When students write a report on teaching practice, they are usually not strongly advised to write that they used an authoritarian style of management. Although in many situations this style is optimal, and this applies not only to teachers, but also to managers of completely different levels.
An authoritarian leadership style is a management method in which the almost absolute majority of decisions are made by the leader, and the group’s contribution to the leadership is minimal. Managers or educators who are prone to just such a method usually decide on the basis of only their experience, trusting their judgment. Advice from the managed is practically not accepted. An authoritarian management style presupposes an approaching dictatorial level of control over a group, sometimes turning into an openly dictatorial one.
What are the main characteristics of the described style?
Firstly, the almost complete lack of participation of group members in 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 needs to be done and describe in great detail the methods by which to achieve the goal. In this case, the subordinates are even deprived of the opportunity to prove themselves, all rewards in case of victory are received by the leader. But it is not their responsibility to answer. The leader controls the activities at each step, which implies a great contribution of forces on his part, not always justified.
Thirdly, the leader takes on the most difficult tasks. He does not trust key stages of the work to employees who even exceed his qualifications, assuming that no one can do better than him. Often this opinion is justified, only the health and energy resources of such a leader can quickly be depleted.
The authoritarian management style seems to many to be far from good. Does he have any advantages? In some cases, it is optimal. An example is the situation when the decision should be as quick as possible, and there is no time to consult even with a small circle of people, not like with the broad masses. If you have no time to play democracy, feel free to use the authoritarian leadership style. And this style was adopted in the army because there was no time to confer in battle.
It is very difficult to use a liberal style among people who are not prone to creativity and responsibility. Perhaps you, the reader, have experience when promising projects have failed because of the leader’s inaction. A good leader distributes tasks and assigns hard deadlines. In a situation of severe limited resources, people tend to seek to be influenced by a “strong hand”.
As we have already mentioned, an authoritarian management style is optimal in the army, especially during military conflicts. The fact is that it is easier for people in this situation to focus on specific actions when strategic aspects are trusted by the leader so as not to think painfully about each action.
Of course, this style is far from ideal, and it should not be applied constantly and in all situations. In so many ways, it has a bad effect on group members. And the image of the leader suffers. Those who abuse this method of leadership are perceived by the team as inclined to constantly command, controlling, distrusting their people. Therefore, among the members of such a group, riot can gradually mature.
Since the members of the group are not listened to, many opportunities are lost. And people feel disappointment and insecurity in their capabilities, some depression. Therefore, leaders of this style can only be appointed temporarily, to carry out very important projects, and then give the group a break and recover.