Violating the principles of democracy. Autocratic governance. A return to democracy. In recent years, the political space has been repeatedly flooded with observations and criticisms of the leadership style. Accusations of autocratic leadership, and then these same people responding that they are defending democracy. The whole communication has defined the leadership style (whether it is autocratic or democratic) as something purely subjective; as a matter of personal judgement. So what does autocratic really mean? And what defines a democratic leadership style?
I do not want to go into the details, but only the basics and, once again (at least I hope I am succeeding in this), to createm above all, a clear message. There are three aspects in which the two styles differ.
1 Centralisation (of decision-making, power, authority)
An autocratic leader centralises power with himself (or a small leadership group). This means that a leader makes his own decisions; for himself and for others. When power is centralised or concentrated at one point, it means that a leader is not only in charge of decisions that fall within today’s description of the leader’s role, but virtually all major decisions. For example, it is not only the selection of staff that is within his or her remit, but also personal decisions or the chosen ways in which the tasks of this staff are carried out. In such a work environment, we speak of boss-centred leadership. What is chosen is what the leader understands and supports … and the organisation (or even the country) operates within the limits of the leader’s knowledge, understanding and insights.
A democratic leader decentralises power; i. e. delegates decision-making to members across an organisation. In such a working environment, task performers have a wider range of freedom and can adapt their performance to the situation to a greater extent. A leader sets boundaries of freedom or defines roles within which individuals make decisions. Maintaining a common direction of action is ensured by appropriate staffing (selecting an individual who is able and willing to make the choices required for the role), but also, of course, by the familiar elements of culture building and the dissemination (communication) of a shared vision and mission. A democratic leader recruits to bring new skills and new thinking power (new individuals to solve problems in organisation’s development path). Such an organisation works with a wider pool of knowledge and insights.
2 Hierarchy of relationships or attitudes
An autocratic leader emphasises superior-subordinate (i.e. hierarchical) relationships between members of an organisation. This means that he or she relies on formal positional power to guide and motivate (which are the main components and tasks of a leader). This type of power allows either to give or take away rewards and either to give or take away punishments. Because of presence of a power argument, this type of power is called power over others, which is described by the phrase ‘I will command you because I can’.
A democratic leader does not emphasise hierarchy in relationships. In influencing others, he or she relies more on personal power (knowledge and personal qualities such as fairness, respectfulness etc.). Knowledge or expertise is at the forefront. Power of argument take presidence to the point that even leadership itself (as I have already writen in introductory posts) is dynamic and gets shared; it moves from one person to another according to the characteristics of the given challenge. And a description for this form of power? Power with others.
3 Type of communication
When a leader makes important decisions on his/her own, these decisions only need to be delivered or announced to others. Autocratic leader’s communication channel thus includes orders, instructions on how to carry out tasks, feedback on successes or failures and the rewards that go with it, etc. Communication is predominantly a one-way street.
Meanwhile, a communication channel of a democratic leader is filled with a different content. When members of the organisation make decisions, information-related needs are different. Followers require everything they need for understanding their task and their situation well enough to make quality and independent decisions. Communication channels therefore must be open to feedback and information updates, as focus is on thoughts and ideas of members of the organisation who are placed in a given role and are facing a given problem. Communication is predominantly takes a two-way form.
Define the difference
The two leadership styles described above are two opposing leadership styles. When one concetrates power, another delegates it. When one uses power over others, another trust opposite ways and leans on power with people. When one’s communication channels are filled with orders and obligations, another’s are delivering questions and informations. If we look at the two styles in practice, resulting differences are enourmous. But if we want to poinpoint the differences, it bolds well that we are able to turn from symptoms to iniciating premises that create those final differences.
Paradim 