Leaders are characterized as individuals who have differential influence over the setting of goals, logistics for coordination, monitoring of effort, and rewards and punishment of group members.
[4][need quotation to verify] One of the key reasons why certain leadership styles are blocked with positive outcomes for employees and organizations is the extent to which they build follower trust in leaders.
In contrast, when a leader does not inspire trust, a follower’s performance may suffer as they must spend time and energy watching their backs.
[citation needed] Authoritarian leadership styles often follow the vision of those that are in control, and may not necessarily be compatible with those that are being led.
Examples of authoritarian leadership include a police officer directing traffic, a teacher ordering a student to do their assignment, and a supervisor instructing a subordinate to clean a workstation.
[citation needed] Authoritarian traits include: setting goals individually, engaging primarily in one-way and downward communication, controlling discussion with followers, and dominating interactions.
[7] Several studies have confirmed a relationship between bullying, on the one hand, and an autocratic leadership and an authoritarian way of settling conflicts or dealing with disagreements, on the other.
An authoritarian style of leadership may create a climate of fear, leaving little or no room for dialogue, and where subordinates may regard complaining as futile.
[9][page needed] Authoritarian leadership became popular for a period in the inter-war years – witness for example Stalin, Mussolini and Pilsudski.
Workers under this style of leadership are expected to become totally committed to what the leader believes and will forego opportunities to work independently.
When this happens, workers begin to look for bigger and better job opportunities instead of staying at one company for a longer period of time.
[12] These negative notions arise due to differences in the intrinsic cultural aspects defined by Geert Hofstede's study (1980).
He stated that North American and Western European countries classify themselves as individualistic cultures centred around the principles of egalitarianism, lack of in-group interdependence, direct communication and low power distance.
It is essential that extensive research be initiated from a non-Western point of view to understand the implications of this leadership style on social, cultural and organisational metrics without any negative bias.
[13] The boundaries of democratic participation tend to be circumscribed by the organization or the group needs and the instrumental value of people's attributes (skills, attitudes, etc.).
The democratic style encompasses the notion that everyone, by virtue of their human status, should play a part in the group's decisions.
In situations where roles are unclear or time is of the essence, democratic leadership can lead to communication failures and uncompleted projects.
[21] Advocates should strive to assist individuals in regaining and enhancing their ideas in an efficient and timely manner which requires leadership.