along with it. Efficiency is a tool for managers; effectiveness is a tool for leaders.
It’s about the effectiveness of leadership styles based on commitment and trust in middle management. Of course, this requires anything but an authoritarian leadership style.
Key takeaways
Hard management focuses on plans, structures and the task. Soft’ management focuses on the people
It takes a strong leader to implement soft management.
Theory X is based on authoritarian leadership, Theory Y is based on soft leadership.
Management concerns efficiency, leadership concerns effectiveness.
Authority? Of course! Authoritarian? No way!
Authoritarian
Believe it or not, they still exist: authoritarian leaders who see themselves as being the top of an organization or team and act accordingly. They are autocrats who only occasionally, for token reasons, tolerate another person’s opinion, and they are often supporters of theory X. The only reason that this type of leader is no longer as clearly perceived as the choleric patriarch was in the past is that today’s authoritarian leader has become cleverer and can package his/her appearance better. Nevertheless, they still exist. Being authoritarian is too often still seen as a virtue in leadership circles. You’ve earned it, you’re ‘important’, and therefore you have the ‘right’ to be more ruthless. Whether these authoritarian leaders are actually smarter, have better ideas, make better suggestions, know more or are ultimately more valuable is irrelevant; they are simply the ‘boss’.
However, we also have to make this claim a little more precise and put it into perspective. An organization needs decisive and dynamic leaders who, because of their role, can sometimes appear dominant. If the leader is too considerate in situations where quick action is required, then damage can be done, and that doesn’t help either. An organization needs leaders who can apply an authoritarian leadership style when the situation demands it, but only then. This applies, for example, to crisis situations and conflicts, when decisive action is primarily required. In such cases, we are clearly talking about a situational authoritative leadership style and not an authoritarian personality.
However, we are not talking about snapshots and situational behaviour here, but about fundamental behaviour. Decision-making and being an active superior also requires a high degree of prudence and responsiveness to employees. If this is not the case, there is a danger of being too authoritarian, with all the corresponding negative side effects.
Authoritarian personalities are often not in control of and are in fact led by their ego. Studies have found that authoritarian behaviour has its origins in the past, usually the childhood of the authoritarian person. Narcissistic feelings of inferiority, powerlessness and individual insignificance have been developed at some point and are then rationalized by the affected person (the authoritarian) as love or loyalty. In the ‘flight into authoritarianism’, the independence and integrity of the self is abandoned.
To some extent, authoritarian personalities are thus also victims of their situation. They need compensation for an emotional or mental deficit and find it by acquiring a position of power. And the best way to do that is through an authoritarian demeanour. An additional problem is that such personalities need this compensation in order to survive. The fear of losing the power position leads to a reinforcement of the authoritarian behaviour. So, it does not get better and such vicious circles can be demotivating for any organization or for a team and thus it is destructive.
However, even if the authoritarian behaviour of a leader is not self-inflicted, this is no justification in a business enterprise to tolerate this destructive behaviour. Authoritarian behaviour only serves the authoritarian leader and not the good of the team.
“If authority is complete, then so is the madness of the man who declares it, and so is the potential for abuse of power.” Rick Wilson
In the many years that I have worked in the dynamic hotel industry, which is focused on profitability, I have met many managers with many different leadership styles. I have never met an authoritarian leader who got the maximum out of his team. Under such a leader, employees rarely did what they were really capable of, but only what they had to. Authoritarian leaders fail to unlock potential in their employees because of their misplaced focus. And in the end, an organization is about getting the most out of its people and its team in order to achieve the best possible results in the long term.
Leaders know this and will not accept too much authoritarian behaviour on the part of the managers in the company, so that existence of the teams and their results are not endangered.
In general, criticism of authoritarian leadership styles is getting louder these days and new generations are acting differently. Start-ups and agencies are leading the way. They want to build social connections in every department and perceive themselves as a team to get the most out of a company. Very few supervisors want to appear authoritarian and dominant. They respect each employee as an individual and want to benefit from their core competencies and advantages. An employee will best contribute to a team if he/she has the feeling to play an important role in the company. If his/her wishes, ideas or food for thought remain unheard, he/she will keep them to him/herself in the future and not use them profitably for the company.
Authority
There is a crucial difference between authority and authoritarian:Authority is a personality trait, an aura that a person has. Authoritarian refers to a person’s behaviour.
Authority is only authentic and valuable when it is bestowed upon one and not when it has to be demanded or forced, as in the case of an authoritarian person.
“A leader who refers to his titles relies heavily on positional power to get things done. A natural leader can mobilize others without formal authority.” Gary Hamel
Originally - in the times of ancestors - authority was basically based on competence and physical strength. The one who could do something very well or who was the best, also had the authority in the respective field.
Our society today is much larger, much more complex and often authority based on competence is replaced by authority based on social status. Although competence is still important for achieving a certain level of authority, it is no longer the main prerequisite. Authority based on social status is based on the ability to perform certain social functions and it is also based on the personality of a person who has achieved a high level of self-realization and integration. Such a highly developed individual radiates authority without flexing his muscles. This also distinguishes us from the animal world, where authority based on physical strength is usually still decisive.
Now I don’t want to claim that authoritarian leaders who appear excessively strong are animalistic. However, such personalities do lack a certain social development or social understanding, the sense of the ‘whole’. Yet it is precisely this social competence that makes a leader who uses authority to lead his team or organization to peak performance. This is because authority, regardless of position, is indispensable in an organization. It gives team members support and orientation and opens up possibilities for better results. Various studies confirm that people follow authority because it makes them better and moves them forward. Positive authority supports our development. It is then not far-fetched to claim that authority based on strongly developed social skills, i.e., leadership, moves an organization and its results ahead.
Humility – Servant Leadership
It’s not about you! It’s about the others, your team, your organization, the partners, the results. Your role as a leader is to help. Apart from the terms ‘authoritarian’ or ‘authority’, leaders are by no means ‘special’ people and they are not more important than anyone else. However, leaders have certain skills that