Autocratic vs Democratic Leadership

Leadership Styles Autocratic leadership is the style of leadership in which the leader assumes total control of the entire decision making process. Whatever the leader says is what goes. This style of leadership is seen in very hierarchical settings, such as the military, where there is a clear chain of command: the leader at the top passes down the orders to those below, who pass them on out to their subordinates.

There is no room for questioning the leader or for inserting one’s own will into the process: one gets orders, and one obeys them. As De Cremer (2006) points out, there is no room for latitude—one must stick to commands as they are. Autocratic leadership traits are most often associated with masculinity or with male-dominated organizations (Eagly & Johannesen-Schmidt, 2001). This style of leadership is often associated with bullying, perhaps for that reason (Hoel, Glasø, Hetland, Cooper & Einarsen, 2010).

It focuses not on feelings or on understanding or on developing relationships but rather on the idea that when the boss makes a decision and gives an order the only thing that matters is that the subordinate does what is expected of him without complaining.

Autocratic leaders are take-charge types of people and they do not like it when others get in their way—though this does not mean they will not solicit others for information or advice; at the end of the day, however, they know that the decision is theirs, and once made it is expected that all will conform. Democratic leadership is the opposite of autocratic: instead of power being concentrated in the hands of one person, democratic leadership allows it to be possessed by all.

The leader will solicit a vote from all who participate or have a stake in the decision making process by asking those members to give ideas and help solve the decision making process. In democratic leadership style, the leader is concerned about the various feelings and opinions of those around him and wants them to be involved in the governance and oversight of the organization so that they can feel invested in it and can be part of the solution (Harris & Chapman, 2004).

Indeed, democratic leadership is associated with inclusivity and making members of groups feel welcomed and important in terms of having input (Foels, Driskell, Mullen & Salas, 2000). The main focus of democratic leadership style is to give voice to others so that they can help steer the organization on the basis of their own knowledge, experience, and insight into problem-solving and goal accomplishment (Gastil, 1994).

Laissez-faire leadership is a step further than democratic leadership: it is actually a style of leadership in which the leader is totally hands-off and gives other members the ability to make decisions and exercise authority (Xirasagar, 2008). Some critics suggest that this type of hands-off approach to leadership is actually destructive because it eliminates the idea of accountability and responsibility at the top (Skogstad, Einarsen, Torsheim, Aasland & Hetland, 2007).

What makes laissez-faire leadership successful, however, is when the leader appoints the right people for the right positions, knowing full well that they can actually make the right decisions for the group or for the organization. It is about delegating power and authority wisely and then getting out of the way. Servant leadership could be said to be a type of laissez-faire leadership in the sense that it is about putting others first ahead of oneself.

The laissez-faire leader knows, however, that he does not want to be micromanaging or having to do much oversight: his aim is to put the best person in charge of operations: it is about giving workers a chance at self-leadership (Furtner, Baldegger & Rauthmann, 2013). References De Cremer, D. (2006). Affective and motivational consequences of leader self-sacrifice: The moderating effect of autocratic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(1), 79-93. Eagly, A. H., & Johannesen?Schmidt, M. C. (2001). The leadership styles of women and men. Journal of social issues, 57(4), 781-797.

Foels, R., Driskell, J. E., Mullen, B.,.