Democracy v. Autocracy: Which Management Style Works?

I had come to see the pattern over and over again. The companies I would come to admire from a managerial standpoint had particular traits. Their managers often asked their staff for key day to day information, showing me that the manager had confidence in their staff and hired people who knew more about their job than them. Staff were open and ready to argue the details if need be, showing me that staff 'owned' their work and weren't used to taking orders blindly. Staff worked autonomously, often treating their role in the wider machine of the company as an independent entity of its own..like a separate company. Lastly, managers were focused on boosting the confidence of their team and creating an enabling environment...then I realized I was wrong.

As Strategic is growing, and I'm approaching the hiring and staff management phase of this journey, I am increasingly under pressure to decide what type of manager I have to be.

This weekend I read Warren Buffett's Management Secrets by Mary Buffett and David Clarke. Warren is a notoriously hands off manager. Believing in putting people to work on what they know and love and leaving them alone, Warren often tells managers and CEOs that they’ll probably hear from him once a year at best. This is an attitude towards management that Warren expects his managers to allow to permeate throughout the culture of all of his holdings.

Now, here's where I went wrong. When researching the subject I came to find that my observations were the result of where I was looking. I was seeing the results of the best management style for a particular type of business, not a one-size-fits-all.

Could the success of autonomous democratic structures I was witnessing be a result of the industry I was witnessing it in? I primarily deal with smaller to mid-sized IT companies that are engineering driven. Because of the level of expertise of the staff and specialty of the engineers, it is unimaginable that an autocratic structure would even be appropriate. Hence, when I did see a closed autocratic management style... I was consistently met with slow growth, low retention, and general disorganization. So, where would an autocratic leadership style succeed?

While Warren Buffett is a exemplary of the hands-off leader, one can’t dismiss the success of his ideological opposite; Steve Jobs.

Known for overseeing the most minor facets of any job, Jobs shows us what happens when 'micromanagement' is done right. After being re-hired by Apple in 1996 Steve had a specific vision for the company that was partly charged by a personal drive to ‘prove’ he was right all along. Steve saw the company in a way nobody could, and had a clear tangible vision of it’s future that, he felt, required his direct guidance at every step.

And this is what I find most effective autocratic managers have in common; they are driven by a sometimes unrealistic vision. Warren invests in companies where the probability of success is higher because he sees the work of great people in motion. He respects the fact that the vision of his staff is likely greater than his, because that's what brought him on board to begin with. For Steve Jobs, and other famous hands on leaders like Sam Walton, Walt Disney and Bill Gates there is a personalized vision of a future others may not yet see.

Leadership styles thrive best in their appropriate environment and circumstance. This tells me my best bet is to be flexible enough to adjust to what's needed of me.

Successful Democratic Leaders

Warren Buffett (Berkshire Hathaway)

Richard Branson (Virgin)

Sundar Pichai (Google)

Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook)

Dick Costolo (Twitter)

Barack Obama (US Presidency)

Ronald Reagan (US Presidency)

Successful Autocratic Leaders

Elon Musk (Tesla)

Donald Trump (The Trump Organization)

Sam Walton (Wal-Mart)