Authoritarianism and Authoritativeness: How to tell them apart

We know the difference between these two terms, roughly... We know that one identifies a tyrannical way of leading, and the other describes a more humane way. It's a gut feeling, but in reality, this distinction goes back much further... long before it became a stereotype.

A question of substance

To begin with, it is not at all taken for granted that everyone can distinguish between these two terms and I often notice that they're considered almost as synonyms: just by pronouncing "author...", many people panic or, at least, approach that half-word uneasily.

What they have in common is the term "authority" which, in fact, can be applied to both of these definitions, although with very different intentions and meanings that I will try to clarify here.

Let's start by saying that, for anyone who intends to commit to a project they deem important, meaningful, and worthy—but above all, one that adds value to their own lives and those of others—authority is a quality they cannot help but develop.

The more important the project, the more it will require people who are engaged and aligned with its aims... impossible even to imagine for those unable to galvanize human resources with solid, legitimate leadership.

The one between Authoritarianism and Authority (or Authoritativeness) it is not a purely semantic distinction, but a substantial one.

In fact, it's not what makes the difference between one approach and another, but the underlying intention and goals, which will activate different, often opposing dynamics, that determine the quality and direction of leadership.

Beyond stereotypes

You can be kind, respectful, open, and yet authoritarian; while you can be harsh, aloof, rigid, and yet authoritative: these are two intentionally exaggerated and rarely encountered situations, but they're meant to prove that form and substance don't lend themselves so easily to stereotypes when it comes to leadership.

And although in most cases authoritarian and authoritative people behave exactly as they are expected to do according to certain "conventions", as far as authoritative people are concerned, they will adapt their behavior to the situation that arises, which is unlikely to happen with authoritarian people.

But let's get to the point and see what aspects these two different types of leadership can be recognized in.

a) Paradigms

"Paradigms" are mental filters through which we perceive our reality.

There are many of these and in this case the paradigm of the Machine and Nature are opposed.

The authoritarian leader tends to see the relationship with others and with the world as if they were all Machines that he can program and, therefore, control, expecting them to respond according to this program.

The authoritative leader, on the other hand, perceives and interacts with others and the world as integrated and interconnected realities that do not respond to their desires; instead, they're seen as if they were a plant that needs to be cared for and nurtured according to its nature, so that it provides the best.

Two opposite visions that foster opposite attitudes and behaviors: going from being served to serving.

b) Control and Power

A leader, whether authoritarian or authoritative, needs to have power and exercise control... only everyone does it differently depending on the model they adopt.

The authoritarian leader usually "inherits" power from above, that is, from those who delegate that power to them and to whom they must answer for.

The authoritative leader, on the other hand, even when they have inherited the power they have and for which they must answer, because they have a more systemic approach to what they're called to lead, including people, their control will be on the dynamics that produce the results, and not on the people themselves, whom they will instead choose to involve in the process.

c) Pressure

Because they are accountable for their actions, the authoritarian leader will feel pressured to generate the expected and desired results, they unload that pressure onto others.

This can happen even when the leader has "conquered" their position: although they have no one to answer for, their goals and ambitions are dictated by their ego, which will demand results.

The authoritative leader, despite feeling pressured, will not unload the weight on their subordinates, but will instead "exploit" the natural dynamics to achieve the desired results, making them work for them and for everyone.

This doesn't mean they won't have to work hard, but what is eliminated are tension and conflict.

d) Followership

Leadership is to the leader as followership is to followers, subordinates, and it defines the type of relationship that will exist between them and their leader.

A leader's power, in general, depends on the more or less staunch support they receive from their base, in good times as well as in more challenging ones.

It is therefore legitimate to ask to what extent an authoritarian leader will have support from their group during difficult times: will they unite with them as a single body or will they disintegrate, leaving the leader to their fate?

And conversely, what choice will the group make of an authoritative leader who has been a true beacon for their followers when they didn't even know why they were there for.

e) Trust and respect

Typically, we give trust and respect to those who have shown us they deserve it... and so does the authoritarian leader, who rewards those who serve them best and ignore or even disparage those they deem unworthy of their task: first you give to me and then I will (perhaps) give to you... this is the guiding motto.

The authoritative leader thinks in a diametrically opposite way, that is, I guide you, I support you, I help you overcome your challenges, I keep trusting you: first I give you and then you... No! I just give it to you, with no expectation of anything in return.

A saint, in short! Not at all... they're just someone who knows how systems work and who, according to the Natrure paradigm, if you serve Nature (including people!), there's no point wondering whether it will reciprocate.

It will simply happen because it's the nature... of Nature!

f) Focus

Since the authoritarian leader's reference paradigm is that of the Machine, where they hold the power and control (or that's what they believe), the focus will constantly be on themselves, on their vision of the world and the benefits they will derive from it: self-referentiality is their calling card!

The authoritative leader, on the other hand, is focused on others and on the mission they intend to carry forward.

They don't put themselves at the center of other people's worlds, but on the contrary, they step aside, they leave space for their subordinates, they involve them, they consult them, they want to see them grow: the leadership of the authoritative leader is a forge of new leaders who will never forget where they came from and who helped them express themselves to the best of their ability.

Conclusion

Distinguishing authoritarian leadership from authoritative leadership is not a moralistic exercise in establishing who is good and who is bad, a bit like the now tiresome distinction between "leader" and "boss."

It's not a question of goodness or badness, but of understanding how even the most well-intentioned person can fall into the traps of mechanistic thinking, which is the most prevalent one (I'm talking about at least 99% of people!).

Whoever is a victim is quick to point the finger at his own "enemy", not realizing that they too are experiencing and judging certain situations based on their quality of thought... which provides no way out.

We're all prone to fall into authoritarianism when we fail to recognize the enormous forces at play within each of us.

On the other hand, authority is not just a choice, but something that must be understood, learned, and implemented with consistency and awareness.

It's leadership, baby!