Donald Trump, Xi Jingping, Vladimir Putin, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Victor Orban, but also Macron for a moment, Söder: the last few years give the impression that we are developing back into the age of authoritarian alpha animals – at least in political leadership roles. The masses vote for them or support them.
Are we experiencing a general trend towards authoritarianism?
On closer inspection, it seems to me that this is not the case – on the contrary – a new, very different leadership paradigm is developing in large parts of business and society. There are strong arguments in favor of political leadership being a real special case:
Leadership research still knew the ‚Great Man Theory‘ (that was its real name!) as the leading paradigm until the 1930s. According to Kurt Lewin, Max Weber, and the human relations movement of the 1960s (which was also a reaction to the catastrophe of authoritarianism in Germany), the scientific ideal of leadership is also becoming more differentiated, democratic, and moderating. ‚New‘ leaders set the framework for teams, agree on goals, coach, develop talent. To do this, they must be very self-reflective, give others space and be able to moderate conflicts. They no longer seek the limelight; they make an impact through well-founded decisions, values and attitudes that they exemplify. And leadership is (thereby) becoming more feminine.
Matrix-like structures, multicultural organizations and, above all, increasingly complex and confusing business situations are bringing leadership qualities such as value orientation, systemic-holistic thinking, and the promotion of flexibility, participation and motivation to the fore. In addition to the will to lead, decision-making authority and a little charisma, managers also need empathy, values and attitudes, as well as self-reflection and mindfulness. The manager as a service provider for their employees.
Managers have to be able to play different roles in different situations – sometimes as decision-makers, sometimes as team players, sometimes as consultants. And yet they still have to be approachable and authentic. By contrast, the ‚great man‘ needed distance to appear great – like the giant in Jim Button. Questioning yourself or allowing yourself to be analyzed as a person is not an option – even if it makes you look weak. Willy Brandt fell at this hurdle. For new generations of young leaders, however, it is a prerequisite.
In recent years, there has been a whole range of new approaches and leadership models that all point in this direction and often originate from Silicon Valley: management methods such as Agile/ Scrum or Design Thinking are developing their own leadership theories. Fred Kiehl researches and talks about ‚Return on Character‘ and puts characteristics such as ‚compassion‘, ‚forgiveness‘ or ‚integrity‘ on the agenda as the most important leadership qualities. There are plenty of other examples like this.
The basic assumption behind them is always very similar: in complex, dynamic environments, you need flexible, motivated employees who are capable of making decentralized decisions. To achieve this, management must create the space and be able to hold back. A new ideal of leadership! In contrast, old authoritarian warhorses of the German economy, such as Martin Winterkorn, are virtually chased away and the old authoritarian spirit is blown out of the organization as effectively as possible with culture change programs.
Is this all a contradiction to the obviously authoritarian tendencies in politics? Not necessarily!
There is some evidence that the political sphere represents a very special leadership situation: unlike other leaders, politicians have to lead more indirectly. They have to operate in a media space. They have to give their organizations a distinctive profile. They have to attract attention. In a media market that gives more space to escalation and human drama than to a complex, factually negotiated compromise, they have to make themselves (and their organization) heard. They achieve media presence through polarization and raise their profile by setting themselves apart.
This is rarely the case in companies. And there is another important factor: the changing advanced industries usually have very well-educated, urban and globally minded, high-earning employees. They are still the winners of the 3rd Industrial Revolution. Just as a self-confident bourgeoisie in the Renaissance opposed the authoritarian attitudes of the aristocracy and demanded autonomy and co-determination, so now a broad post-industrial bourgeoisie is doing the same.
The voters of Trump and Co., on the other hand, are mostly from the rural ‚losing society‘ and generation. They are affected by a conservative, outmoded set of values, mostly defined by a sense of national-cultural nostalgia. The ‚turning back‘ of post-modern developments is precisely one of the explicit demands for which authoritarian populists are elected. Chauvinism, traditional roles and family images, etc. are systematically ‚played‘. Incidentally, this is just as true in the traditionally ‚left-wing conservative‘ Ruhr area as it is in Catholic rural Bavaria or Hungary or Greece.
Authoritarianism is therefore a retro movement! Where it still encounters Tayloristic structures and conservative values, it still has its supporters. But these are continuously disappearing, worldwide – but at the latest with the 4th industrial revolution: when artificial intelligence eats away at these tasks. I now see three major dangers of the ’new authoritarianism‘ in parts of politics:
- If the economic divide in society continues to grow too quickly, creating a large, dissatisfied ‚loser potential‘, as in the deindustrialized Midwest of the USA.
- Authoritarian leadership has clear advantages only in a few leadership situations: when it comes to quickly focusing a group on a goal in an emotionally charged way – these are usually crisis situations in which people blindly place their trust in each other (such as disasters) – or even armed conflicts. Authoritarian leaders guide organizations into precisely such situations to justify their leadership style to themselves. This must be undermined.
- Authoritarianism can only establish itself in the long term if it seizes control of the free media. This can be seen in Hungary, for example. When authoritarian leaders allow themselves to be portrayed uncritically in the mass media, they can create parallel media worlds – as in Hungary or Turkey.
That is why the media has a similarly clarifying function here as the many executives in companies: they have to simplify complex problems appropriately, moderate compromises and highlight them as something positive, mediate conflicts, give space to plurality and diversity, and analyze and question authoritarian personalities. Companies also have to become more diverse themselves and a management team must truly represent its own workforce in terms of gender and origin.
