Does Anyone Actually Like Autocratic Leaders? New Data Says Yes

In today’s modern workplace, it’s almost heretical to suggest that someone might like autocratic leadership. Google the term and you’ll quickly find examples of autocratic leaders ranging from Attila the Hun to Hitler.

But being an autocratic leader is not the same as being a fascist. Autocratic leaders like control over decisions, like to control how people perform their work, and no, they’re not especially warm-and-fuzzy. But while it’s not a universally idealized leadership style, there are certain personality types who actually respond well to the autocrat.

In a new study called “Autocratic Leadership: New Data Reveals Who Likes It” we surveyed 14,033 people about the style of their ideal leader, and further assessed respondents on several dozen personality characteristics, to assess which personalities actually liked autocratic leaders.

One aspect of an autocratic leader is whether they always retain the final decision making authority within the department. And as you can see in the chart below, about 21% of employees do idealize a leader who always retains the final decision making authority.

That’s not a majority of employees, to be sure, but it is a bigger number than we were expecting (especially given the generally negative portrayals of autocratic leaders).

But the bigger question is what kinds of people actually desire and idealize the autocrat. We discovered seven personality characteristics that were strongly associated with liking autocratic leaders.

One of those characteristics is whether someone is a rules follower. If someone believes that people should do what they're told and follow the rules, they’re more likely to idealize a leader who tells employees exactly how they would like work/tasks performed (a.k.a. an autocratic leader). In fact, the more that someone prioritizes the importance of rules, the more they’ll idealize autocratic leadership. The scatterplot below shows the positive relationship between these factors:

As you can see from the strong upward-sloping trend line, for people who believe that the world is better when people just follow the rules, autocratic leadership is actually fairly desirable. But for rules-breakers and those who enjoy a bit of disorder, autocratic leadership is likely to be incredibly painful.

Followers of autocratic leaders are also more cautious than followers of other leadership styles. They are more likely to believe in the adage, “If it ain’t broke, don’t break it.” And, they’re more likely to adhere to the notion that it’s better to be safe than risk being sorry.

This is not a paean to autocratic leaders. Rather, it’s a call to more fully understand and explore the situations in which leaders and employees operate, and understand whether certain leadership styles actually offer some previously-undiscovered benefits.

Because more than 500,000 leaders have taken the online test “What’s Your Leadership Style?” we know that styles with autocratic leadership elements are preferred by a small minority of leaders. And while that’s not necessarily a bad thing, there are cases where a dose of the autocratic style might be beneficial.

For example, it’s not uncommon to see teams plagued by great ideas but lousy execution. For the past few decades, companies have sometimes fetishized the breakthrough idea that will completely upend an entire industry; they want to invent the next iPod, iPad or iPhone. But what often gets missed, is that those “iDevices” weren’t just great ideas; they were executed to near perfection.

Perhaps you’ve been in meetings with big-idea, no-execution colleagues. These are the people who might blurt out, mid meeting, “This is a stupid idea. I’ve got something better we can try instead.” They love going against convention, and maybe they can deliver the great idea that unsticks the team’s thinking. But when the team has been developing that other idea for six weeks or even six months, and it has been tested and refined, with detailed execution plans, then this type of outburst can be awfully frustrating. Not only can it ruin the dynamics on your team, but it can derail the group from addressing tough execution issues, focusing them instead on the big, sexy breakthrough idea.

One test that can confirm that your group could use a dose of some autocratic elements is to assess how often the people on your team leave meetings with concrete tasks, complete with deadlines. And then, track how often those tasks are actually accomplished.

Take, for example, my study called “Why CEOs Get Fired.” It’s a commonly-held belief that CEOs get fired, or are forced to resign or retire under pressure, because of “current financial performance.” But, that’s wrong. During this four-year study, I interviewed 1,087 board members from 286 public, private, business and healthcare organizations that fired, or otherwise forced out, their chief executive. I found that among other factors, 22% of CEOs are fired for too much talk and not enough action.

While conducting the survey, I heard many comments about CEOs talking the talk, but being unable to walk the walk. Numerous board members complained that CEOs could expound endlessly about grand visions and new strategies, but they would neglect creating a tactical plan for the “who, what, when and where,” and/or were unable to provide evidence of any implementation. One board member commented that their former CEO “gives good meetings, but little else.”

Big ideas are great, but big ideas without clear execution are a problem for companies and for leaders’ careers. If you find that the above rings true with your group, then it might be time to implement a little bit of autocratic leadership.

With the right mix of personalities, autocratic leadership might deliver decent results when employees aren’t clear about what’s expected of them, or people have great ideas but poor execution, or when the trains just are not running on time.