In any Psych 101 class, one of the first people you learn about is Abraham Maslow, the American psychologist who famously created the hierarchy of needs and the theory of self-actualization.
According to Maslow, human beings progress through a pyramid that starts with getting physiological needs like food and sleep met, followed by safety needs, relationship needs and self-esteem needs. A person is at the top of the pyramid, or self-actualized, when she is in a position to realize her full potential.
Maslow said that it is the leader’s responsibility to promote self-actualization in his employees. Great leaders, he remarked, have a democratic attitude that involves a profound respect for other people. They are compassionate and open, and they experience real satisfaction from the growth and happiness of their staff.
From Autocrat to Enlightened Servant
In contrast to what Maslow called “enlightened management” is authoritarian management. These bosses reject kinship with their supposed inferiors. They do not ask, listen, or solicit honest feedback. Instead, they pronounce orders without gaining any real knowledge of how the system works.
We all know authoritarian leaders, but this style has certainly fallen out of fashion in favor of enlightened management, which is related to servant leadership—a term with which you are likely familiar if you read a lot. “Servant leadership” was coined by Robert Greenleaf in a 1970 essay and implies that the leader’s highest priority is to make sure their people’s needs are being met. Servant leaders are always asking: “Did my people grow? Are they wiser? Are they more autonomous? Are they in a good position to become productive servants themselves?”
End of the Authoritarian Style?
Everyone likes to think that enlightened management and servant leadership are more effective than the authoritarian style, but is this actually the case? As it turns out, this depends on your situation.
In the mid-20th century, psychologist Kurt Lewin studied leadership styles using a group of schoolchildren. He noted that the authoritarian leaders provided clear expectations for what needed to be done, when to do it and how to do it. The leaders made decisions independently with little to no input from the rest of the group.
On the other hand, Lewin’s democratic leaders offered guidance to group members, but also participated in the group and allowed input from other members. The children in this group were less productive than the members of the authoritarian group, but their contributions were of higher quality.
Lewin’s work did demonstrate, however, that authoritarian leadership works better when a group does not have the time or framework to come to a consensus, and when the leader is the most knowledgeable member of the group. Both scenarios happen frequently in the business world, and therefore—in my opinion—the authoritarian approach shouldn’t be ruled out entirely.
Sometimes Parents Do Know Best
There is a reason parents often say to their young children, “This is not a democracy.” Uninformed democracy, after all, can result in chaos and is best for no one in the long run. We should all aspire to be enlightened servants, but we were put in a leadership role for a reason and must balance the needs of our people with the needs of the business. And every now and then that requires a little dictatorship.
Alexandra Levit is a former nationally-syndicated business and workplace columnist for The Wall Street Journal and the author of Blind Spots: The 10 Business Myths You Can’t Afford to Believe on Your New Path to Success. Money magazine’s Online Career Expert of the Year, she regularly speaks at organizations and conferences on issues facing modern employees.