Autocratic Leadership Failures: An Organizational Behavior Case

Introduction: The Leadership Context

The manager within this organization did not engage her team in decisions at all. She routinely made decisions unilaterally and without considering the opinions, concerns, or analyses of her subordinates. She did not solicit or welcome input on considerations related to decisions, and she rebuffed offers from subordinate team members to contribute to the decision-making process.

The manager had delegated certain levels of authority to her subordinate supervisor, but she continually undermined that authority by requiring all subordinate decisions to go to her for approval before implementation. Rather than enforcing this requirement as discreetly as possible, she consistently did the opposite — conducting her review and authorization of decisions already made by supervisors in front of the entire team.

The manager employed a caustic, accusatory, and autocratic leadership style in both her day-to-day management and her performance evaluation and feedback practices. She failed entirely to acknowledge her own mistakes or to apologize for undeserved criticism. Her motivations were primarily personal career ambitions, and she remained oblivious to and wholly uninterested in any career development opportunities for her staff.

Consequences of Autocratic Management

As a direct result of the manager's leadership style, her subordinate supervisor eventually confronted her directly and laid out the facts detailing how much of the organization's operational weaknesses were attributable to her management. That confrontation resulted in the supervisor's summary dismissal and only worsened the remaining staff's sentiments toward the manager. The dismissed supervisor had been well respected and well liked; former coworkers and subordinates agreed with everything that had been said. Another team member subsequently began experiencing symptoms of depression, which he attributed to his work situation.

A general attitude of indifference toward performance spread throughout the staff, and productivity dropped continuously as virtually everyone refused to do more than the bare minimum necessary to retain their jobs. Within a few months of the dismissal, the rest of the staff had either left the organization voluntarily or been terminated by the manager.

Delegating Authority Effectively

Effective leaders must understand when and how to delegate decision-making authority to colleagues and subordinates. From a perspective of operational practicality, delegation is necessary in all but the smallest organizations simply because no single manager can make every decision at every level. Effective delegation is even more important because it establishes and helps to maintain a formal hierarchy and ensures respect for supervisors among their respective teams.

When a manager routinely usurps the apparent authority of supervisors, it undermines their ability to maintain the necessary authority differential with their own subordinates. The more openly and condescendingly this is done, the more damaging the effect on the supervisor's relationship with the team.

Building Trust and Establishing Integrity

One of the primary responsibilities of effective leaders is to build trust among their teams. In many respects, this goes hand-in-hand with creating a culture of responsibility, honesty, and personal integrity. At the most fundamental level, effective managers acknowledge the importance of their team's contributions to both their own success and that of the organization. They also promote a culture of learning, fairness in performance evaluation, and personal accountability for mistakes as well as accomplishments.

Generally, this means managers must communicate that performance is evaluated on its merits and that mistakes are addressed within a productive learning environment rather than a punitive one. According to organizational behavior research, employees who perceive their workplace as fair and trust their leaders are substantially more engaged and productive (Robbins & Judge, 2009; George & Jones, 2008).