Autocratic leadership and the illusion of control
In times of uncertainty, control can feel like the antidote to chaos.
It may be just a perception but there appears to be a debate forming about whether the world needs to lean back towards more autocratic leadership - perhaps because of what is being modelled on the international stage or maybe because we are experiencing unprecedented levels of uncertainty?
Leaders, stretched thin from mounting pressures and ever more, utterly unachievable, expectations from boards, customers and government accountability bodies - may find themselves defaulting to a more autocratic approach, often without realising it. Decisions become more centralised, dissent is unwelcome, and obedience is mistaken for buy-in.
The underlying belief? If you don’t think like me and behave like me, then you are wrong. And, with all due respect, the stakes are too high for me to give your view/your way my limited time and consideration.
At the core of these behaviours is a quest for certainty and a belief in control and hierarchy as the solution.
Many leaders unconsciously equate authority with infallibility, fearing that any display of uncertainty, vulnerability or, god forbid, failure, will erode their legitimacy. They have internalised the idea that strong leadership means unwavering conviction and that admitting doubt or inviting challenge is a sign of weakness rather than wisdom.
The comfort of control, the cost of fear
At the heart of it all, underneath the behaviour and the beliefs lies fear.
Autocratic tendencies often emerge in response to stress. When stakes are high, command-and-control leadership can feel like the quickest path to order. But this comes at a great cost: creativity withers, ideas are withheld, trust erodes, and people retreat into self-protection rather than leaning in.
Authoritarian leadership fosters a culture of fear, where individuals learn that their value is contingent on compliance rather than contribution, especially if that contribution is counter to the main narrative. Fear-driven environments lead to silence - people hesitate to share concerns, flag potential risks, or admit when they don’t know something. Mistakes are covered up rather than discussed, innovation is stifled, and teams become paralysed by a reluctance to step outside rigid expectations.
Over time, this lack of trust erodes engagement and limits both individual and organisational performance.
What happens to those who don’t follow
One of the most insidious signs of creeping autocracy is the way once-valued employees can suddenly find themselves on the outside. Those who were once seen as high performers - praised, trusted, given opportunities - can be swiftly discarded when they begin to challenge the status quo or fail to align perfectly with the leader’s expectations.
The belief system that underpins this behaviour suggests that loyalty and adherence to a specific way of operating is more important than capability, that perceived defiance (i.e. doing things differently) is grounds for exclusion, and that questioning authority is a threat rather than a contribution. This cycle perpetuates a culture of fear, where people learn that their status is conditional and where survival depends not on excellence (in all its forms) but on conformity.
The blind spot: Why leaders don’t see themselves in this
The irony is that very few leaders who exhibit these behaviours will recognise themselves in this description. Instead, they see themselves as having uncompromisingly high standards, as being willing to make the hard decisions others shy away from. They believe that letting people go when they don’t perform is a mark of strength, not a symptom of intolerance for difference.
But the question is not whether you hold people to high standards - it’s whether you create the conditions for them to meet those standards.
Do people feel safe enough to take risks, to admit mistakes, to bring their best thinking?
Are they being supported to achieve?
Or are they walking on eggshells, trying to avoid being the next person cast aside?
True accountability requires psychological safety, not fear. High performance thrives in trust, not control, even at the highest levels of organisations where people are expected to ‘just get on with it’.
Where they are right
Autocratic leaders are often misunderstood. Their ability to make hard decisions, to act decisively under pressure, and to push forward when others hesitate can be invaluable in times of crisis. They do not shy away from doing what needs to be done, even when it is unpopular. They are not paralysed by the need for approval and are often willing to carry the weight of responsibility alone.
These leaders thrive in environments that demand clarity, speed, and a firm hand. They cut through bureaucracy, drive execution, and uphold high standards. Many successful organisations owe their survival to a leader who had the courage to act when others wavered. In moments of uncertainty, the ability to lead with conviction is a powerful trait.
However, the very qualities that make these leaders effective can also become their Achilles’ heel. The line between decisive leadership and controlling leadership is thin. A leader who is unafraid to be unpopular can, over time, become disconnected from those they lead. High standards can morph into intolerance for imperfection. The ability to make tough decisions can turn into an unwillingness to listen to alternative perspectives.
The challenge for autocratic leaders is not to abandon their strengths but to balance them with openness, trust, and the humility to recognise when control is doing more harm than good. True leadership is not just about making the hard choices - it is about creating an environment where others can contribute, innovate, and grow alongside you.
Forgiveness and the death of perfection
If a leader’s self-worth is tied to being right, being infallible, then mistakes - whether their own or someone else’s - become intolerable. Forgiveness becomes impossible. But as Brene Brown puts it so well, here’s the hard truth: forgiveness requires something to die. And often, that something is “the expectation of perfection”.
Many leaders struggle most to forgive themselves. They hold themselves to impossible standards, and in doing so, can impose the same rigidity on others. If no one is ever good enough unless they think and behave like me, then the real issue isn’t the team - it’s me.
Leading with curiosity, not conquest
What would happen if, instead of striving for control, leaders embraced curiosity? What if, instead of demanding obedience, they examined the belief system driving their behaviour?
Where do I shut down voices that challenge me?
How do I react when someone does things differently than I would?
Am I seeking to inspire, or simply to enforce?
What beliefs about leadership am I holding onto that no longer serve me or my team?
True leadership is not about conquering others - it’s about conquering the need to be right. It’s about creating the conditions where people can bring their full selves, even (especially) when they disagree with you. It’s about recognising that strength is not found in control, but in the confidence to embrace complexity and difference.
Autocracy may be making a comeback, but that doesn’t mean you have to follow the trend. The real challenge? Leading with courage, curiosity, and the willingness to loosen your grip even when your head is on the chopping block.