"Is Authoritarian leadership or shared ruled leadership best or most effective within a given society?"
Leadership is a crucial factor that affects the failure or success of any organization, religious movement, country and the society as a whole. It is becoming quite difficult for any single person to have all the skills and abilities to lead the nation competently in today's society. Various leadership styles have worked in the past societies among them being authoritarian leadership transformation style, the shared ruled leadership, and many others. Authoritarian leadership requires the subordinates to do as they are told without question. It is characterized by a clear boundary set between the leaders and subjects, keeping the subordinates in line through threats and punishment rather than softer approaches (Germano). This paper will try to explain why the authoritarian leadership style is the best and most effective in getting this done through identifying how it has been used in the past and determine the impact it has left in the society.
As stated earlier, the authoritarian leadership style gives the leader absolute power to control the subjects. The ruler chooses fear over love by the subordinates as through fear people can accomplish things because they would not want to get on the wrong side of the leader. The leader, therefore, may end up being ruthless like some of the most notable leaders in history including Adolf Hitler from Germany, Saddam Hussein from Iraq and Kim Jong-un from North Korea who is still the ruler. The logic behind the ruling is that the end justifies the means in that as long as there is something good at the end of an action then it would be worthwhile no matter the cost. Authoritarianism in almost every case disregards the ethical perspective of an action. The logic presents itself in the book Price by Machiavelli. In many situations where the leadership has been used the results are attained almost immediately as people are ruled by fear and few people find the courage to oppose the leaders ("Authoritarian Leadership Explained").
The effectiveness of the authoritarian system can be understood through real examples. A good illustration is the compulsive education law of Georgia. The law requires children between the age of six and sixteen to attend school and failure to do so would cost the parties involved. The law dictates the penalties for failure to be fines and or imprisonment. Parents have the option to enroll the children in public, private and homeschooling institutions. Also, for the homeschooling option, the state dictates the curriculum and the requirements of the children. Among them being; having a regular attendance record and receiving the education comparable to the one offered but the public schools in the state. A child found not attending to any of the three options may be placed in the custody of an officer provided by the state. If it is not the parent's fault and that of the child, he/she may be subjected to juvenile court processing. The strict law was effective as the literacy levels in Georgia increased. The number of school going children studying is also high compared to other states that do not have strict laws ("Georgia Compulsory Education Laws - Findlaw").
Another authoritarian example is in taxation laws. Every citizen in this country is required to file and pay taxes at the end of every financial year. It is something that every citizen who earns money knows, and if they fail do so they know the consequences. Paying taxes is a concept that nobody bothers questioning yet if someone were to be told to choose between using the money or paying the tax, they would opt to use the money without a doubt. It is a form of ruling that has been in existence since the ancient times only that the use of taxes has changed from paying the rulers to helping develop the country and grow its economy.
The leaders who desire to have complete power in making decision use the authoritative leadership approach. In most cases, the leaders use the style when expressing their ideas to the people he/she is leading. The style is however not recommended as the leader may be seen as bossy and may lead to resistance and the head may fail to inspire. The ultimate results may be reduced commitment from the people being led. John F. Kennedy is among the many leaders who used the style. Kennedy, however, used an approach that portrayed cheerfulness and optimism which inspired the American people. John F. Kennedy was able to engage different generations in America through communicating his philosophy of hope (History.com Staff). Some people found it difficult to relate to his ideas of upcoming future, but his inspiration led American to become the first human beings to land on the moon although he was not around to see this happen. Authoritarianism assures the followers that a leader knows what exactly he/she is talking about therefore leads people to by his/her idea.
effectiveness of authoritarianism is practical as it is the only method of
leadership applicable when making a decision that needs an immediate response.
It is because of this that military uses authoritarianism as its primary method
when undertaking many of its activities. The leader is expected to make orders
that are followed by the subordinates without question. In the end, the method
is effective as it gets things done. How effective a leadership style is,
depends on the goal. Authoritarian leadership gets things done but in most
cases disregards ethics and human rights. It is effective in that the aim is
achieved. Other leaderships are always open to having back and forth
conversations which slow the commencement of any project, with authoritarianism
nothing of the sort happens, therefore, an ideal way of being effective.
“Into the Wild” is a film that was directed by Sean Penn and it was adapted from a book with a similar topic by Jon Krauker. This film is a biographical drama that was intended for an English-speaking audience that is attracted to social justice t...Man-Vs-Wilderness-in-Into-The-Wild …Read Article