(Newscko) ─ While it appears an autocratic leader is an authoritarian leader, scientific studies on leadership styles are complex and young to experiment with real-world experience to determine whether different leadership styles impact destruction or progress. Nobody denies that leadership influences relationships among leaders and followers who want real changes to reflect their shared goals.

Autocratic Leadership vs Democratic Leadership

An autocratic leader centralizes authority and derives power from the position, control of rewards, and coercion. On the other hand, a democratic leader delegates authority to others, promotes cooperation and participation, depends on trust or confidence in subordinates’ knowledge to complete duties, and relies on subordinate’s respect for leadership.

What Reveals Wrong with Democratic Leaders?

As described above, democratic leaders delegate authority to others. Moreover, they try to encourage participation and rely on the trust in subordinates’ knowledge to complete tasks. The notion is that what happens if a democratic leader delegates authority to wrong and incompetent people and trusts on them that they would perform effectively to make a positive social impact towards human progression go wrong? Let us examine a few instances to support evidence for this argument.

George W. Bush, 43rd president of the United States, delegated authority to Condoleezza Rice in various roles: National Security Advisor and Secretary of State. Rice had a great background: American foreign relations expert and diplomat, political scientist, civil servant, and Stanford University Professor, and involved in the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. On her recommendation for the Iraq war, the administration, which includes her, trusted on her rationale for the proposal for the Iraq War and the false belief that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction (WMDs).

It is unclear about the actual casualties of the Iraq War. However, while Population-based studies show 151,000 violent deaths as of June 2006 (more than 1,033,000 deaths as per the Iraq Family Health Survey), the financial cost of the Iraq War shows about $1.922 trillion for the United States. Indeed, almost ignored the financial and human cost to the Iraqis in the political discourse when taking stock of the actual causalities.

Besides, Joe Biden’s, 46th president of the United States, botched withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan plunged into chaos. While it is not yet sure if the withdrawal decision was right, it explains the withdrawal was poorly executed. Nevertheless, he delegated authority to his subordinates and trusted them for a successful Afghanistan exit. Unfortunately, the initial intelligence of the Taliban could take over Afghanistan in six months after U.S troops leave Afghanistan proved wrong when the Taliban took over Afghanistan when did not yet complete the withdrawal of U.S. troops.

Advanced Leadership Development Program (ALDP)

Several universities, including top-ranked and Ivy League research universities, conduct the Advanced Leadership Development Program (ALDP). They charge enormous amounts of tuition fees, promising the program outcomes would transform leaders into team innovators, broadening thoughts, talent, and productivity, becoming a successful leader to navigate change initiatives, and 21st-century masters of strategic thinking and alignment. However, it is not rare for people involved in similar kinds of instances explained above to teach leadership learners in universities to become extraordinary leaders. It resembles their notion that autocratic leadership is somewhat improper and democratic leadership is the way to succeed towards the positive side of human progression.

As explained above, the destruction democratic leaders knowingly or unknowingly cause to humankind advances the argument of whether leadership is an art or a science. For example, suppose it is a science. In that case, the ALDP graduates who learned the leadership techniques from these institutions could not have disappointed us and visited the wrong side of human progress, demonstrating incompetence and impaired judgment.

Autocratic Leadership or Democratic Leadership for Real Change? Concluding Remarks

Indeed, while the author does not embrace autocratic leaders, the increasing occurrences that exhibit democratic leadership deliver chaos worldwide, authoritarian leadership cannot be ignored for making significant changes. However, the abuse of power and nepotism of authoritarian rule could be more costly than the incompetent subordinates to whom the leaders delegate authority and depend on delivering positive change. The notion of how effective is governance in fighting against fraud, and how accountable are leaders for their actions to the people are significant. Indeed, the incompetence of subordinates costs taxpayers trillions of dollars seem a component of democracy and democratic leadership.