Autocratic and Democratic Leadership

Abstract 

Autocratic and democratic styles of leadership contrast with each other. An autocratic leader uses force and violence to ensure that the strictly established rules are followed. Such individuals are rigid and do not allow any changes to be made. A democratic leader is accommodating, allowing the participation of the followers and leaving room for change to be made for improvement purposes. The following work will cover John Adams, the second president of the United States as an autocratic leader, and Barack Obama, the forty-fourth president of America as a democratic leader. Comparison and contraction of success and failures of the two-leadership style will be done by understanding the situation in America during the leadership of both presidents. 

Key words: autocratic style, democratic leadership 

Introduction 

Leadership is the core element of any organization that determines its success or failure. Autocratic leadership style is more of directive and decision making solely relies on the hands of the leaders (Kibbe, 2019). Autocratic leaders do not give the members an opportunity air their opinions but expect them to work as per the rules set. The leadership is task oriented. Contrary to democratic leadership which is functions on the basis of active participation, shared responsibilities, delegation of duties, and positive relation. Autocratic leaders are honest, courageous, intelligent, competent and fair in their leadership (Kibbe, 2019). The leadership is concerned with the workers welfare. The two leadership styles have similarities and differences. The differences arise in their application in various fields. The two theories are important in different sectors and are all devoted to achieving the organization goals. 

Historic leaders of choice 

History portrays several leaders, such as John Adam and Barrack Obama. Adam who was the second president of the United States, was not well-liked by his cabinets and citizens because of his leadership style. Adams used his qualification as a diplomat and lawyer to unintentionally alienate his cabinet. He would make his own decision and ignore his cabinet advice (Jefferson 2019). Adam portrayed a stubborn aristocratic character by ignoring the public opinion. The former United States president, Barrack Obama, leadership style can be defined as democratic. He was mostly involved with transforming the US by engaging the citizens to solve pressing issues during his leadership especially during the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and reining in Wall Street (Dunn, 2018). Obama did not use the participative leadership exclusively, as he combined it with transformational leadership to bring success to the nation in different angles. The essays will analyze the two leadership forms and state their benefits and disadvantages. Additionally, the application of the styles will be analyzed in relation to the two leaders; barrack Obama and John Adam. 

Similarities 

First, both leadership theories operate under ethical rules and moral obligations either developed by individual or by a team. The leaders are required to function as per the organization culture (Kibbe, 2019). Secondly, the decisions made by both leaders have consequences and benefits that affects those who make them. Autocratic leaders are accountable for any failure in the decision they make but not the employee just the case of democratic leadership where all members become accountable for any failure. Both the leadership styles depends on the leaders for guidance and control despite decision making being done by different parties. 

Differences 

The two leadership styles have several differences. First, autocratic leaders use coercive tactics and lead by authority whereas authority is devoted among members. Decision making is another major difference; autocratic leaders make decisions by themselves and members are not allowed to participate in setting organization rules (Nawaz & Khan, 2016). Democratic leaders allows members to actively participate in decision making and their views are valued. Decision making and problem solving is rapid for autocratic leadership contrary to democratic where decision making takes time and it solely depends on the members consensus (Chukwusa, 2018). Autocratic leaders are accountable for any failure or mistake made by employees whereas for democratic leadership, no one is ready to be accountable for failure as decisions are made by all members. Autocratic leaders are task oriented and are less concerned of workers welfare, high productivity low employee morale (Khan et al., 2015). On the other side, democratic encourages positive relationship among leaders and employee as everyone is allowed to air their views, high productivity high morale. 

Autocratic Leadership 

Autocratic leadership style was first developed by Lewin, Lippitt, and white in 1938. The concept was further elaborated by cherry (2018) who noted that autocratic leadership requires application of coercive methods to enforce rules, manipulate, and make decisions, as well as reward loyalty over merit. According to Chukwusa (2018), workers should be forced to work, supervised, and rewarded or punished based on their performance and production. The leadership style is more of directive whereby the leader or the person in authority is the only one who has the power to make decision over other fellows or workers. Leaders who demonstrate this kind of leadership are punitive, work-oriented, dictators and controlling persons (Chukwusa, 2018). This type of leadership is common in small businesses with fewer workers. Managers who lack the required skills, experience, and training tend to apply this form of management to cover up their inability. 

Autocratic leadership is commonly characterized by the members not contributing in the decision-making process. Decisions are developed without members’ agreement and incase of initial inclusion of members in making the decision, then the decision is reviewed by the authority. The leaders uncompromised and decline to explain their way of leadership. 

However, the form of leadership should not be mistaken as a sort of command and control style by using abusive language, threats, and demeaning the authority. In such case, the leadership is not authoritarian but an abusive, unprofessional leadership of bossing (Chukwusa, 2018). Autocratic leadership tend to sound quite negative. It can be harmful if overused or applied to the wrong circumstances. However, it has its own benefits and disadvantages in an organization and work environment 

Advantages 

The leadership style has several advantages. First, it is important and effective among small groups where leadership and decision-making is in demand. Coworkers working on a project derailed by poor organization, lack of leadership, and are unable to set or meet deadlines of tasks, require autocratic leader to facilitate the decision making process and yield better performance (Kibbe, 2019). Secondly, the leadership form reduces pressure on employees. Autocratic leaders set rules, and make decision on their own therefore in case of any fault they are accountable and not the employee thereby reducing stress and pressure on the employee. It is the mandate of the leaders to control the organization to ensure production. Additionally, it also makes communication easier in an organization with multilevel managements where communication is easily distorted as it has to go through several channels before reaching the workers. Autocratic leadership the top management communicates directly with workers (Kibbe, 2019). Furthermore, the autocratic leaders handles crisis situation effectively and easily. In case of any short term problem, the experienced leader can create a solution while in long-term crisis, the leaders can direct the problem in certain ways efficiently than the c-suite. 

Disadvantages 

The major disadvantage of the form of management is the micromanagement. The leaders tend to supervise even the small details of work being done forcing workers to always report on the task being done at any given moment thereby reducing the production level. Autocratic leaders are always in charge of all credits and failures (Chukwusa, 2018). Workers do not have ownership of the work they do, since the management do not offer incentives. As a result the employees lack the morale to continue working hard translating to poor performance, employees’ turnover, and reduced productivity. The leaders find it difficult in such situations as they have to bear all the blames and consequences when workers fail to put more effort. Additionally the leadership creates a dependence system where workers have to depend on the decision from the leaders (Chukwusa, 2018). The leaders has to be always present at workplace and failure to report, the work is not done which lowers the workers morale. Furthermore, an organization is likely to have a culture based on the leader. If the leader sets fair rules then the there is a lot of positivity from workers but if the leader declines to create fair laws then it results to poor working environment. The company culture solely depends on the leader and no one can hold them accountable. 

Democratic leadership 

Democratic leadership is a concept of active participation and decision making to create positive and meaningful relationships, collaborative associations, and active cooperation. All members take role in decision-making in this type of leadership (Dyczkowska & Dyczkowska, 2018). The leadership is applicable to all organization. Democratic leaders are honest, intelligent, courageuous, creativity, competent, and fair. Democratic leaders tend to transform and better organizations by encouraging discussion, equality, and free flow of ideas. The leaders still ensure guidance and control. They inspire trust and respect among members (Dyczkowska & Dyczkowska, 2018). Additionally, the leadership is always sincere and decisions are based on the organizations morals and values. Through the leaders, members feel motivated to perform and contribute to the organization. Furthermore, the leaders tend to seek diverse opinions and listen to the voices of all their members who speak their views. 

Democratic leadership is based on three basic functions; distributing responsibility, empowerment, and aiding deliberation. Distributing responsibility requires the leader to evoke maximum engagement and participation of each member in organization activities and developing objectives (Khan et al., 2015). Democratic leaders empower their members by asking them to take responsibilities in decision-making. The leaders can also help develop members to have emotional maturity and moral thinking abilities. The third function requires leaders to devote their time and energy to ensure productive and democratic decision-making. Deliberation is the core of democracy. 

Benefits of Democratic leadership 

First, democratic leadership provides a positive working environment by promoting active participation of members. The leaders also allow members to challenge themselves and make decision thereby enthusing them to work and enjoy what they do. The leaders also encourage creative thinking among employees as they allow free exchange of ideas (Anderson, 2011). The system of consultation and feedback naturally results into successful initiatives, better decision making and effective operations. Leaders ensure employee satisfaction as they allow members to speak up their mind and discuss any issue that may arise. The members are granted with equal roles in the organization, they are empowered to take responsibilities. Additionally, the leadership promotes team work and creates team knowledge (Nawaz & Khan, 2016). Creative thinking brings diverse opinions and ideas since members have different expertise. When members come together for discussion and participation they share their knowledge with others. Finally, the leadership makes it easy to solve a problem since it encourages sharing among members with different thinking. 

Disadvantages 

The major disadvantage of the leadership is that the decision making process is slow as everyone opinion counts and final agreement also takes times. The leadership always work to ensure equality among members, however, it may create negative emotions among members (Nawaz & Khan, 2016). Every members expects their opinion to be implemented, failure to which they feel the leaders are biased and their views are not valued. The members can eventually stop participating thereby reducing productivity. Another challenge arises in case of failure. Every member participates in decision-making however, when it comes to accountability of failure, no one takes responsibility. 

John Adams as an autocratic leader 

John Adams, the second president of United States was a manipulative leaders and used coercive tactics to achieve his goals. He was a qualified diplomat and expert in law. Before he became the president, he was known for defending the British soldiers who were involved in Boston Massacre. He also contributed to the declaration of independence before the outbreak of war (Jefferson 2019). Adams became the president in the 1797, however, he was liked by most of the citizens because of his leadership style. He had problem relating with people. He never seek advice nor valued the decision of his cabinet and alienated them. The president could also ignore the public opinion, but it came to haunt him in the election in 1800. 

Secondly, as autocratic leader, he faced challenges dealing with the foreign relations with France. The French declined to support the treaty of 1794 which supported trade between the US and Britain because the United States served as neutral trader between the two countries (Jefferson 2019). The United States wanted to finance the war, but France became furious and decided to seize the American ships to gain payment. Adams decided to send three American delegates to France to solve the crisis (Gaffield, 2016). Upon arrival, the delegates decided to bribe the French officials to solve the problem. However, when Adams learnt about the bribery, he exposed the three French officials’ affair overnight which led to many Americans to change their decisions. Instead of ending the war, Adam decided to send more delegates to end the seizure of American ships. 

Third, Adams implemented Alien and sedition Acts. The Act were meant to prevent commenting, or objecting the government decisions. The first Naturalization act lengthened the period required for an individual to be considered a citizen of United States from five to fourteen years. The second Act, Alien Act was mainly meant to permit the government to detain any alien with consent or court approval. The third Act, Alien Enemies, just like the second act, but for the alien Enemy, it allowed an individual to be deported if suspected to be a threat to the national security. Adams implemented the acts in hope of dissolving the foreign agents interfering with the French during the war (Jefferson 2019). The contrary law was the Sedition Act. The act prohibited any conspiracy against the government, whether demonstration, written of spoken actions. The act allowed for jailing of anyone who could criticize the government. 

Despite the negative actions the president took in dealing with France and its revolution, alienated the public and ignored his cabinets, he helped the American in some aspects. His neutrality during the war helped Americans to stay out of European Affairs (Jefferson 2019). During his reign as well there was population increase. Therefore autocratic leaders in as much as they may Act negatively they still have positive impact. 

Barrack Obama as a democratic leader 

Obamas leadership was unique leader. He was the 44 th president of the United States and the first African American president in the United States history. Obama was an intelligent leader. He fought the economic crisis by creating job opportunity to the affected citizens (Dunn, 2018). He achieved the goal by signing the American recovery and Reinvestment Act. He signed the Act in 2009 as he was aware of the suffering the Americans were undergoing and decided to bring relief. 

Secondly, Obama would deliver his speech in “we” not “I”. He would involve his citizens in his speech even if they were not involved in any step of the activity. He was one leader who had the public at heart and would listen to their opinions. A democratic leadership is more oriented towards individual (Dunn, 2018). A leader who care for his members’ welfare and safety. He signed affordable care Act in 2010 that mandated free preventive care. 

A democratic leader encourages meaningful collaborations and negotiations that results to successful goals. Obama during his leadership negotiated a deal to block a nuclear Iran. Additionally, just like any other democratic leader, he had courage in his leadership (Mousavi & Nourigholamizadeh, 2018). Obama led six nations in reaching a consensus with Iran that required the country to end its nuclear weapons program and surrender to a rigorous international Atomic energy Agency inspections regime in return for lifting global sanctions. The negotiations blocked Iran from developing bombs, thereby slowing the building up of weapons and later break the commitment. The president also ordered Special Forces to raid and eliminate Osama bin laden as well as retain the terrorists. 

Barrack Obama applied his democratic leadership to sign the Wall Street Act. He signed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street and consumer protection Act in 2010 with the motive to re-regulate the financial system following the previous recession (Mousavi & Nourigholamizadeh, 2018). The law mainly restricted the capital need on big banks and other large financial institutions. Through the law the government has the authority to limit their lending capacity if they attempt to threat the economy and can as well restrict their trade with customer money for their own profit. He was also fair enough to normalize and create positive relations with the Cuba (Mousavi & Nourigholamizadeh, 2018). The cold war policy of isolation disappeared and in 2016, the direct flights to Cuba resumed and American tourist can now freely visit the Cuba after fifty years of war. 

Following the above mentioned application of democracy, and intelligence that enabled him achieve his goals, it can be concluded that Obama was a democratic leader who was concerned with the welfare of his people. Obama has since become an exemplary leader to many nations and is ever missed by the people of the United States. However, he was more of a transformational leader, and was not directive making the United States to love unlike John Adams. Obama proves that democratic leadership is the best leadership for any president who is interested in change rather that goals. 

Conclusion 

Autocratic and democratic leadership are both important in the leadership of a country to bring change. Obama was honest, intelligent, fair, and courageous that helped him achieve the change the country required. He listened to the public opinion and challenges and by working close with his cabinets he managed to bring change to the nation. On the other hand, John Adams was directive and ignored his cabinet advice. He would make his own decision making many citizens to dislike him. His autocratic leadership however had more damages than positivity to the nation and to his on leadership as the public rejected him. Both the leadership styles are important in different situations, therefore leaders should consider using both. Democratic leadership seems to suit many situation and is vital in cases where change and growth is needed. Leaders need to employ these leadership styles in combination with other forms to ensure successful goal attainment. 

References 

Anderson, P. (2011). Advanatages and disadvantages of democratic leadership styles. Retrieved from http://www.insidebusiness360.com/index.php/advantages-and-disadvantages-of-democratic-leadership-styles-6070/ 

Cherry, K. (2018). Autocratic leadership: Key characteristics, strength, and weaknesses. Retrieved from https://verywellmind.com/what-is-autocratic-leadership-2795314 

Chukwusa, J. (2018). Autocratic Leadership style: Obstacles to success in Academic Libraries. Library philosophy and practice , 1. 

Dunn, R. C. (2018). “The Future is in Good Hands”: A Pentadic Analysis of President Barack Obama’s Farewell Address. Kaleidoscope: A Graduate Journal of Qualitative Communication Research, 17 (1), 7. 

Dyczkowska, J., & Dyczkowski, T. (2018). Democratic or autocratic leadership style? Participative management and its links to rewarding strategies and job satisfaction in SMEs. Athens journal of business and economics, 4 (2), 193-218. 

Gaffield, J. (2016). Diplomacy in Black and White: John Adams, Toussaint Louverture, and Their Atlantic World Alliance. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 46 (2), 487. 

Jefferson, T. (2019). John adams. African Americans and the Presidents: Politics and Policies from Washington to Trump, 8. 

Khan, M. S., Khan, I., Qureshi, Q. A., Ismail, H. M., Rauf, H., Latif, A., & Tahir, M. (2015). The styles of leadership: A critical review. Public Policy and Administration Research, 5 (3), 87-92. 

Kibbe, M. R. (2019). Leadership theories and styles. In Leadership in surgery (pp. 27-36). Springer, Cham. 

Mousavi, M. A., & Nourigholamizadeh, E. (2018). A Qualitative Content Analysis of US Foreign Policy towards Cuba during Barack Obama’s Administration: Hegemony or Leadership? World sociopolitical studies, 2 (3), 445-481 

Nawaz, Z. A. K. D. A., & Khan_ PhD, I. (2016). Leadership theories and styles: A literature review. Leadership, 16 (1), 1-7.