Authoritarian management style: advantages and disadvantages

When students write a report on pedagogical practice, they are usually strongly advised not to write that they used an authoritarian management style. Although in many situations this style is optimal, and this applies not only to educators, but also managers of completely different levels.

The authoritarian style of leadership is a method of management, in which almost the absolute majority of decisions are made by the leader, and the group's contribution to management is minimal. Managers or teachers who are inclined towards this method usually decide on the basis of only their experience, trusting their judgment. The councils on the part of the governed are practically not accepted. The authoritarian style of management presupposes a level of control over the group approaching the dictatorial level, sometimes turning into a frankly dictatorial one.

What are the main characteristics of the described style?

First, the almost complete absence of participation of the group members in making key decisions. But the responsibility lies with the leader, so that the infringement of the rights of some is compensated by the fact that an ordinary member of the group can avoid any responsibility. It is comfortable for so many people.

Secondly, leaders indicate what should be done and describe in great detail the methods by which the goal can be achieved. The subordinates lose even the opportunity to prove themselves, the leader gets all the rewards in case of victory. But they are not responsible for mistakes. The leader controls the activities at each of the steps, which implies a large contribution of forces on his part, not always justified.

Thirdly, the leader undertakes the most difficult tasks. He does not trust the key stages of work for employees, even superior to him in the qualification, suggesting that nobody can better him. Often this opinion is justified, but only the resources of health and energy of such a leader can quickly deplete.

The authoritarian style of management seems to many not at all good. Does it have advantages? In some cases, it turns out to be optimal. An example is a situation where the solution should be as fast as possible, and once consult even with a small circle of people, not that with broad masses. If there is no time to play in democracy - boldly use an authoritarian style of leadership. And this style is adopted in the army because in battle there is no time to confer.

It is very difficult to use liberal style among people who are not inclined to creativity and responsibility. Perhaps you, the reader, have experience when promising projects failed because of the leader's inactivity. A good manager distributes tasks and assigns rigid deadlines. In a situation of severe scarcity of resources, people tend to seek to fall under the influence of a "strong hand".

As we have already mentioned, the authoritarian style of management is optimal in the army, especially during military conflicts. The fact that people in this situation are easier to focus on the implementation of specific actions, when the strategic aspects trust the leader, so as not to reflect painfully on each action.

Of course, this style is far from ideal, and one should not apply it constantly and in all situations. In so many ways, he has a bad influence on the members of the group. Yes, and the image of the leader suffers. Abuse of this method of leadership is perceived by the team as inclined to constantly command, control, not trusting their people. Therefore, among members of such a group, a riot may gradually mature.

Since the members of the group are not listening to the opinion, many opportunities are lost. And people feel disappointed and insecure about their abilities, some depression. Therefore, leaders of this style can be appointed only temporarily, for the implementation of very responsible projects, and then give the group a break and recover.