"Diabolical dictators or capable commanders?"

At the end of my last post, What style of leadership works best...", I stated that I would talk about a study about "diabolical dictators and capable commanders" that was published in the journal, Leadership Quarterly in 2015.  It's an interesting study, because it tries to answer the question of which leadership style is more effective - the authoritarian, autocratic, "diabolical dictator" type of leadership or the democratic, supportive, "capable commander" type.  

The concept of power frequently comes up in discussions about leadership.  "Power" is generally defined as the ability of an individual (usually the leader, but not always) to exercise some form of control over another individual or a group of individuals.  Whereas power deals primarily with control and influence, leadership requires the ability to not only create a vision, but also to motivate another individual or a group of individuals to work towards achieving the leader's vision.  Certainly, the ability to motivate others requires a certain degree of credibility and trust.  Power, on the other hand, does not depend on any personal attributes but rather requires the individual to have some position of authority.  

Just as there are different styles of leadership (as we discussed in the last post - authoritarian or autocratic, democratic, and laissez-faire), there are different types of power - coercive, legitimate, reward, expert, and referent.  Coercive power occurs when individuals have the power to threaten, by for example, demoting or firing an employee, giving a poor performance review, or cutting someone's pay.  Reward power is essentially the opposite - power conveyed by an individual's ability to reward through pay raises, promotions, or good performance reviews.  Legitimate power is the type of power that comes with position - for example, being the leader of a team, the director of a group, or the chief executive of an organization.  These first three types of power are formalized and generally handed to a leader.  The next two types of power have more to do with personal characteristics.  For example, expert power is exactly what it sounds like - the power that an individual has due to their experience, knowledge, and skills.  Referent power is the kind of power that comes when an individual is greatly respected and trusted.  It's important to recognize that individuals don't need to be leaders to have power (see especially expert power and referent power).  However, it is difficult to be a leader without having some form of power, be it formal power or personal power.  

Power can be centralized or decentralized.  Here is where power and style leadership intersect!  Authoritarian, or autocratic leadership usually centralizes or concentrates power in a single dominant individual (the "diabolical dictator" referenced in the study we are about to discuss).  With democratic leadership, on the other hand, power is less centralized (and in a way, the leader is the one conferring power on the group by allowing them to play a role in making decisions).   

One can certainly see some benefits to the centralized power of authoritarian leadership.  For example, the members of the group definitely know at all times who is "in charge."  There is a clear hierarchy with this style of leadership, which can be beneficial in some circumstances.  Conversely, authoritarian leadership may also negatively impact group performance.  For example, authoritarian leaders can be negative for team morale.  So, which is it?

In the "Diabolical Dictators or Capable Commanders?" study, teams from 60 retail (in this case, from the finance industry) outlets (225 employees and their managers) were prospectively studied using validated measures of team dynamics and leadership.  Overall team performance was determined by dividing the total sales per day by the number of customers per day.  Here are the results.  When there were no power struggles on the team (different individuals or factions competing for power), authoritarian or autocratic leaders were actually beneficial, in terms of overall team performance.  Conversely, when there were power struggles, the authoritarian leadership style only worsened these power struggles further, causing overall team performance to suffer.  

The results seem counterintuitive at first.  The investigators surmised that authoritarian leadership is "only effective in establishing a clear chain of command which helps members make sense of the world, allocate resources, and interact in a safe and efficient manner when team members accept the existing power hierarchy in the team and do not engage in power struggles."  When power struggles exist, the existing hierarchy is disrupted and team performance deteriorates.  

More studies such as this one are needed.  Studies exploring team dynamics and leadership styles in health care would be particularly useful.  Regardless, the key point to remember is that effective leaders flex between the different leadership styles, depending upon the needs of the team.  In the end, it's likely that no one leadership style will be universally applicable in all situations.  

As the management guru, Warren Benis once said, "Leadership is the wise use of power."  Similarly, Winston Churchill said, "Leadership is the intelligent use of power." The best leaders optimally utilize their base of power to accomplish the tasks at hand.