Some people may believe in the Great Man Theory of Leadership. Others know that management is like anything else: Practice and education improve performance. Understanding different management theories help managers prioritize the processes, relationships and information that impact an organization’s success.  

How should a leader set goals and guide their teams to realize them? Many heads are better than one, and this article covers three types of management approaches and many of the individual theories categorized within them. 

Three Types of Management Theories 

While ideas overlap between the categories, these three classifications differentiate management according to their focus and the era they came from: 

• Classical management theory: emerged from the Industrial Revolution and revolves around maximizing efficiency and production. 
• Behavioral management theory: started in the early 20^th century and addresses the organization’s human and social elements.  
• Modern management theory: followed on the heels of World War II and combines mathematical principles with sociology to develop holistic approaches to management. 

The origin of one movement doesn’t indicate the conclusion of the previous one. All three of these approaches still exist in contemporary practice.  

Newer is not always better either. Each philosophy was born out of changing ideals and emerging possibilities, but today’s business world is complex. Different theories better suit different needs. 

Classical Management Theory 

Classical management theory prioritizes profit and assumes that personal gain motivates employees. It aims to streamline operations and increase productivity. 

Major concepts include specialization, incentivization, and hierarchical structure. The first two contribute to employee efficiency and drive. Centralized leadership simplifies decision-making, and a meritocratic chain of commands provides order and oversight. At every level, standardization reduces waste and error. 

There are many strengths to classical management theory. It provides clarity for both the organization and its personnel, and specialization and sound hiring practices place employees in positions they can handle and even master. 

Shortcomings of classical management theory can include: 

• The treatment of workers as machines without accounting for the role job satisfaction and workplace culture play in an organization’s success 
• The difficulty of applying some of its principles outside a limited manufacturing context 
• A top-down approach to communication that neglects employee input and prevents collaboration 
• Failure to provide for creativity and innovation, which rigid structures and hyper specialization can stifle 

The following management approaches belong to the overarching category of classical management theory: 

Scientific Management Theory 

Scientific management theory is sometimes called Taylorism after its founder Frederick Winslow Taylor, a mechanical engineer. Taylor employed scientific methods to develop organizational principles that suited mass production needs. After creating and proving his theory as a manager and consultant, he wrote ” The Principles of Scientific Management” in 1911. 

Taylor wanted to replace outdated, “rule-of-thumb” methods with more efficient processes. To this end, he identified four core principles of good management. The manager: 

• Develops a science consisting of best practices for all elements of their employees’ work 
• Selects and trains employees accordingly 
• Works with employees to ensure that the science is followed 
• Assumes half the responsibility for all work through process development, guidance, and maintenance 

Today, many companies have adopted a version of the scientific management theory. By standardizing tools and procedures, they hope to increase productivity and reduce the reliance on individual talent and workers. 

Bureaucratic Management Theory 

Max Weber was one of the foremost scholars of the late 19^th and early 20^th century. He strongly influenced — and continues to influence — economic, religious, and political sociology. He explains bureaucratic management theory in “Economy and Society,” published posthumously in 1922. 

Weber believed that standard rules and well-defined roles maximize the efficiency of an organization. Everyone should understand the responsibilities and expectations of their position, their place within a clear hierarchy and general corporate policies. Hiring decisions and the application of rules should be impersonal, guided only by reason and established codes. 

Weber’s theory provides for orderly and scalable institutions. At least some element of bureaucracy informs most large organizations, whether they’re public, private, or profit driven. 

Administrative Management Theory 

Just as scientific management theory is sometimes called Taylorism, administrative management theory is sometimes called Fayolism.  

Henri Fayol was a mining engineer who sought to codify the responsibilities of management and the principles of effective administration. He outlined these in “General and Industrial Management” in 1916. 

His guide identifies 14 principles of management: 

1. Division of work: Divide work into tasks and between employees. 
2. Authority: Balance responsibility with commensurate authority.  
3. Unity of command: Give each employee one direct manager. 
4. Unity of direction: Align goals between employees. 
5. Equity: Treat all employees equally. 
6. Order: Maintain order through an organized workforce. 
7. Discipline: Establish and follow rules and regulations. 
8. Initiative: Encourage employees to show initiative. 
9. Remuneration: Pay employees fairly for the work they do. 
10. Stability: Ensure that employees feel secure in their positions. 
11. Scalar chain: Establish a clear hierarchy of command. 
12. Subordination of individual interest: Prioritize group needs. 
13. Esprit de corps: Inspire group unity and pride. 
14. A balance between centralization and delegation: Concentrate ultimate authority but delegate individual decisions. 

According to Fayol, managers need to develop practices that foster each of the 14 principles. 

Behavioral Management Theory 

Behavioral management theory places the person rather than the process at the heart of business operations. It examines the business as a social system as well as a formal organization. Therefore, productivity depends on proper motivation, group dynamics, personal psychology, and efficient processes. 

Behavioral management theory humanizes business. Feelings have a practical impact on operations. Team spirit, public recognition, and personal pride encourage employees to perform better. Individual relationships also play a role. Employees are more likely to go the extra mile for a boss they respect and who respects them. 

Shortcomings of behavioral management theory include: 

• The difficulty of balancing personal relationships with professional conduct 
• An inclination toward socially motivated hiring practices that can be unjust  
• The danger of assuming that all individuals respond the same way to the same situations and for the same reasons 

Common behavioral management theories include the following: 

Human Relations Theory 

The fundamental texts on human relations theory evolved from an experiment following classical theory. Elton Mayo worked as part of a team evaluating the impact on the productivity of various workplace conditions at the Hawthorne Works, a large factory complex. Early results were self-contradicting; changes in opposite directions both improved productivity. 

Mayo realized that the researchers’ attention to the workers was the common factor. It instilled pride and fulfilled particular social needs of the workers. This led to the development of the “Hawthorne effect,” a principle of research that suggests researcher attention affects the subjects in a study and impacts the results. 

In business management, the Hawthorne studies led to articulating the role that human relations play in business operations. Mayo and later theorists developed several related conclusions, including: 

• Group dynamics affect job performance. 
• Communication between employees and employers must go in both directions. 
• Production standards depend more on workplace culture than on official objectives. 
• In addition to compensation, perceived value affects performance. 
• Workers prefer to participate in the decision-making process. 
• Integration between departments or groups positively impacts an organization. 

In the modern workplace, sanctioned social activities and open, defined communication channels owe a debt to human relations theory. 

Theory X and Theory Y 

Douglas McGregor primarily investigated the way managers motivate their employees. The same tactics don’t work across the board, and individuals require different types of oversight or encouragement. In 1960, McGregor developed Theory X and Theory Y in response, laid out in  
“The Human Side of Enterprise.” 

This management theory divides workers into two camps that require two leadership styles. Theory X workers lack drive. Managers need to provide large amounts of structure and direction to get them to accomplish the necessary work. These workers demand an authoritarian style of management.  

Theory Y workers are self-motivated individuals who enjoy their work and find it fulfilling. They benefit from a more participative environment that fosters growth and development. 

McGregor’s theory of differentiated management practices remains relevant, but neither workers nor managers tend to exist at the extreme ends of what should be a more nuanced spectrum. The approach also neglects the reciprocal effect managers and workers can have on one another. A natural self-starter can have their ambition micromanaged out of them. 

Modern Management Theory 

Modern management theory adopts an approach to management that balances scientific methodology with humanistic psychology. It uses emerging technologies and statistical analysis to make decisions, streamline operations and quantify performance. At the same time, it values individual job satisfaction and a healthy corporate culture. 

This category of theories is more holistic and flexible than its predecessors. Data-driven decisions can remove human bias while still accommodating employee health and happiness indicators. Modern management theory also allows organizations to adapt to complex, fluid situations with local solutions instead of positing a single, overriding principle to drive management. 

Shortcomings of the modern management approach include: 

• The prioritization of information that can be difficult, expensive, and time-consuming to collect 
• The gap between theoretical flexibility and practical agility 
• The tendency of some strains to be descriptive rather than prescriptive 

Two popular strains of modern management theory are systems theory and contingency theory: 

Systems Management Theory 

It’s no surprise that Ludwig Von Bertalanffy, who developed systems management theory, was a biologist. This theory borrows heavily from that discourse. Systems theory proposes that each business is like a single living organism. Distinct elements play different roles but ultimately work together to support the business’s health. The role of management is to facilitate cooperation and holistic process flows. 

Systems management theory sometimes leans more toward metaphorical description than prescriptive application. However, you can see evidence of the approach in technological architectures and tools that standardize services and open access to information. For example, innovations such as data fabric help break down departmental silos. 

Contingency Management Theory 

Contingency management theory addresses the complexity and variability of the modern work environment. Fred Fiedler realized that no one set of characteristics – no single approach – provided the best leadership in all situations. Success instead depended on the leader’s suitability to the situation in which they found themselves. 

Fiedler focused on three factors that determine that situation: 

1. Task structure: How well defined is the job? 

2. Leader-member relations: How well does the leader work with team members? 

3. Leader position power: How much authority does the leader have? To what extent can they distribute punishments and rewards? 

Managers can be classified as having a task-oriented or a people-oriented style. Task-oriented managers organize teams to accomplish projects quickly and effectively. People-oriented managers are good at handling team conflict, building relationships, and facilitating synergy. Task-oriented leaders thrive in both highly favorable and unfavorable conditions, but people-oriented leaders do better in more moderate configurations. 

The least-preferred coworker (LPC) scale is a common management tool developed by Fiedler to help leaders pinpoint their style. The scale asks you to identify the coworker you have the hardest time working with and rate them. Relationship-oriented managers tend to score higher on the LPC scale than task-oriented managers. 

What’s Next for Management Theory? 

It’s time for a new category of management theory. The business world requires more than a single new idea, and it’s ripe for a constellation of new theories.  

Ecology and technology continue to reshape our concerns, resources, and possibilities. Remote work physically distances coworkers, and worldwide health and climate concerns create fragile relationships with globalization. Equity is no longer “a nice idea” but an urgent imperative. Volatile conditions lead people to search for meaning at work and everywhere else. 

No one truly knows what’s next. But it will likely build on and cherry-pick from the above management approaches, reorienting them around a new philosophical core. Familiarize yourself with predominant principles today and prepare yourself for a new movement tomorrow. 

Scientific management theory is a method of improving efficiency in the workforce. As its name implies, this management theory uses scientific methods to assess work processes.

The scientific method consists of three steps: observation, experimentation, and analysis. In science, this could mean observing the effects of a treatment, experimenting with a different treatment, and analyzing the results. Similarly, managers use scientific management theory to observe their workplaces, test different methods of completing tasks, and analyze the effect of the changes.

When properly implemented, scientific management theory improves productivity. It is an evidence-based method that prioritizes efficiency and reliability. Having scientifically rigorous work methods in place creates clear expectations for employees because it establishes a single right way to do things. It also gives managers a unified standard against which to evaluate their employees.

Scientific management theory has grown exponentially since its inception. There are now a variety of management strategies that fall under the umbrella label of scientific management theory. Each of these strategies has its own set of strengths and weaknesses. It’s important to do your own research into scientific management theory to find the best applications for it in your workplace.

The History of Scientific Management Theory

The history of scientific management theory begins with 20th century mechanical engineer Frederick Winslow Taylor. In Taylor’s time, America was on the cusp of industrialization, but management methods had not yet changed to keep up with changes in technology. While working at a steel manufacturing plant, Taylor observed several production problems. 

For one thing, there was little specialization of labor or tools. Work shifts were randomly assigned, so inexperienced workers often ended up trying and failing to complete important projects. Tools were crude, and since only a small number of tools were used for every task, they wore out quickly. For another, there was no one single “best” standard for workers to aspire to. Everyone did their job in whatever way they thought worked best, regardless of whether it was effective. Finally, managers were completely disconnected from the workers they supervised. The average manager had no idea how the workers’ tasks were performed, so they were unable to provide suggestions for improvement.

Taylor set out to solve these problems. He designed specialized shovels and other tools. He advocated for workers to be matched to the projects for which they were most naturally gifted. He trained managers in his methods so that they could implement scientific management theory in their own workplaces.

Taylor is credited with revolutionizing productivity in the American workforce. At his own steel plant, the amount of pig iron the workers could transport in a day reportedly tripled once they adopted his methods. His ideas spread rapidly and helped give rise to the Industrial Age. Scientific management is sometimes even referred to as “Taylorism” in his honor.

Taylorism and Classical Management Theory

When people talk about “Taylorism,” they often mean scientific management theory as it existed in the early 20th century. This specific management style is also called classical management theory.

Classical management theory is distinguished by three characteristics: hierarchical structure, specialization, and financial incentives. In a company operating on classical management theory, there is a rigid hierarchy. Business owners are on top, supervisors are in the middle, and regular employees are on the bottom. Everyone has a specialized, small-scale task. Anyone who is especially successful is rewarded with financial benefits.

Classic Taylorism does a good job of addressing the physical needs of workers, but it ignores social needs and creativity. Inflexible hierarchies make it difficult for talented people to rise the ranks of leadership. Specialization is efficient, but it discourages people from experimenting, and therefore prevents the development of new methods. And although good pay incentivizes good behavior, money isn’t the only thing workers care about. Employees also want to feel valued and take pride in their work.

Classical management theory is no longer widely followed, but it still has uses. Since Taylor developed his theory while working in a manufacturing plant, classic Taylorism is well-designed for manufacturers. It also tends to function better in small enterprises where everyone knows each other, and social needs are easy to address.

The Principles of Scientific Management

There are four principles of Taylorism.

1. Choose methods based on science: Use the scientific method to determine the most efficient way to complete a task. Focus on increasing productivity and profits.
2. Assign workers to tasks based on their natural skillset: Get to know your workers, discover what they’re good at, and place them where their skills will be the most useful.
3. Monitor your workers’ performance: Observe what your workers are doing while they are on the clock so that you can quickly address any problems. If some workers are confused or unproductive, it is up to their managers to step in and fix the issue.
4. Divide workloads appropriately between workers and managers: Make sure that managers understand how to plan and train workers and that workers understand how to implement those plans.

Goals and Objectives of Scientific Management

The primary goal of scientific management is to increase efficiency. When Taylor began his scientific management experiments, he focused on increasing efficiency by reducing the amount of time needed to perform tasks. This was a good first step, but there’s a lot more to improving efficiency than just decreasing work time. Since Taylor’s time, other innovators have found more ways to increase efficiency, such as implementing automation software.

Another objective of scientific management theory is increasing profits. If everyone is working as efficiently as possible, then they should be able to produce huge amounts of high-quality products. That translates into more sales and bigger profit margins.

Real-World Applications of Scientific Management Theory

Scientific management theory is flexible enough to be applied in just about any industry. Whether you’re designing software or selling real estate, there are certain tasks that need to be done regularly. Identifying those tasks and optimizing them for efficiency is a great way to bring Taylorism into your workplace. Here’s an example.

Imagine your company has a newsletter mailing list. Every time a new person wants to be added to the mailing list, they send an email requesting to be added. An employee then manually adds them to the list.

This is an inefficient, multi-step method of adding newsletter subscribers. Your employee probably doesn’t get any job satisfaction from typing a name into a mailing list. Moreover, the time spent manually adding names is time that could be spent on more pressing projects.

If you were the manager tasked with implementing the principles of scientific management in this company, you might suggest designing a system that automatically adds people to the mailing list as soon as they submit a request. The subscribers get newsletter access sooner and the employee now has more time to concentrate on important assignments.

Applying Scientific Management Techniques

The theory of scientific management is not perfect. Optimizing efficiency while trying to maximize profits may not solve all your workplace problems. Moreover, Taylorism has been criticized as being ineffective for modern businesses. After all, Taylor was working in a pre-industrial era. He could not have foreseen how businesses and management styles would change in the future.

Taylor’s brand of scientific management may not be a perfect fit for contemporary life. However, the scientific management theory could be a starting point for designing your own management style. You also can consider other alternative management styles such as the Great Man Theory of Leadership and the Contingency Theory of Leadership.

This article will define one style, transactional leadership, and it will explain the traits of transactional leaders, the three approaches to transactional leadership, and how transactional leadership can be an effective leadership style.

Transactional Leadership Definition and Origin

Political scientist James MacGregor Burns coined the term ‘transactional leadership’ in his 1978 book “Leadership,” defining this style of leadership as one focused on the relationship between leader and followers. Essentially, Burns said that a transactional leader is one who gives something with an expectation for something in return.

By the early 1990s, researchers Bernard Bass and Bruce Avolio introduced “The Full Range Leadership Model,” which focuses on three main leadership styles: transactional, transformational, and laissez-faire. While transactional leadership theory has developed over time, its core leadership qualities, structure, and control, remain constant. Broadly speaking, transactional leaders are results-driven, embracing a leader-follower model based upon a strict set of rules, guidelines, and instructions that ultimately reward or punish individuals based on their performance. 

Transactional Leadership Characteristics

The key attributes of transactional leadership include:

• Clear expectations
• An incentives framework
• An intense focus on results
• A “telling” style

Clear expectations are at the top of the list because a transactional leadership style is based on a leader setting clear expectations for employees through the process of highly detailed instructions, rules, and guidelines. When total clarity is achieved through this rigid structure, employees know exactly what is expected of them and how their performance will result in either a positive reward or negative punishment. 

Rewards can span anything from bonuses to increases in paid time off. Punishments can also range from bonus removal to more severe forms like termination. 

Since transactional leadership operates under the premise that individuals are motivated by rewards, a strong and reliable incentives framework is essential to transactional leadership. While the incentives framework outlines the exact expectations for employees to earn rewards, it also clearly outlines that poor performance will be punished.

With a clear focus on rules, structure and performance, transactional leaders are often acutely focused on results only, with little to no interest in personal relationships. When comparing transactional leadership vs. transformational leadership, the transactional style is considered a “telling” style, in that it places all emphasis on structure and employee performance. This is opposite to the transformational leadership style that seeks to inspire employees to grow and develop.

Three Approaches to Transactional Leadership 

In their expanded description of transactional leadership, Bass and Avolio identified three unique approaches that define the style: active management by exception, passive management by exception, and contingent reward. 

Consider these approaches like you would a toolkit. You may not need to utilize all these tools or approaches at once and you may find that some are more effective in certain situations than others. A Certificate in Organizational Leadership can help you continue to gain the tools you need to develop as a productive leader.

Active Management by Exception

This approach means that a leader will tightly control all aspects of employee tasks and immediately step in at the first sign of a problem. When the leader intervenes, it typically results in negative feedback or punishment. 

Passive Management by Exception

This approach is the exact opposite, in that passive management by exception means a leader will take a hands-off approach to employee tasks and only step in when necessary. Similar to the active management by exception approach, if a leader does step in, it will likely result in punishment. 

Contingent Reward

In the Full Range Leadership Model, contingent reward sits at the center of the model’s visualization. At the most basic level, this approach involves rewarding employees based on the outcome of their performance or their ability to complete tasks. 

The contingent reward approach focuses on a detailed performance structure that clearly outlines the expectations for specific results. Once these conditions are met, employees can earn rewards such as bonuses, commissions, promotions, or stock programs. Rewards can also be more psychological in nature, such as a public award or company-wide recognition.

Contingent reward can be highly effective in motivating employees who are working in a more transactional business environment, like at a call or distribution center, where there are often more repeatable tasks with easily measurable outcomes.

Does the Contingent Reward Approach Really Work?

In a study about transactional leadership and its role in project success, researchers from Tilburg University, the Netherlands and Ethiopian Civil Service University found that when utilizing the contingent reward approach, transactional leadership is positively related to the overall success of a workplace project.

This approach becomes more positively related to project success as the level of project goal clarity increases. According to the study, 6.4% of the variance in project success is explained by the interaction of contingent reward and goal clarity, which is substantial, given that significant interaction terms are rare in organizational research.

While contingent reward can be an effective approach to transactional leadership, it’s important that leaders set clear expectations alongside a rewards framework. If at any point employees become unsure of what is expected of them, project success will decline, regardless of the anticipated reward. 

When is the Transactional Leadership Style Effective?

Transactional leadership can be effective in environments where strong employee culture is difficult to build. While transactional leadership can achieve short-term goals quickly, in the long run, it can deprive employees of their creativity by incentivizing them to focus on the next reward instead of growing in their roles. Including metrics for both quality and quantity in performance evaluations can help mitigate this effect.
Remember, leadership styles aren’t static. If you identify with transactional leadership qualities or would like to apply this style in your leadership work, you can utilize the different approaches that best match your strengths and the needs of your employees.

A tortoise and the hare analogy might apply here. Autocratic leaders are like the hare, quick and decisive, but sometimes handicapped by their own ego. Democratic leaders, on the other hand, are like the tortoise. They implement a creative, participative process that can at times be slow, but has winning results: higher productivity and job satisfaction.

What is Democratic Leadership?

Foundational psychologist Kurt Lewin defined three major leadership styles: autocratic, democratic, and laissez-faire. According to theorist John Gastil, Lewin and his colleagues created a rough sketch of democratic leadership, one that we still rely on today: Democratic leaders rely on group decision making, active member involvement, honest praise and criticism, and a degree of comradeship.

To bear out his theories of leadership, Lewin conducted a study in the Journal of Social Psychology in 1939, in which he assigned schoolchildren to three groups, each with either an authoritarian, democratic, or laissez-faire leader. He found that autocratic leadership drastically increased hostility and aggression among the students. On the other hand, democratic leadership resulted in less tension and better performance, which was sustained when the leader left for a period and students had to work alone.  

The idea of democratic leadership clearly comes from the early concept of democracy, which in short, means government by the people. In a democracy, some people fill the role of leaders and some the role of followers, but everybody has equal say in the decision-making process. 

Daniel Goleman expanded on Lewin’s ideas of leadership with his six leadership styles, adding two important elements to the definition of democratic leadership: empowerment and consensus-seeking. Team members are empowered to participate fully in group decision-making and the process is geared toward reaching a consensus.

Characteristics of the Democratic Leadership Style

Leaders who embrace the democratic style of leadership often possess the following characteristics. 

Promote creativity

In shared leadership, leaders trust their teams to generate ideas and come up with solutions. This trust encourages organizational creativity, spurring teams to work together in new ways, without micromanagement.

Inclusive

Democratic leaders want all team members to be involved. Everyone comes to the table when it’s time to make a decision. This approach reduces power struggles and makes team members feel valued.

Collaborative

In contrast with other styles of leadership, democratic leadership encourages team members to work together. Employees can’t just rely on the leader’s edicts to get things done. Instead, they have to come up with solutions themselves, knowing that their leader is there to take responsibility when there’s an issue. 

Trust-building

Above all, participatory leaders trust their teams to get things done. They follow Douglas McGregor’s Theory Y model, an optimistic approach that assumes workers are self-motivated, see work as fulfilling and can solve problems creatively on their own.

Democratic Leadership Examples

President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who was famously democratic in his leadership style, once said that “leadership consists of nothing but taking responsibility for everything that goes wrong and giving your subordinates credit for everything that goes well.” 

This attitude doesn’t come automatically to everyone, but it can be learned. Continuing education coursework, such as Strategic Organizational Leadership, a course within Villanova’s Certificate in Organizational Leadership program, can help you acquire the four traits of democratic leaders. 

Known as the “Balancer in Chief,” Eisenhower demonstrated the qualities of democratic leadership by building strategic coalitions and bringing on board knowledgeable experts to help make important decisions. 

Mahatma Gandhi, one of the great leaders of our time, exemplified many of the traits of a democratic leader. He brought together broad coalitions of people, working among them instead of above them. He held the life-long belief that every class of people had something to contribute, and he encouraged diverse and often at-odds groups to find ways to work together. The people of India trusted him, and he trusted them to create a new future for India, together.

Pros and Cons of Democratic Leadership

While democratic leadership has many benefits, there are some drawbacks. 

Cons of democratic leadership

• Slower decision making: Because democratic leadership requires building coalitions and coming to a shared consensus as a team, it can take longer to make decisions than in situations where one leader is unilaterally deciding an organization’s direction.
• Can lead to communication failures: If a democratic leader is not adequately engaged or employees don’t have the experience to make important decisions, deadlines can be shuffled to the side and momentum can go haywire. 

Pros of democratic leadership

• Empowering: Employees are trusted as capable, creative team members, not simply mechanisms for carrying out a boss’s instructions. They are empowered to come up with solutions and get better at their jobs. 
• Increases employee satisfaction: A meta-analysis of democratic leadership studies shows that there is an increase in group member satisfaction among groups led by democratic leaders. 

When is the Democratic Leadership Style Most Effective?

The democratic style of leadership is the most effective in the following scenarios: 

1. When you want to encourage creativity: Democratic leadership starts with the assumption that employees are creative and gives them the tools to express their ideas.
2. When you’re working with millennial team members: Millennials want opportunities for growth, engagement and flexibility—all areas democratic leadership excels in.
3. When you’re directing experts: Who better to make decisions than the experts themselves? 

Think about the leaders you’ve worked with. Have you worked with a democratic leader? What did their style look like in action? How did they use participation effectively? While not everybody is, or has to be, a democratic leader, the beneficial side of democratic leadership can help you understand how to build a team that works together creatively.

In this article, we’ll define autocratic leadership, detail the characteristics of autocratic leaders, explain the advantages and disadvantages of an autocratic mindset, and discuss the future of this leadership style.

What is Autocratic Leadership?

Autocratic leadership is an authoritarian model in which leaders have absolute control. You might summon to mind Napoleon Bonaparte or Queen Elizabeth I: leaders with complete, top-down control over their empires. Autocratic leaders make decisions based on their personal ideas of what is best and typically accept very little input from followers, with the expectation that group members will fall in line with their directives. 

Psychologist Kurt Lewin developed a foundational leadership framework in the 1930s, defining three major leadership styles: autocratic, democratic, and laissez-faire. Lewin’s work is the foundation for many later treatises on leadership. In Lewin’s definition, autocratic leaders “make decisions without consulting their team members, even if their input would be useful.”

Although Lewin coined the term, the idea of autocratic leadership has been around for quite a while and it’s a core tenet of classic management theory, which became popular in the early 20th century. This theory posits that consulting groups of subordinates is unnecessary. Instead, the leader makes a decision, and that decision is conveyed in a top-down manner for all employees to follow. 

Autocratic Leadership Styles and Approaches

Author and psychologist Daniel Goleman, who wrote the best-seller “Emotional Intelligence” in 1995, discusses leadership styles and behaviors in his later book, “Primal Leadership.” He defines six emotional leadership styles, two of which cover traits of autocratic leaders. 

According to Goleman, authoritative, or visionary leaders are inspiring, setting out a common goal and expecting teams to find their own way there. Coercive, or commanding leaders, on the other hand, use tight control and the threat of punishment to make sure teams fall in line. These two leadership styles summarize the two approaches to autocratic leadership: inspirational or dictatorial. 

You could also define these two approaches as directing—employees are told what to do and how to do it, with little room for input—and permissive, which provides directives while leaving more room for creativity in the “how.” A third approach to autocratic leadership, paternalistic, bridges the gap between directing and permissive styles. The leader has the final say, but employee wellbeing is his or her primary objective. 

Characteristics of Autocratic Leaders

Wondering if you’ve experienced autocratic leadership—or whether you’re an autocratic leader yourself? There are four key traits of autocratic leaders:

1. The leader accepts limited to no input.
2. The leader makes all the decisions.
3. The leader directs their team’s methods and processes.
4. The leader creates structured and often rigid environments.

Examples of Autocratic Leaders

Many empire builders and leading figures throughout history have been autocratic leaders—including Genghis Khan and Margaret Thatcher— however, we’ll provide two more recent examples of autocratic leadership: Richard Nixon and Elon Musk. 

While Nixon was a complex leader and person, many of his major presidential decisions were characterized by his leadership style. Regarded as a foreign affairs expert, President Nixon often did not trust the advice of others, regardless of their expertise, and relied on his own experience and desires to make decisions, which were then conveyed to his staff and the U.S. military. 

Elon Musk exemplifies the creative side of autocratic leadership. While Musk’s business ventures have been driven by his unique vision, Musk takes very little input and often makes impulse decisions that haven’t been vetted by team members. For example, Musk’s infamous 2018 tweet in which he announced he’d be taking Tesla private got Musk in still-unresolved trouble with the SEC. 

Autocratic Leadership Pros and Cons 

Psychologist Douglas McGregor developed the idea of Theory X and Theory Y in the 1960s. According to McGregor, Theory X leaders are authoritarians who view their subordinates pessimistically and believe that their teams need to be directed, punished or rewarded in order to achieve organizational goals. McGregor’s theory exemplifies some of the drawbacks of autocratic leadership. 

Cons of autocratic leadership

• Degrades trust and morale: Autocratic leadership discourages input, which can make teams feel like their ideas are ignored and they’re unable to contribute.
• Dependent on the leader: Organizational success is entirely dependent on the leader and their ideas, which can endanger the stability of the organization.

Pros of autocratic leadership

• Quick decision making: Because the leader has the final say, decisions can be made and conveyed efficiently, an attribute that becomes handy during a crisis.
• Clearly defined structure: Clear rules and procedures are in place and every employee knows what to do and how to do it, which can benefit rule-followers, who thrive when they’re told what to do. However, this leadership style is only preferred by 21% of employees, according to a 2019 survey by Leadership IQ.

Many of the pitfalls of autocratic leadership come from underdeveloped emotional intelligence, a soft skill you can develop with the help of an organizational leadership certificate.

Future of the Autocratic Leadership Style

Autocratic leadership is often considered the leadership style of the past. When you picture what it means to be a boss, you might pull from TV depictions of bad leaders. Think “Mad Men” or “The Office”: Top-down bosses who don’t accept input or tolerate dissent. 

While there’s a positive side to autocratic leadership, the leader of the future exemplifies high emotional intelligence, demonstrating “soft skills such as communication, creative and collaborative problem-solving and conflict management,” skills that are often incompatible with autocratic styles of leadership. Leadership as dictatorship is in the rear window—the boss of the future has a softer side.

People skills don’t require intricate knowledge of algorithms or coding. In fact, many of them emphasize collaboration and consideration, things most of us have been taught since childhood: Play nice with others, be helpful and be courteous.

Simple as they may seem, though, many leaders have a tough time mastering people skills. Teams whose leader takes a “my way or the highway” approach are in danger of getting bogged down in conflict, egos and hurt feelings.

Minerva Cruz, EdD, is a former financial advisor, a 25-year veteran of the Philadelphia Police Department and an instructor at Philadelphia’s Police Academy and Villanova University. Dr. Cruz teaches Strategic Organizational Leadership, Essentials of Business Analysis, Essentials of Business Process Management, Essentials of Commercial Contract Management, and Essentials of Government Contract Management in Villanova’s College of Professional Studies.

To call her experience varied is an understatement. Yet when she discusses people skills essential for managers, there are no qualifications based on occupation.

“The same people skills can be useful to all managers, whether in business, policing or academics, Dr. Cruz said.

Communication is Key

Dr. Cruz named three skills essential for managers to drive the best performances from their teams. A common theme that runs through all of these skills is the acknowledgment and consideration of fellow team members as professionals essential to the success of a project.

Communication is number one on Dr. Cruz’s list.

“Strong communication skills are paramount,” she said. “It’s critical to be able to communicate clearly and concisely for clarity and understanding.”

Villanova’s Maximizing Team Effectiveness course teaches that a manager devoted to effective communication must do more than be clear and concise on his or her own terms.

Maximizing the effectiveness of communication with team members means identifying each team member’s communication preferences through their words and body language. The manager then must adapt his or her words and body language to the team member’s preferences.

Knowing the communication preferences of your team is important because individuals receive information in different ways.

Most people, the course teaches, are visual in nature, and so the most effective means of communication with them is through something visual, such as an image or photograph.

Others take in information kinetically, meaning they prefer to touch and feel something, both physically and emotionally.

Auditory, the act of listening, is the least common method of taking in information, with between 12% and 18% of people using it as their primary means of receiving information, according to the course.

Knowing how team members best receive information, and adapting communication methods to match, helps managers ensure maximum understanding and increases the potential for a project’s successful communication. 

“Effective communication can clarify things people need to understand and connect people in ways that support productive teamwork,” Dr. Cruz added.

Successful Change Requires Flexibility

Change is constant. Change can be frightening.

No matter how many changes a professional goes through at work, change may still bring on feelings of apprehension and fear. When change has a team feeling nervous and uncertain, the manager must exhibit positive flexibility to counter the fear.

“Flexibility is key,” Dr. Cruz said. “A manager must remain flexible for his or her team to be able to thrive as things evolve and change.” 

In the book, “Managing Transitions,” author William Bridges divides change into three phases: ending, neutral zone and new beginning. How the leader handles the first two phases can determine if the third phase is a success.

The ending phase finds the team in the process of letting go, but still holding on to the old, familiar way of doing things. Workers may feel angry or depressed. Everything is different and what the new beginning will be isn’t yet clear.

As taught in the Maximizing Team Effectiveness course, if a team member expresses fear, the manager should ask him or her to talk about the change that’s occurring, particularly what will change for the worker. Ask what they will lose or what they fear they will lose. Acknowledge their fears but do not argue or try to convince them that their fears are wrong or unjustified.

The neutral zone phase can be more unknown for individuals, as the old and familiar is completely gone but the future still is hazy. People may start coming into work late or leaving early. Little is accomplished.

The leader can help by discussing what has been lost in the transition, and also encourage workers to consider what can be gained in the new beginning. Managers can also help the team refocus energies to create ideas about meeting the challenges of the new beginning. 

“Employees who recognize flexibility in a manager are more likely to feel safe enough to be open and share, especially when things are shifting, need to shift or are in danger of collapsing,” Dr. Cruz said.

Teams that successfully make it through the first two phases are rewarded with a new beginning phase, a time of learning, optimism and hope. The realization that the team has settled into a new normal may take time, but workers will already be experiencing a sense of comfort and security even before the new beginning is completely acknowledged.  

Empathy Fosters Resiliency

Empathy, understanding and sharing another person’s feelings, also are vital for leaders helping their teams navigate change.

“Managers who are able to empathize with people can recognize when employees or customers are giving critical cues about what they feel in ways that aid in productive communication, trust and overall engagement,” said Dr. Cruz.

Further, empathy is a valuable tool for a leader trying to make his or her team more resilient.

Resiliency is essential, as taught in the Maximizing Team Effectiveness course, because there is increasing pressure in the workplace to get more work done with improved quality but with fewer employees, less time and less money.

Resilient workers thrive in constant change. They are flexible, agile, creative and adaptive. They learn from experience and gain strength from adversity.  

Emotional intelligence is an essential part of resiliency, as noted by author Daniel Goleman in his book “Emotional Intelligence: Why it Can Matter More Than IQ.” Likewise, empathy is an essential element of emotional intelligence. 

Managers can bolster an employee’s empathy, and by extension, his or her resiliency, by following these five guidelines:

1. Help them understand others’ perspectives
2. Tolerate mistakes on the journey to development
3. Focus on service to others
4. Leverage diversity to create agile teams
5. Be aware of things that could create surprise changes

“Demonstrating empathy helps managers be in a position to better understand what someone is saying, and to pick up on non-verbal cues about what someone may be hesitant to say,” said Dr. Cruz. “Empathy can enhance the ability to connect successfully with people you are responsible for leading.”

The lessons taught in Villanova University’s online course Maximizing Team Effectiveness suggest you should be careful what you wish for.

“No conflict, no change, no innovation,” teaches the course, which is a requirement in Villanova’s Certificate in Organizational Leadership program.  

Martin Boyle, DM, MBA, concurs. Dr. Boyle is one of the instructors for the Maximizing Team Effectiveness course and he also teaches Advanced Contract Management.

“Avoiding it does not make it better,” Dr. Boyle said of conflict. “Sometimes it festers.”

Manage, Don’t Eliminate

The Maximizing Team Effectiveness course teaches that conflict is something a team leader has to manage, but not eliminate.

Dr. Boyle, who worked in the security field for years before entering academia, recommends team leaders use author Tom Rath’s “StrengthsFinder 2.0” in the early stages of putting together a team.

The book, Dr. Boyle said, includes a test that “breaks down attributes and breaks down traits” to show “what our pursuits are and what makes us happy,” he said. The point wasn’t to fill the team with people having similar traits. In fact, it was the opposite.

“If you get too many people who think the same in the same room, you may not be able to expand,” he said. “You’ve got to think outside the box.”

As a team leader, you will be dealing with personalities and egos, Dr. Boyle said. Those egos often create the team’s first conflicts as its lineup takes shape.

I Should Be in Charge Because …

Dr. Boyle said there are several reasons why team members think they should be the leader. He identified four common themes:

• I should be in charge because I’m the oldest
• I should be in charge because I’m here longest
• I should be in charge because I have greater knowledge of the subject matter
• I just came in from the outside and I know I’ve only been here six months, but I have a better feel for the customers than you do

“Everybody’s got a reason to try to reach for the top of the pinnacle,” he said.

Deciding who will be in charge of the team or its project can become a conflict when egos are involved, as in the example above. It may seem like the ideal spot for the team leader to assert their authority to bring about a resolution.

However, if the parties in conflict don’t want an intermediary, the leader’s efforts might be fruitless or even harmful.

As taught in the Maximizing Team Effectiveness course, “You cannot resolve a conflict between two people who don’t want to get over it. You can only help them resolve a conflict if they let you.”

If the leader hasn’t been asked to intervene, they should avoid jumping into the fray, taking sides or offering suggestions. Once asked, though, or if the parties in conflict reach an impasse, the leader has the opportunity to help reach a resolution.

Clarify the Issue, Follow the Ground Rules

The Maximizing Team Effectiveness course recommends that the leader should first clarify what the current conflict is, especially if the parties have a history of disagreements concerning work. “The actual issue is the last thing they’ll talk about.”

The course identifies five ground rules for the team leader to follow when attempting to resolve a conflict. 

1. Attack the problem, not the person
2. Use “I,” not “you”
3. Ask for or offer to help
4. Seek to understand why this situation is occurring
5. Try to find a win-win solution

The leader must be respectful toward both sides of the conflict and must ensure that their team is as well, Dr. Boyle said.

“You’ve got to get around things like ‘No comments’ or “My way or the highway,’” Dr. Boyle continued. “No insults. Don’t be defensive, and no verbal threats or ultimatums with regard to emails. Don’t beat around the bush. If you’ve got a question, bring it up. Avoidance kicks the can further down the road, and sometimes you’ve got to hit it head-on.”

Respect for Teammates

Furthermore, Dr. Boyle said, it’s vital to maintain respect for team members, even if they seem overly assertive or reticent.

One team member may try to take on all or most of the tasks. “It’s the old ‘if you want it done right, do it yourself’ sort of thing,” he said. “It’s not that they want the recognition. They’ll give the recognition to everyone else on the team, but they want it done once, they want it done right, they want it done professionally, and they want to make sure that at the end the whole team is looked at positively and not negatively.”

Conversely, Dr. Boyle recommends that leaders don’t assume team members who don’t speak up are trying to shirk assignments.

“I don’t want individuals to look at the quiet people on the team and assume that they are lazy or they don’t want to do the work,” he said. “Again, I believe it’s about individuals being shy, and it’s about a realization about looking inward.”

“You’re supposed to hear everybody out. Everybody has a right to be in that room and everybody has an opinion,” Dr. Boyle added. “Not everybody’s right and not everybody’s wrong. It’s like a melding of the minds to come up with a solution. If you focus on what you need to achieve first and not make it about the people in the room, many times you’ll get buy in.”

How to be a Leader in Your Organization

According to Villanova University’s Strategic Organizational Leadership course, only a handful of people are born with natural leadership ability. Fortunately, leadership is something that can be learned. While there are many types of leadership styles, using them effectively requires knowing yourself, understanding team dynamics, putting theories into practice, remaining flexible and evolving to meet the needs of your situation.

According to Villanova University HR faculty member Kim Nash, professionals must be continually learning, growing and developing. “We can be leaders in our organizations by being prepared with the knowledge, skills and abilities needed to move our organizations forward.”

What is Strategic Leadership?

The term strategic leadership encompasses an approach being taken by leaders that includes human capital as well as other factors that determine business success.

Strategic leaders understand the relationship between technology, data analysis and success in the modern business world. Data-driven decisions give a competitive edge to companies. But strong leadership goes beyond this. As pointed out by Forbes, today’s leaders need to be open-minded, flexible and continuously assessing and improving their business.

Organizational leaders can also work together with HR departments in setting goals for employees that align with overall strategic business goals.

This is vital because, as noted by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) in the article, “What Type of Leader Are You,” leaders can come from anywhere in an organization and with different styles that might work effectively for specific situations.

Styles of Leadership in Organizations Today

SHRM reports that leaders today tend to fall into four general categories.

• Dominant – These leaders are assertive, direct and results-oriented
• Influential – These leaders are active and dynamic with a positive attitude and an ability to always see the bright side of a situation
• Supportive – These leaders help people get things done, and do not get involved in office politics or drama of any kind
• Conscientious – These leaders are logical and methodical. They often prefer working with technology tools rather than people

5 Steps for Organizational Leadership Development

According to the Strategic Organizational Leadership course, leadership is not something that most people are born with – but it can be learned. Aspiring leaders can the following five steps to develop organizational leadership skills:

1. Intrinsic motivation – Start with small practical steps. This includes choosing to act when faced with thinking, talking or doing.
2. Study yourself – An ongoing process is to study yourself to understand your strengths and weaknesses. This is important as great leaders are not afraid to delegate duties and be mentored by others.
3. Study others – Take interest in the people on your team. Studying others provides crucial information about the behavior of those you work with every day.
4. Practice – Once you learn strategic leadership skills, put them to use. Practice the techniques rather than only learning the theory.
5. Evolve – Delegation is a necessary, but difficult skill to master. Choose trust over control and skepticism and be open to adapting your leadership style to your circumstance.

A great leader uses their leadership styles effectively and understands how to influence their teams.

What Leadership Traits Define Great Leaders?

The Strategic Organizational Leadership course also outlines leadership traits that matter today and go beyond the basic skills of good leaders. Characteristics of strong organizational leaders include:

• The ability to plan, organize, control, coach and delegate
• Communicating well and holding themselves responsible
• Providing motivation and resolving conflicts effectively
• Setting expectations and continuously evolving
• Collaborating and becoming part of the system (leaders do not act alone)
• The ability to create and articulate a clear vision for the team or organization
• The ability to establish a connection with a team and with individual members of a team

Some leaders now must lead through virtual means, no longer relying on the hierarchical organization or the room structure. The corner office is no longer where leaders need to sit and pass down edicts. Today’s leader looks like the information leadership of yesterday, according to the course.

A New Era of Organizational Leadership

As women have moved in increasing numbers into management roles, they have also brought new leadership approaches into the workplace. These include empathy, collaboration and being more accessible – which the New York Times points out is not so much “feminine qualities” but “the traits of well-rounded leaders.”

Forbes lists two of the top traits for successful managers as self-managing – knowing when and where to focus attention – and being accountable and responsible. Again, the focus is on collaborating and team building that is critical to successful strategic management.

Leadership continues to evolve. Seeking an education in organizational leadership can prove a key step
for ambitious managers who aspire to take their leadership skills to the next level.

Business executives who want to excel as leaders can face many challenges in both setting ambitious goals and motivating employees to meet them.

Adaptive leadership offers a practical path to solving business issues while challenging the traditional systems that have dominated many organizations for decades.

Leaders who practice an adaptive style can learn to separate important aspects of a business operation from what can be discarded. By focusing on the value added to the business rather than traditional hierarchy, they learn to identify and capitalize on smart risks while avoiding wasteful distractions.

Key Points of Adaptive Leadership

The thinking behind adaptive leadership evolved over three decades of study at Harvard University by Ron Heifetz and Marty Linsky. The two researched the cutting edge of innovative management training and development.

The development of the practice focused on a business landscape that had become global in nature and where change proved both inevitable and rapid. The duo wanted a leadership management approach that equipped leaders to motivate workers to tackle tough challenges.

People who use adaptive leadership tend to see organizations not as mechanical, rigid structures but as systems where everyone constantly interacts and impacts each other. As the business climate changes, so must employees, business processes and leadership’s approach.

Adaptive Leadership vs. Traditional Methods

In practice, adaptive leadership focuses more on leadership as a practice than as a position. For a manager using adaptive leadership, situations constantly evolve and require both flexibility and innovation.

Here are some of the areas where adaptive leaderships differs in approach to more traditional management.

• Job duties for employees remain broad-based, allowing for flexibility, as opposed to detailed, ironclad job duty lists.
• Roles within an organization are fluid – for example, one person can fill in for another if a situation warrants. This approach differs from static job duties for employees.
• Communications are open and employees are encouraged to form their own networks to facilitate better sharing of information, as opposed to controlled communication from the top down.
• Policies encourage people to innovate and find solutions, as opposed to rules that provide strict guidelines on what employees can and cannot do.
• Organizational structures are temporary and fluid to meet the immediate situation, as opposed to bureaucratic and regimented departments that work separately.
• While a ranking structure is in place, influence is granted to people who demonstrate an ability to add value to a product or process, as opposed to top-down management structure.

Challenges and Successes

The challenge with adaptive leadership is that it often runs contrary to traditional thinking or the usual defined roles for leaders and employees. However, there have been success stories that can provide inspiration.

For example, Cheryl Biron, writing in Inc., shared how adaptive leadership helped her get the best performance from her employees. Biron is president and CEO of One Horn Transportation, a New Jersey-based freight brokerage that ships goods across the United States and Canada.

Noting that management strategies in the 1990s and early 2000s often involved fear and intimidation, Biron took a different approach when running her own company.

For example, Biron observed that some employees want to share personal information and become closer to co-workers, while others are all business. “I take my cues from each employee and manage them accordingly so that I can elicit their best performance,” Biron wrote.

Those who want interpersonal bonds “appreciate my genuine interest in their lives and successes. For the others who just want to get down to business, I do just that,” she wrote.

Travis Bradberry, author of “Emotional Intelligence 2.0,” wrote in Forbes that adaptive leaders show strong emotional intelligence such as that demonstrated by Biron. They also don’t shy away from hearing the truth, he wrote, which makes those who deliver the message feel respected and valued.

Adaptive leadership can provide chief executives and others in influential positions the opportunity to maximize the skills and potential of employees, as well as attain company goals.