We’ve been programmed to think that “collective” leadership — also known by a bunch of other terms such as collaborative, consensus and democratic leadership — is better than “centralised” leadership (autocratic, directive). A walk through any bookstore or a scan of contemporary thoughts on leadership highlights the obsession with consensus, which in the day-to-day gets confused with being the all-inclusive leader.
“Inclusive” leaders involve everyone, believing that each person has a voice and that the group should go with the consensus. But that’s not leadership, it’s diplomacy.
Definitely, leaders should listen and they should involve others, but at the end of the day the leader is the one who should act. And of course, it goes without saying that he or she should always act in the best interests of the company and the people within it.
As a leader, you are responsible — you’re the shepherd of your team and your company. Could you imagine a shepherd asking his sheep where to move to next? He would get as many different opinions as there are sheep in the herd.
Searching for consensus would be a time-draining trap. Instead, the shepherd moves the herd forward. He leads them to a better tomorrow, one where they will succeed.
I am not equating employees to sheep, but the illustration does highlight the drawback of pursuing consensus: too many opinions and too much time.
A common concern is that autocratic leadership breeds dictators. Regrettably, examples of leaders consolidating power to their advantage abound, and that is typically what we hear when we listen to stories about strong, centralised leadership. While journalists love to make examples of these “bad apples”, they fail to tell the other side of the story — the positive results that this style of leadership achieves.
Being direct isn’t an excuse for not listening or being a jerk and it’s not a reason to cast out others. It merely reclaims the work of leaders. That is, to lead, make decisions, give direction and empower people to act.
Corporate corridors are full of positive examples of decisive, action-oriented leaders. A shortlist of highly respected, centralised and autocratic leaders includes the likes of Ralph Lauren, John Chambers, Henry Ford, Walt Disney, the Carnegies, the Rockefellers, the Vanderbilts, and nearly every leader whose actions led to great results.
Former Apple CEO, Steve Jobs, was a poster boy for autocratic leadership. He wasn’t the best delegator when it came to making directional decisions, but he delegated the delivery of the vision to his team of experts and, never relenting, he got what he wanted.
The great advantage of strong, decisive leadership is speed and clarity.
While autocracy practices centralised decision-making, it is collaborative in nature. To be a good autocrat, you need to be inclusive, informed and considerate. Every person’s opinion matters.
However, that doesn’t mean you hand the reins to your people. Instead you seek their opinion — the core practice in the majlis — before you act decisively. A good autocrat doesn’t strive to control every aspect of life, nor does he bow to the whims of the people. Rather, his job is to walk that line with skill and care.
Toward the other end of the pendulum, democracy encourages every opinion to be involved in actually making the decision. This system gives the power to the masses, encourages the rule of the people and fosters bureaucracy, which ends up leading to slower action.
Relying on group projects and the currently popular “matrix” style of management tends to fail because group members are constrained by the pace of each other.
The advantages of the autocratic style compared with the democratic process are clear. If you employ the “rule of the people” model you most likely will sacrifice the successes that make people leave their comfort zones. If left to their own devices at the ballot box, “the people” generally don’t vote for taxing expansion.
Frankly, there’s a reason for all this. Most people aren’t leaders, so they decide with a follower mentality rather than a leader focus.
But what this means is people expect, and even desire, leadership. They wish for a leader who leads!
—The writer is a CEO coach and author of “Leadership Dubai Style”. Contact him at tsw@tommyweir.com
