option. A participative approach can also help a leader in evaluating the employees’ skills, in risk-assessment and in role delegation.

On the other hand, a bureaucratic leadership style can help a participative leader in handling company operations. This style emphasizes on following set out procedures and guidelines on workplace operations. A participative leader can use this style when overseeing industrial operations that involve the use of heavy machinery.

In the workplace, each worker may have a different leadership style. This means that there may be a clash of goals, priorities or interests from time to time. This may lead to conflicts between employees in a team or between a leader and his or her subordinates. Basic leadership styles such as democratic leadership and authoritarian leadership style have conflicting values, which breed workplace problems.

One such workplace problem relates to decision-making. A democratic leader usually involves his or her subordinates in seeking solutions to organizational problems. He or she seeks the input of the group members, assesses their input and makes an informed decision. In contrast, an autocratic leader enforces his independent decision to all the employees. This may breed a conflict as it will discourage employees with a democratic style.

This would lead to low work satisfaction and high turnover. It may affect output and productivity in an organization. On the other hand, autocratic employees can devalue a democratic leader’s decision-making role leading to a slower and lengthy process of making decisions. Also, self-directed employees with a laissez-faire leadership style may devalue a leader’s decision-making role as they are often critical of a leader’s decisions.

Another problem encountered with the leadership styles is reduced standards/ productivity. An autocratic style (controlling approach) can hinder creativity and hinder accountability by preventing the development of feedback systems. This affects staff performance and productivity.

Unclear expectations, lack of trust and autocratic rules can stifle creativity leading to low standards in the workplace. Moreover, autocratic and laissez-faire styles enhance compliance to regulations, but may affect creativity and innovation. Also, autocratic rules can increase absenteeism and turnover, which affect staff productivity.

To overcome the aforementioned problems, the writer suggests two solutions. First, a division of the decision-making role among different units or departments in an organization can enhance staff participation and speed up the process of decision-making.

Departments such as finance, marketing, human resource and production can be allowed to make decisions in a horizontal version, which can then be passed to administrators for action taking. This will ensure that everyone in the organization participates in decision-making. Thus, a horizontal and hierarchical system can accommodate the diverse views, priorities and values of the different leadership styles.

The solution to the problem of reduced standards and productivity is an implementation of constructive feedback systems. A feedback system focuses on the roles and performance of a department or an individual (Ruggieri, 2009). Employees at each level can utilize feedback systems to obtain information about their performance and make appropriate decisions at the personal level. Thus, adequate feedback systems in an organization can enhance accountability, which will improve productivity.

Advantages Created Between Leadership Styles

Leadership styles in an organization have many benefits. One such benefit is enhanced communication. Participative, charismatic and transformation leaders enhance communication as they encourage participation and exchange of views and opinions (Ruggieri, 2009).

They create an atmosphere of cooperation, which promotes creativity and innovation leading to improved productivity. On the other hand, bureaucratic and autocratic leaders emphasize on adherence to strict procedures and communication channels in the company. Although this may affect communication, it ensures a clear flow of information and instructions that employees need to do their work.

The second potential benefit leadership styles bring to an organization is enhanced employee cooperation. Organizations planning to improve work procedures, efficiency and productivity must seek staff input (Ruggieri, 2009). Some individual’s in leadership positions value staff input and consult employees when implementing new changes. A democratic leader seeks and uses staff input to enhance work processes.

This helps reduce resistance to a new change. Furthermore, workplace problems can be resolved through employee involvement in decision-making. Democratic and charismatic leaders involve employees in seeking solutions to their problems. This increases staff morale and performance.

The third benefit relates to goal setting. Leadership styles affect goal-setting at individual level as well as at organizational level. Transformational and charismatic leaders rely on inspiration to influence staff to work towards particular goals.

They set goals for each worker and provide them with the resources necessary to achieve those goals. Leadership that focuses on staff empowerment also involve goal-setting. Autocratic leaders emphasize on a strict adherence to organizational procedures to achieve certain goals while servant leaders seek employee consensus when developing company goals.

As a participative leader, the writer can use the advantages created by leadership styles to increase company productivity in many ways. Elaborate communication channels in a company will motivate staff and promote creativity. Moreover, communication creates a positive work environment, which leads to improved productivity.

On the other hand, employee involvement increases staff morale leading to improved performance. Moreover, their input would ensure informed decisions on the part of the leader and increase staff confidence in the organization’s goals. At an individual level, goal-setting can encourage employees to work towards achieving specific goals. Thus, performance appraisal based on these goals can enhance productivity in a company.

Daft, R. (2005). The Leadership Experience. Toronto: Southwestern.

McNichol, E., & Hamer, S. (2007). Leadership and Management: A 3-Dimensional Approach. Cheltenbam: Nelson Thornes.

Ruggieri, S. (2009). Leadership in Virtual Teams: A Comparison of Transformational and Transactional Leaders. Social Behavior & Personality Journal, 37 (8), 117-121.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, February 22). Leadership Styles: Democratic, Autocratic and Laissez-Faire. https://ivypanda.com/essays/leadership-styles-5/

"Leadership Styles: Democratic, Autocratic and Laissez-Faire." IvyPanda , 22 Feb. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/leadership-styles-5/.

IvyPanda . (2024) 'Leadership Styles: Democratic, Autocratic and Laissez-Faire'. 22 February.

IvyPanda . 2024. "Leadership Styles: Democratic, Autocratic and Laissez-Faire." February 22, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/leadership-styles-5/.

1. IvyPanda . "Leadership Styles: Democratic, Autocratic and Laissez-Faire." February 22, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/leadership-styles-5/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Leadership Styles: Democratic, Autocratic and Laissez-Faire." February 22, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/leadership-styles-5/.

• The Laissez-Faire Concept in American History (1865 to 1900)
• The Concept of Laissez-Faire Leadership Style
• Leadership and Employee Motivation and Satisfaction
• Autocratic, Democratic, Free-Rein, Coaching Leadership
• Ingvar Kamprad, a Charismatic Leader of IKEA
• Various Leadership Practice Styles
• UK Foundation of Nursing Leadership Assessment Self-review
• Strategic Leadership Types
• The Emirates Group at the Beginning of 2014: Business Strategy
• Case of the Donor Services Department
• The IT Strategic Plan
• “Safety, Accidents, and Investigations: Be Prepared for the Unexpected” by Robert Battles
• Advantages and Disadvantages of Working Across Boundaries
• “Success Criteria and Factors for International Development Projects: A Life-Cycle-Based Framework” Khang and Moe
• Behavior Modification Role in Companies Development

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

6 Common Leadership Styles — and How to Decide Which to Use When

• Rebecca Knight

Being a great leader means recognizing that different circumstances call for different approaches.

Research suggests that the most effective leaders adapt their style to different circumstances — be it a change in setting, a shift in organizational dynamics, or a turn in the business cycle. But what if you feel like you’re not equipped to take on a new and different leadership style — let alone more than one? In this article, the author outlines the six leadership styles Daniel Goleman first introduced in his 2000 HBR article, “Leadership That Gets Results,” and explains when to use each one. The good news is that personality is not destiny. Even if you’re naturally introverted or you tend to be driven by data and analysis rather than emotion, you can still learn how to adapt different leadership styles to organize, motivate, and direct your team.

Much has been written about common leadership styles and how to identify the right style for you, whether it’s transactional or transformational, bureaucratic or laissez-faire. But according to Daniel Goleman, a psychologist best known for his work on emotional intelligence, “Being a great leader means recognizing that different circumstances may call for different approaches.”

• RK Rebecca Knight is a journalist who writes about all things related to the changing nature of careers and the workplace. Her essays and reported stories have been featured in The Boston Globe, Business Insider, The New York Times, BBC, and The Christian Science Monitor. She was shortlisted as a Reuters Institute Fellow at Oxford University in 2023. Earlier in her career, she spent a decade as an editor and reporter at the Financial Times in New York, London, and Boston.

Partner Center

Autocratic Leadership Essays

Analysis at newcastle hospital, popular essay topics.

• American Dream
• Artificial Intelligence
• Black Lives Matter
• Bullying Essay
• Career Goals Essay
• Causes of the Civil War
• Child Abusing
• Civil Rights Movement
• Community Service
• Cultural Identity
• Cyber Bullying
• Death Penalty
• Depression Essay
• Domestic Violence
• Freedom of Speech
• Global Warming
• Gun Control
• Human Trafficking
• I Believe Essay
• Immigration
• Importance of Education
• Israel and Palestine Conflict
• Leadership Essay
• Legalizing Marijuanas
• Mental Health
• National Honor Society
• Police Brutality
• Pollution Essay
• Racism Essay
• Romeo and Juliet
• Same Sex Marriages
• Social Media
• The Great Gatsby
• The Yellow Wallpaper
• Time Management
• To Kill a Mockingbird
• Violent Video Games
• What Makes You Unique
• Why I Want to Be a Nurse
• Send us an e-mail

Autocratic-Charismatic Leadership: Napoleon Bonaparte

Benefits of charismatic leadership, charismatic leadership: the case of success, charismatic leadership: hard facts to accept.

As one thinks of Apple, the face of Steve Jobs instinctively comes to mind. The same is true for most of the other large corporations and political powers around the globe. Leaders seem to be the primary representatives and voices of organizations. The topic of leadership has become exceptionally popular in the last couple of decades as more research surrounding the subject was being released. After all, whether a leader is good at what they do or not can make or break any chance of success any company has, even the most well-admired and innovative one. It is possible to outline several key leadership styles which people tend to espouse when acting as leaders in their organizations. Charismatic and autocratic leadership styles remain the two most prevalent ones to this day, but they emerged a substantial period of time ago, and the example of Napoleon shows that they both can coexist together. Charismatic leadership is the most efficient and appropriate style for modern leaders globally since it enables them to unite people and develop solutions to potential issues, which might arise either within an organization or externally.

Prior to discussing the advantages of charismatic leadership in comparison to other styles, particularly autocratic leadership, it is imperative to define what charismatic and autocratic leadership styles are. Moreover, it is essential to clearly outline the core aim of leadership in organizations or in any type of group of people. The main task of leadership is to “create and manage culture… and destroy culture when it is viewed as dysfunctional” when referring to organizations (as cited in Rivers, 2019, p. 69). Essentially, the role of a leader is interconnected with the notion of culture, which they must influence in a variety of ways to ensure that it corresponds to the interests of the organization. The titles of leaders vary across different groups of people, be it a CEO of a corporation or a coach of a sports team, but in all circumstances, they have to achieve success (Roe, 2017). Thus, it can be said that by employing a certain leadership style, people ultimately choose the tool with which they will create an environment conducive to the achievement of success.

As mentioned above, the two most common approaches to leadership are the charismatic and autocratic ones which have distinct features making them not only different by also unique. Charismatic leadership refers to the authority of a leader, which derives primarily from their charisma and charm that are used as tools for motivating their followers. Charismatic leaders have been described in different terms, including as capable of motivating the subordinates to spouse passion and commitment to a collective mission (Banks et al., 2017). Essentially, charismatic leaders can produce a message which can inspire others to follow their orders and be motivated to perform them. Such leaders can appeal to certain values which are relevant for the members of a group and rely on them as the foundation for their mission.

At the same time, there are also autocratic leaders whose qualities are radically different compared to those charismatic ones. An autocratic leader differs from others as he or she exercises “a controlling and directive leadership model, which engages subordinates or followers according to an established hierarchical structure” (Rivers, 2019, p. 71). Thus, an autocratic leader motivates others to pursue a mission not by inspiring them but by persuading them to believe in the leader’s ability to make correct decisions in every situation. An autocratic leader may allocate some decision-making responsibilities to other people, but their opinion will still be the most crucial for the organization in every major matter. One of the negative sides of autocratic leadership is the unwillingness of the leader to accept criticism from their followers (Rivers, 2019). Any type of critical perspective may threaten the authority of the leader, and therefore, it is avoided, which can harm the group or organization.

Charismatic leadership is the most appropriate leadership style to use due to its many advantages, which autocratic leadership cannot provide. The openness of charismatic leaders enables them to be willing to solve the existing challenges in a fast way. For instance, research shows that charismatic leaders are much more efficient at managing emergencies in comparison to autocratic ones (Meriade & Sales, 2020). Every organization or group of people at some point may encounter a difficult situation which will require fast decision-making. Charismatic leaders can solve the problem faster because they are ready to listen to the feedback of the subordinates who, in their turn, always possess insights into their particular field of expertise. Depending on the situation at hand, charismatic leaders can quickly adapt to the circumstances and find the ultimate solution by receiving proper advice from their followers. Autocratic leaders are much less likely to ask their subordinates for any kind of recommendation, which slows down their decision-making process and worsens its quality.

Another advantage of charismatic leadership is closely connected to the previous one and concerns the perception of power and its aspects. Autocratic leaders are much less likely to address the intricacies of ethical implications of exercising power rather than charismatic leaders (Rivers, 2019). In other words, charismatic leaders understand that they cannot simply govern the people they work with from the position of absolute power. Instead, they build structures where group members can communicate with the leader freely, which eradicates the problem of a negative perception of the leader. Essentially, such an arrangement can be described as power-sharing, which promotes joint decision-making encompassing the perspectives of all members (Rivers, 2019). Thus, as opposed to autocratic leadership, which implies strict hierarchy and a directive way of interacting with the subordinates, the charismatic one can be characterized as more ethical.

Finally, the charismatic way of leadership is based on providing followers with a motivation which has a positive effect on them, as opposed to the autocratic one, which relies on pressure. While the primary tools for autocratic leaders to ensure subordination are fear, for instance, of losing one’s job, the main mechanism behind charismatic leadership is simply motivation. As a result, a charismatic leader can inspire followers by causing them to experience followership-relevant emotions, which further promote prosocial behavior, thus motivating people to work for the benefit of the organization (Sy et al., 2019). Basically, in the presence of charismatic leadership, people enjoy their responsibilities and are naturally committed to them because they find it rewarding, including in terms of emotions. Thus, charismatic leadership promotes better job satisfaction and the ability of subordinates to relate to the mission of the organization.

Napoleon Bonaparte serves as a great example to demonstrate both the advantages of charismatic leadership and the downsides of autocratic leadership. Napoleon Bonaparte was a unique individual who, to this day, remains a controversial historical personality partially due to his leadership approach. On the one hand, Napoleon led a huge army of able-bodied and minded men, yet they were overly dependent on their leader since he chose not to share his tactics with anyone (Meriade & Sales, 2020). Essentially, Napoleon demonstrated clear traits characteristic of autocratic leaders, which is the unwillingness to discuss his decisions with other people, no matter how skilled or competent they are. Although any army requires a well-established structure and hierarchy, the leaders always tend to cooperate together to devise joint plans. Napoleon espoused an unconventional approach, the one which implied solely and independently exercising full control over the army. Such a method can certainly be considered autocratic, and it is possible that it contributed to a negative view of Napoleon among the higher military ranks.

At the same time, despite being autocratic in certain aspects, Napoleon also utilized the principles of charismatic leadership, which manifested themselves in several forms. Bonaparte managed to constantly motivate and engage his soldiers using his charm and charisma, which were recognized by many of his contemporaries, including Hegel (Meriade & Sales, 2020). Napoleon possessed a character which enabled him to convey a message in such a way which would be inspiring and engaging and capable of making people empathize with the mission outlined by their leader. Moreover, as research shows, Napoleon had always had his charisma, even during the time when he had no power at his disposal. For instance, in a coup d’état in 1799, he was able to replace the French Directory with Consulate despite being only a general (Ohnesorge, 2020). Essentially, Napoleon has always utilized the appeal of his character to persuade people to abide by his command.

Despite the aforementioned strengths of the charismatic style and weaknesses of the autocratic style, there is a notion that the selection of the right leadership approach depends greatly on the environment. The idea was understood by Napoleon, and he mastered the art of espousing different ways of leadership to appeal to as many people as possible. Research shows that demographics should factor in the decision to adopt whichever style of leadership, even in spheres such as hotel management (Uzunsaf Yamak & Zihni Eyüpoğlu, 2018). Napoleon was not only a great military commander but also an Emperor, which meant that he had to be both excellent at managing an army and the population. As a result, his approach involved being strict and autocratic in the cases of military action while being charismatic in public, in front of his soldiers and citizens.

Despite a variety of benefits to adopting a charismatic leadership approach, it may not always be the right choice. As mentioned previously, in certain situations, autocratic leadership can be a better alternative, while charisma may actually interfere with performance. According to studies, charismatic leaders are more likely to possess such qualities as narcissism and a sense of entitlement, which can lead to their judgments being somewhat clouded (Ma, 2018). In other words, having a well-developed charisma may cause the person’s ego to grow, which can make them too be too confident in their decisions. At the same time, it is possible that when a charismatic leader begins to ignore the ideas shared by others and prevents them from participating in joint decision-making, they start acting autocratically. Essentially, there is always a risk that charisma can become a source of excessive arrogance and pride which also correlate with autocratic leadership qualities. In such cases, the leader needs to reassess their behavior and correct it in order to avoid losing the trust of the followers.

There are also specific scenarios where charismatic leaders can become problematic and may need to be adjusted to meet the needs of the organization. Charismatic leadership may negatively impact succession since there is only a frail possibility that the successors of a charismatic leader will be as effective (Radtke, 2020). The problem of succession is common in companies which are undergoing a generational change in their management. For example, a charismatic leader may be the CEO of a company and, after their resignation, their children who do not possess the same charisma can occupy their position. In many cases, the child will attempt to mimic the leadership style of their parent, but such a strategy may not yield any positive results simply due to the lack of trust on the part of employees. Thus, companies should not become too dependent on charismatic leaders in order to avoid problems with succession.

Furthermore, the behavior of a leader might not be a factor capable of significantly improving or in any affecting the performance of an organization. According to the research of Jansen and Delahaij (2019), group dynamics and contextual factors are often determinants of who the majority accepts as their leader. In other words, a formal leader, for instance, a CEO of a company, may not actually be perceived as such by their subordinates. In fact, embracing a charismatic or autocratic leadership style will not help them to become a person who everyone views as their leader. Instead, the group may randomly assign the role of an informal leader to one of the employees. Nevertheless, such cases are rare, and they are often symptomatic of various conflicts existing in the organization and, therefore, the solution must be found not in the leadership approach but elsewhere.

Charismatic leadership is clearly effective at responding to the modern-day challenges organizations will most likely face. Charismatic leaders are able to motivate those around them without abusing their power, which is the case when referring to the proponents of the autocratic style. As a result, those united around a charismatic leader are more likely to remain loyal to them. Charismatic leadership is crucial for modern-fay organizations as they face unpredictable challenges regularly, while this style of leadership, in particular, facilitates an efficient response to emergencies and critical situations, unlike an autocratic one. However, it is crucial to recognize contextual factors, demographics, and group dynamics might play a more important role in selecting a leader rather than their personal characteristics or the preferences they express either towards an autocratic style or a charismatic one. Organizations worldwide should invest more resources into hiring and training a new generation of charismatic leaders if they want to ensure the long-term success of their teams.

Banks, G. C., Engemann, K. N., Williams, C. E., Gooty, J., McCauley, K. D., & Medaugh, M. R. (2017). A meta-analytic review and future research agenda of charismatic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 28 (4), 508–529.

Jansen, M. M., & Delahaij, R. (2019). Leadership acceptance through the lens of Social Identity theory: A case study of military leadership in Afghanistan. Armed Forces & Society, 46 (4), 657-676.

Ma, B. (2018). The dark side of charismatic leadership: A social exchange perspective (Doctoral dissertation, City University of New York, New York City, NY). Web.

Mériade, L., & Sales, J. M. (2020). Emergency management in organizations? The answers provided by Napoleon Bonaparte. Revue Internationale De Psychosociologie Et De Gestion Des Comportements Organisationnels, 26 (64), 165-196. Web.

Ohnesorge, H. W. (2020). Soft power. Global power shift . Springer.

Radtke, M. T. (2020). Why kill deposed leaders? Regime types and post-tenure fates. Foreign Policy Analysis , 16 (3), 332-352. Web.

Rivers, M. N. (2019). A review of autocratic, paternalistic, and charismatic leadership in three collectivist cultures. Emerging Leadership Journeys, 12 (1), 68-104. Web.

Roe, K. (2017). Leadership: Practice and perspectives . Oxford University Press.

Sy, T., Horton, C., & Riggio, R. (2018). Charismatic leadership: Eliciting and channeling follower emotions. The Leadership Quarterly, 29 (1), 58–69. Web.

Uzunsaf Yamak, Ö., & Zihni Eyüpoğlu, Ş. (2018). Leadership styles of hotel managers in Northern Cyprus: Which style is dominant? International Journal of Organizational Leadership, 7 , 1-11. Web.

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

StudyKraken. (2023, February 8). Autocratic-Charismatic Leadership: Napoleon Bonaparte. Retrieved from https://studykraken.com/autocratic-charismatic-leadership-napoleon-bonaparte/

StudyKraken. (2023, February 8). Autocratic-Charismatic Leadership: Napoleon Bonaparte. https://studykraken.com/autocratic-charismatic-leadership-napoleon-bonaparte/

"Autocratic-Charismatic Leadership: Napoleon Bonaparte." StudyKraken , 8 Feb. 2023, studykraken.com/autocratic-charismatic-leadership-napoleon-bonaparte/.

1. StudyKraken . "Autocratic-Charismatic Leadership: Napoleon Bonaparte." February 8, 2023. https://studykraken.com/autocratic-charismatic-leadership-napoleon-bonaparte/.

Bibliography

StudyKraken . "Autocratic-Charismatic Leadership: Napoleon Bonaparte." February 8, 2023. https://studykraken.com/autocratic-charismatic-leadership-napoleon-bonaparte/.

StudyKraken . 2023. "Autocratic-Charismatic Leadership: Napoleon Bonaparte." February 8, 2023. https://studykraken.com/autocratic-charismatic-leadership-napoleon-bonaparte/.

StudyKraken . (2023) 'Autocratic-Charismatic Leadership: Napoleon Bonaparte'. 8 February.

This paper was written and submitted to our database by a student to assist your with your own studies. You are free to use it to write your own assignment, however you must reference it properly.

If you are the original creator of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyKraken, request the removal .