Sei sulla pagina 1di 8

Characteristics of Autocratic Leadership

Some of the primary characteristics of autocratic leadership include:


Little or no input from group members
Leaders make the decisions
Group leaders dictate all the work methods and processes
Group members are rarely trusted with decisions or important tasks
Benefits of Autocratic Leadership
Autocratic leadership can be beneficial in some instances, such as when decision
s need to be made quickly without consulting with a large group of people. Some
projects require strong leadership in order to get things accomplished quickly a
nd efficiently.
Have you ever worked with a group of students or co-workers on a project that go
t derailed by poor organization, a lack of leadership, and an inability to set d
eadlines? If so, chances are that your grade or job performance suffered as a re
sult. In such situations, a strong leader who utilizes an autocratic style can t
ake charge of the group, assign tasks to different members, and establish solid
deadlines for projects to be finished.
In situations that are particularly stressful, such as during military conflicts
, group members may actually prefer an autocratic style. It allows members of th
e group to focus on performing specific tasks without worrying about making comp
lex decisions. This also allows group members to become highly skilled at perfor
ming certain duties, which can be beneficial to the group.
Downsides of Autocratic Leadership
While autocratic leadership can be beneficial at times, there are also many inst
ances where this leadership style can be problematic. People who abuse an autocr
atic leadership style are often viewed as bossy, controlling, and dictatorial, w
hich can lead to resentment among group members.
Because autocratic leaders make decisions without consulting the group, people i
n the group may dislike that they are unable to contribute ideas. Researchers ha
ve also found that autocratic leadership often results in a lack of creative sol
utions to problems, which can ultimately hurt the performance of the group.
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 u
sed 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
.
Autocratic leadership is an extreme version of task-oriented or assertive leader
ship. A manager with this style typically relies on his authority, assertiveness
, position and fear to motivate workers to complete tasks on time. While this ap
proach can lead to efficiency benefits, it may also cause low employee morale an
d high turnover. Autocratic leaders normally share a few common traits.
Domineering
Autocratic leaders normally exhibit a high degree of dominance. This includes a
captivating persona, aggressive demeanor and vocal assertiveness. In a meeting o
r group setting, the autocratic leader is typically the one talking and holding

control of the floor. The ability to get the attention of employees and certaint
y of the leader's authority are benefits of this quality. However, a domineering
leader can also scare or oppress workers to the point they leave.
Decisive
Autocratic leaders are typically decisive. When faced with a dilemma or a comple
x situation, a leader with this style tends to be able to think quickly and act
swiftly. This is especially advantageous when time is of the essence or in a cri
sis. Employees rely on the autocratic leader to direct activities in a pinch. Ho
wever, efficient decision-making without the involvement of others in more stabl
e times can lead to negative feelings from employees.
Independent
Along with being decisive, autocratic leaders often prefer to operate or make de
cisions independently. They rarely listen to the input or ideas of other employe
es. This can severely inhibit the quality and quantities of ideas the leader has
to work with. Inability to share input also demotivates workers. In some compan
ies where routine tasks must be performed efficiently, the ability of leaders to
make fast, autonomous decisions is vital to consistency and uniformity in produ
ction.
Critical
Some autocratic leaders are also micromanagers, meaning they hover closely as em
ployees work. Others dictate and then give employees more freedom to work within
stated boundaries. Regardless, autocratic leaders are usually critical and dema
nding of employees. If employees make errors, produce insufficient work or don't
meet deadlines, they often face formal and informal consequences from the autoc
ratic leader. Regular criticism without a balance of positive reinforcement for
good work can cause employee frustration and stress.
What is it?
In an autocratic leadership style, the person in charge has total authority and
control over decision making. By virtue of their position and job responsibiliti
es, they not only control the efforts of the team, but monitor them for completi
on often under close scrutiny
This style is reminiscent of the earliest tribes and empires. Obviously, our his
torical movement toward democracy brings a negative connotation to autocracy, bu
t in some situations, it is the most appropriate type of leadership. That, of co
urse, doesn t mean a blank check to ignore the wellbeing of his subordinate.
When is it used?
The autocratic leadership style is best used in situations where control is nece
ssary, often where there is little margin for error. When conditions are dangero
us, rigid rules can keep people out of harm s way. Many times, the subordinate sta
ff is inexperienced or unfamiliar with the type of work and heavy oversight is n
ecessary.
Rigid organizations often use this style. It has been known to be very paternali
stic, and in highly-professional, independent minded teams, it can lead to resen
tment and strained morale.
Good fits for Autocratic Leadership:
Military
Manufacturing
Construction

How to be effective with this position:


It s easy to see the immediate goal of this type of leadership: use your expertise
to get the job done. Make sure that everyone is exactly where they need to be a
nd doing their job, while the important tasks are handled quickly and correctly.
In many ways this is the oldest leadership style, dating back to the early empir
es. It s very intuitive to tell people what needs to be done by when.
It is difficult balancing the use of authority with the morale of the team. Too
much direct scrutiny will make your subordinates miserable, and being too heavy
handed will squelch all group input. Being an effective autocratic leader means
being very intentional about when and how demands are made of the team.
Here are some things to keep in mind to be an effective when acting as an autocr
atic leader:
Respect your Subordinates: It s easy to end up as rigid as the rules you are t
rying to enforce. It s important that you stay fair and acknowledge that everyone
brings something to the table, even if they don t call the shots. Making subordina
tes realize they are respected keeps moral up and resentment low; every function
al team is built on a foundation of mutual respect.
Explain the rules: Your people know they have to follow procedure, but it he
lps them do a better job if they know why.
Be consistent: If your role in the team is to enforce the company line, you
have to make sure you do so consistently and fairly. It s easy to respect someone
objective, but hard to trust someone who applies policy differently in similar c
ircumstances.
Educate before you enforce: Having everyone understand your expectations up
front will mean less surprises down the road. Being above board from the outset
prevents a lot of miscommunications and misunderstandings.
Listen, even if you don t change: We all want to feel like our opinions are ap
preciated, even if they aren t going to lead to immediate change and being a leade
r means that your team will want to bring their opinions to you. It s important to
be clear that they are heard, no matter the outcome.
Adolf Hitler is one of the most infamous characters in world history, known for
his leadership in the Nazi Party and his role as chancellor of Germany in the ea
rly 1930s. After the devastating results of World War II and the Holocaust, can
Hitler be considered a leader despite the damages he influenced? What aspects of
his behavior and his reign as Germany s dictator allow him to be characterized as
a leader, and what qualities force us to closely examine our definition of lead
ership?
As a leader, Hitler maintained legitimate power, however he could achieve it (Hu
ghes, Ginnett, Curphy). When Hitler joined the Nazi Party, he felt that the lead
ership was divided and ineffective, paving the perfect path for him to take over
. While there were many in the party who disapproved of his personal ambition, m
ost recognized his abilities to generate public attention for the party; therefo
re, when Hitler threatened to resign in 1921, the other members decided to grant
him overall leadership because they knew they needed his expertise.
Throughout his rule, Hitler maintained a mission and outlook that Sashkin would

say fulfills the requirements of visionary leadership. He constructed a vision t


hat stated the Aryan race was superior to all and defin[ed] an organizational philo
sophy that supported this inequality. Hitler and the Nazi party practiced what th
ey believed in, starting the new order and expelling Jews from Germany by any mean
s possible, including extermination. Despite the lack of respectable values, Hit
ler is a leader according to Sashkin s definition.
While there are several definitions where Hitler can be considered a leader, the
re are many others that would denounce his leadership because it is lacking in r
espected morals and a relationship with his followers. Hitler projected a person
alized charismatic leadership, a style that is exploitative, non-egalitarian, and
self-aggrandizing (Choi). He was extremely focused on his personal control, insi
sting that the ultimate authority rested with him and extended downward (BBC). He
assumed other positions so that ultimately he would have even more legitimate po
wer, whether or not it was the best move for his party. This style is extremely
dangerous for those who followed Hitler, as they were not heard, often punished
for wrongdoings, and became supporters of the morally repugnant new order. Hitler
harmed his party through his unrelenting control and lack of concern for others.
Rather than create a collaborative and inclusive environment, as Burns would en
courage, Hitler believed in giving direct orders without many others input.
Hitler was known for heavily critiquing those who reported to him and became ang
ry and frustrated with mistakes. He did not trust others, particularly the gener
als who reported to him during the Second World War. Without establishing a twoway relationship, Hitler could not, and would not, rely on the opinions of other
s, resorting to his instincts and opinions. As a leader, he did little to build
a relationship with his followers, focusing on direct control rather than mutual
communication. McGregor writes, Leadership is not a property of the individual,
but a complex relationship among these variables. Hitler underplayed and often ig
nored the characteristics of his followers, the characteristics of the Nazi Part
y as a whole, and the political context surrounding his leadership.
When examining Hitler s leadership, it is essential to identify your own leadershi
p model. Do you believe that morality and communication are key factors when dev
eloping a strong and effective leader? In hindsight, it is easy to denounce Hitl
er as a leader because of the pain and harm he afflicted on others. Heifitz writ
es that leadership engages our values, but what if those values are immoral and de
structive to many parties? Hitler was a leader, mainly due to his positional pow
er and influence on others surrounding his vision. However, I believe there is a
difference between moral and immoral leaders, and when the vision is detrimenta
l to multiple parties, the leadership is not a success.
Apparently he was a brilliant orator. It's hard for a non-German speaker to judg
e but his speeches had a real ability to touch the German people. Which is no me
an achievement considering he wasn't even German himself. It takes a special kin
d of fervour to whip up patriotism and national pride when you're not even from
that country.
He was also a man of extreme conviction, which you can clearly see in his speech
giving even if you don't understand the language. In uncertain times people are
drawn to those who are extremely sure of themselves and convinced of their own
beliefs. Hitler wasn't the sort of guy who had any doubts about his mission or a
bility.
He was incredibly single minded. He didn't chase women, do drugs or abuse his po
wer. He wasn't interested in using his position to gain wealth and personal ador
nments. He was really, really committed to making Germany the world's superpower

and committing genocide.


He was ruthless. There are lots of political leaders in the world who would love
to be able to dispose of their political enemies permanently but don't have the
guts. Hitler was happy to have anyone who disagreed with him murdered and to di
spose of his political enemies with either the threat of violence or actual viol
ence. It definitely helped him to obtain and hold power.
As long as you're prepared to overlook his total lack of morals, barking insanit
y and inherently evil ideology he had all the hallmarks of a great leader.
Hitler's Leadership Characteristics
Hitler s Leadership Characteristics:
Powerful: People listened to him. Not many people went against him because t
hey were afraid that something would happen to them or their families.
Demanding: He wanted what he wanted and wasn t going to change his beliefs for
anything or anyone. He thought that he had all the power in the world and that s
what he was trying to gain.
Reliant: He relied on his troops to carry out his plans.
Controlling: He wanted others to do things for him and made them do what he
told them to.
Goal Setter: He set goals for himself and the Nazis. Even though some of the
se were very far fetched, he did set them and that is a positive characteristic
of a leader.
Judgmental: He believed all who weren t Aryan were not needed. Not even knowin
g people he based his thoughts on looks and heritage.
Confidence: He had a lot of confidence thinking that he could achieve his go
als. Although in the end his confidencee was overturned, he did have it which is
a good characteristic of a leader.
Although it is good to have some of these leadership traits, as you can tell mix
ing them all together does not result in a good outcome.

Fhrerprinzip
How good was Hitler as a military commander? Was he, as his former subordinates
claimed after World War Two ended, a meddlesome amateur who kept them from condu
cting the war properly? What were his strengths and weaknesses, his goals and me
thods? The answers to these questions reveal a man who was indeed responsible fo
r Germany's downfall, though not entirely in the way that his generals claimed.
Hitler was ... determined to command personally.
Hitler was, first and foremost, determined to command personally. According to h
is so-called Leader Principle (Fhrerprinzip), ultimate authority rested with him
and extended downward. At each level, the superior was to give the orders, the s
ubordinates to follow them to the letter. In practice the command relationships
were more subtle and complex, especially at the lower levels, but Hitler did hav
e the final say on any subject in which he took a direct interest, including the
details of military operations, that is, the actual direction of armies in the
field.
Moreover, as time went on he took over positions that gave him ever more direct
control. From leader (Fhrer) of the German state in 1934, he went on to become co
mmander-in-chief of the armed forces in 1938, then commander-in-chief of the arm
y in 1941. Hitler wanted to be the Feldherr, the generalissimo, exercising direc

t control of the armies himself, in much the same sense that Wellington commande
d at Waterloo, albeit at a distance.
Top
Headquarters
Hitler, Field Marshal General Wilhelm Keitel and General of the Artillery Alfred
Jodl, discussing the war over maps in the Fhrer's headquarters, 1941 Adolf Hitle
r with Field Marshal General Wilhelm Keitel and General of the Artillery Alfred
Jodl, in the Fhrer's headquarters, 1941 Throughout World War Two Hitler worked f
rom one of several field headquarters, in contrast to other heads of state, who
remained in their capital cities. A small personal staff attended to him, and th
e army high command also kept its headquarters, with a much more substantial sta
ff, nearby. He held briefings with his senior military advisors, often in the co
mpany of Party officials and other hangers-on, each afternoon and late each nigh
t. His staff would present him with information on the status and actions of all
units down to division strength or lower, as well as on special subjects such a
s arms production or the technical specifications of new weapons.
... Hitler had an incredible memory for detail and would become annoyed at a
ny discrepancies.
Every point had to be correct and consistent with previous briefings, for Hitler
had an incredible memory for detail and would become annoyed at any discrepanci
es. He supplemented that information by consulting with his field commanders, on
very rare occasions at the front, more often by telephone or by summoning them
back to his headquarters. As the briefing went on he would state his instruction
s verbally for his staff to take down and then issue as written orders.
There were several broad sets of problems with Hitler's style of command. These
revolved around his personality, the depth of his knowledge, and his military ex
perience, and they exacerbated corresponding problems in the German command syst
em. After the war, the picture emerged of Hitler as a megalomaniac who refused t
o listen to his military experts and who, as a consequence, lost the war for Ger
many. That picture emerged due largely to the efforts of his former generals, wh
o had their own reputations to protect. The truth was more complicated, even if
Hitler's failings remained at the heart of it.
Top
Hitler's distrust of his generals
Hitler with his generals Keitel and Reichenau in 1939 Hitler with his generals K
eitel and Reichenau in 1939 Hitler did indeed distrust most of his generals - i
n part for good reason. He had to overcome a certain amount of timidity among hi
s senior officers before the war - during the reoccupation of the Rhineland, for
example - and his perception of them as over cautious set the tone for his rela
tions with them.
Certainly his operational decisions, especially early in the war, were sometimes
as good as, or better than, those of his generals. He was, after all, one of th
e two men who first thought up the campaign plan that the Wehrmacht (the German
army) used against France with such stunning success in 1940, and he had to push
hard before the General Staff would accept it. As time went on he came to belie
ve that Germany's victories were his alone and that most of his generals were na
rrow-minded, overly cautious and incapable.
... the generals expressed admiration for Hitler's political skills and goal
s.
For their part, the generals expressed admiration for Hitler's political skills
and goals. His defence minister from 1933 to 1938, General Werner von Blomberg,
said that Hitler's rise to power represented 'a broad national desire, and the r

ealisation of that towards which many of the best have been striving for years'.
Their attitude toward his military leadership, on the other hand, ran hot and c
old.
They often recognised his talents - far more than they later wanted to admit. At
other times they tried to resist him - though less often, less effectively, and
sometimes less justifiably than they later claimed. In any case, he grew ever m
ore distrustful and contemptuous of them as a group, despite the unflagging loya
lty that most of them displayed right to the end. As early as 1938 he was heard
to say that every general was either cowardly or stupid, and his opinion only wo
rsened with time.
Top
Reliance on instinct
Whatever the problems with his generals, however, there is no doubt that Hitler
lacked many of the qualities he needed to control military affairs with consiste
nt success. There have been examples - Churchill was one - of political leaders
who successfully interceded in the details of military strategy and operations,
but Hitler had neither the experience nor the personality for such a role. He sh
unned serious, comprehensive intellectual effort and was largely ignorant of mil
itary affairs and foreign cultures. He tended to reject any information that did
not fit with his (often wildly inaccurate) preconceptions. Instead he relied on
his 'instinct' and a belief that the will to win would overcome every obstacle
in the end.
No military leader can hope to understand the realities of the situation on
the ground from hundreds of miles away ...
His talents - or lack thereof - aside, Hitler took the practice of personal comm
and much too far. No military leader can hope to understand the realities of the
situation on the ground from hundreds of miles away, and yet he came to believe
that he could control all but the smallest units at the front. At the end of 19
42, for example, during the battle of Stalingrad, he actually had a street map o
f the city spread out before him so that he could follow the fighting, block by
block.
Similarly, near the end of the war he ordered that no unit could move without hi
s express permission, and he demanded lengthy reports on every armoured vehicle
and position that his forces lost. Such methods guaranteed that opportunities an
d dangers alike would go unnoticed, that good commanders would be trapped in imp
ossible situations and bad ones allowed to avoid responsibility.
Hitler also combined his insistence on personal control with a leadership style
that often consisted of equal parts indecisiveness and stubbornness. He sometime
s put off difficult decisions for weeks, especially as the military situation gr
ew worse. In 1943, for instance, his inability to make up his mind about an atta
ck at Kursk eventually pushed the attack back from April to July - by which time
the Soviets were well prepared.
Arguments among his commanders and advisors did not help the situation. By late
1942 Hitler's subordinates had split into cliques that competed for increasingly
scarce resources, while he remained the final arbiter of all disputes. His seni
or commanders felt free to contact him directly; they knew that the last man to
brief him often got what he wanted. At other times, though, Hitler would cling t
o a decision stubbornly, regardless of its merits. His decision to attack in the
Ardennes in 1944 is one good example: his commanders tried, both directly and i
ndirectly, to persuade him to adopt a more realistic plan, without success.
Top
Strategy

The image of Hitler as a meddler in military operations is powerful and persiste


nt. One should bear in mind, however, that his desire to control his armies' mov
ements was not the most important factor in Germany's defeat. Hitler's truly cri
tical decisions concerned strategy, that is, the war's timing, targets and goals
. His was the only voice that counted at that level, and it was his strategy tha
t led inevitably to Germany's eventual defeat.
He began by accepting war against the British Empire without any clear conceptio
n of how to win it. When his initial attempts to solve that problem failed, he r
eacted by turning against the Soviet Union - his preferred target in any case, f
or ideological as well as strategic reasons. There again he assumed an easy vict
ory and had no back-up plan when success eluded him.
... only a miracle could have staved off defeat ...
Then, even as the failure of his eastern offensive was becoming obvious, he took
on the United States, with whom he considered war to be inevitable in any case.
At that point, with Germany fighting simultaneously against the world's three g
reatest powers, only a miracle could have staved off defeat, and none was forthc
oming. From 1942 on, Germany could only hang on and try to exhaust its enemies,
but their superior resources and increasingly skilled armies made the outcome fi
rst predictable and then inevitable.
This was a situation that Hitler created. Where the Allies had a clear strategic
concept, he had none. Ultimately he believed that war was his only tool, that h
is armies would win the war simply by winning battles, and that they would win b
attles in large part because of their racial and ideological superiority. He nev
er balanced ends and means at the national level, and no matter how many battles
he won, there always seemed to be another one to fight. In the end, his was the
nation that exhausted itself.
Top
Sharing the blame
A final judgement on Hitler's role is one that calls for some balance. No comman
der works in isolation, no matter how absolute his power might appear. Germany's
senior military leaders bear a large measure of responsibility for the onset, c
haracter and outcome of World War Two.
No commander works in isolation, no matter how absolute his power might appe
ar.
They shared Hitler's weaknesses as strategists - in fact they were arguably even
less talented than he was - and their political attitudes and expansionist ambi
tions put most of them squarely in the Nazi camp. They supported Hitler's goals
but could not help realise them at the strategic level. There was no Alanbrooke
or Marshall in the group, nor even an Eisenhower. And for all their supposed pro
fessionalism, their operational abilities were not so great as their memoirs mak
e them appear.
The fact remains, however, that Hitler was the driving force behind the war. It
was Hitler that provided its ideological basis and its strategic direction; his
generals merely went along, however willingly. Hitler also had a hand in nearly
all the major operational decisions concerning Germany's running of the war, and
his was the leadership that took Germany and Europe into the greatest catastrop
he of modern times.

Potrebbero piacerti anche