Authoritarianism and Authoritativeness: How to tell them apart

We know the difference between these two terms, roughly speaking... we know that one identifies a tyrannical way of driving, 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 obvious that everyone can distinguish between these two terms and I often notice that they are understood almost as synonyms: just by pronouncing "author..." many people panic or, at least, approach that half-word with a certain suspicion.

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 it is not a purely semantic distinction, but a substantial one.

In fact, it is not the "ways" that make the difference between one approach and another, but the underlying intention and objectives, which will activate different, often opposing, dynamics, determining the quality and direction of leadership.

Beyond stereotypes

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

And although in most cases authoritative 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 who, instead, tend to get into character.

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

a) Paradigms

THE "paradigms" they are mental filters through which we perceive our reality.

There are many 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 a Machine that he can program and, therefore, control, expecting them to respond according to this programming.

The authoritative leader, on the other hand, perceives and interacts with others and the world as an integrated and interconnected reality that does not respond to his or her desires, but as if it were a plant that needs to be cared for and nurtured according to its nature to give its best.

Two antithetical visions that favor opposite attitudes and behaviors: 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 "inheritance" power from above, that is, from those who delegate that power to him and to whom he must answer.

The authoritative leader, on the other hand, even when he has inherited the power he has and for which he must answer, having a more systemic approach to what he is called to lead, including people, his control will be over the dynamics that then generate the results and not over the people, whom he 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, then unloading that pressure onto others. This can happen even when the leader has "conquered" their position: although they are answerable to no one, their goals and ambitions are dictated by their ego, which will demand results. The authoritative leader, despite feeling pressured, will not unload the pressure on their subordinates, but will "exploit" the dynamics of the system 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 is tension and conflict.

d) Followership

Leadership is to the leader as followership is to followers, subordinates, and 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 convinced support he receives from his 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 his base in times of difficulty: will they unite with him as a single body or will they disintegrate, leaving the leader to his fate?

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

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 him best and ignores or even denigrates those he deems unworthy of their task: first you give to me and then I will 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 continue to trust you: first I give you and then you... NoI just give it to you, with no expectation of anything in return.

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

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

f) Focus

Since the authoritarian leader's reference paradigm is that of the Machine, where he holds the power and control (or at least, so he believes), the focus will constantly be on himself, on his vision of the world and the benefits he will derive from it: self-referentiality is his calling card!

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

He doesn't put himself at the center of other people's worlds, but on the contrary, he steps aside, leaves space for his subordinates, involves them, consults them, wants 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 this quality of thought... and so there is no way out.

We are all predisposed 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!