Authoritarian rule is a form of government in which a single leader dominates all branches of the state, removing checks and balances to increase executive power. It typically emerges in situations where democratic institutions become ossified, or when citizens feel disconnected from their representatives. When parties fail to inspire people or elites appear too removed from society, a void is created that populist authoritarians can fill with promises to directly and rapidly solve all problems.
Once in power, authoritarians systematically dismantle the institutions that protect democracy and undermine the norms of trust and compromise that underpin democratic stability. They bolster their own authority with cults of personality and aggrandizement of trappings, and they use rhetoric to denigrate checks and balances as corrupt obstacles to popular will. They also employ “constitutional hardball,” rewriting laws and stacking competing institutions with lackeys or compliant allies in order to circumvent or play fast and loose with rules.
They often cite inequality, corruption, and perceived incompetence as legitimate grounds for squaring off civil liberties and increasing coercive security measures. They also inflame politically-useful violence, citing outbreaks as proof of corruption or famine and thereby undermining the public’s trust in democratic systems.
In the workplace, authoritarian leadership often creates fear, which can inhibit employee morale and suppress collaboration. The rigidity of this style can hinder innovation and prevent teams from adapting quickly to changing markets. It’s important for HR and leaders to understand the disadvantages of authoritarian leadership, and provide training to help managers overcome their tendencies toward control.
About the Author
