There are researchers who study what draws people to authoritarianism... I am not one of them.
In fact, this is pure speculation based on my own experiences, so as always - take it with a grain of salt.
Before we get started, I wanted to talk a little bit about what I saw as a manager. Or rather, based on my experience, why I think managers can easily make certain mistakes.
First, doing everything yourself. If you're fairly competent there are any number of tasks that you can do yourself. And when you do it yourself, you know it will be done right. Done on time, and to standard.
So one of the first hurdles may deal with is realizing that it's sometimes more work getting the people under you to do a task than it is to just do it yourself.
The problem with that is that there's a reason you're managing a team of people. And it's that there's too much work for one person to do alone. If you decide you're better off handling a task yourself, you're not using your team. You're not building your team. And if you do it too much you will be overwhelmed with work... most of which isn't your job in the first place.
So you have to learn to delegate, which means a lot more than simply 'give someone a task and expect them to do it.'
You have to be clear about what you expect and check in periodically to make sure it's happening on time and to standard. You have to have a timeline for when it should be done, and then backwards plan what tasks should be done in order to make sure you can achieve that goal.
It means knowing the capabilities of your people. Did you give the task to someone new? Who hasn't done it before?
Then be prepared to monitor them a bit more closely, and check in periodically to see if they're stuck on something, have questions, or need help.
If you assign a task and don't bother to check in until whatever deadline you gave, then be prepared for it to be incomplete or incorrect in some form or fashion. (Unless you assigned it to one of your rock stars, but that can lead to the set of problems I'll address next).
So you have to delegate... and when you find someone capable who can do the task with a minimum of supervision, it's wonderful. Here's someone that doesn't need constant attention. If you give them a task, you know it'll get done and get done right.
Except...
Except they're so fantastic, and it's so much easier working with them, that you may start giving all the important tasks to them.
And never really address the problems with the rest of the team.
So soon your rock star starts getting burnt out. They may also realize that they're getting paid about the same as the rest of their teammates, and that their teammates aren't doing even half the work.
That, quite naturally, leads to resentment and anger.
Rock stars are awesome, love them... and if there's something especially important going on you can definitely use them and use them well.
But you can't rely only on them. And doing so lets you skip the whole 'development' bit. You're not building a team and you're not doing the work of managing your people.
You need to either develop the rest of the team so that they can also be your rock stars, or you need to be counseling them for poor performance and building up the case for getting rid of them. (I heard plenty of my fellow managers complain about how hard it is to fire people these days, but really most of the problem is that you have to actually show that you've told your people what you expect, given them the resources to perform at that standard, and demonstrated that they're still not there. That's like... the basics of people management in a nutshell. Well, not necessarily the last point... but setting and communicating standards, providing the resources to achieve those standards, and providing feedback are really the foundation.)
If you don't... then your rock star gets burnt out and leaves, and you're keeping a bunch of dead weight around.
So okay... no doing everything yourself. Make sure to delegate. Make sure to develop your people. And now yet another common mistake - micromanaging.
That happens when you delegate, but you've learned you can't trust your people to get the job done and done right. So you tend to hover, or constantly ask for updates, or basically check in on the task so much that it distracts and annoys the person assigned to it.
Of course, what's 'micromanaging' can vary depending on the person you're dealing with. Some people, especially if they aren't confident, may want their manager to be around for questions. So exactly how much managing is too much depends... but if the person assigned the task feels as though their manager might as well have done it themselves, that's too much.
So what does all of that have to do with authoritarianism?
Because I think it's easy for managers to make the mistakes I listed above. Most of them follow quite naturally from the situations you deal with, ones where the quick and easy solution hurts your team in the long run. And I think a drive towards authoritarianism can come from the same sorts of situations.
It's natural to get frustrated and annoyed when people seem to be blocking you in your goals.
It's natural to feel as though criticism is a threat to your authority. That someone loudly disagreeing with you is a challenge.
The thing of it is, though... that sometimes that criticism comes from a place of love. I have seen far too many workers who are frustrated and angry... because they cared and saw ways to be better, and yet they felt like they were unheard and ignored.
It's amazing how 'problem children' or 'troublemakers' often can be some of your greatest assets, and far too many managers just want to get rid of them. (There are some who really are troublemakers. I'd say maybe 1 in 10?)
It's funny, too... those outspoken critics often really do just want to be heard. You can listen and explain why whatever it is can't be done, and most of the time they understand. (I've been on the flip side of this too... where I thought something should be done one way and the boss thought it should be done another, and if I can see the logic and know their prioritizing some things differently it's generally fine. You win some, you lose some, and maybe learn you were wrong or that there's a better way of doing things... not a big deal.)
Sometimes those critics have needed experience, something that helps fill in the gaps in your own. They can make things better, make your ideas more likely to succeed.
But you have to listen...
So that's the first mistake - an unwillingness to listen.
Add that in with a tendency to see disagreement and dissent as a threat, and you're well on your way to authoritarianism.
The rest follows rather naturally.
Anyone who disagrees is pushed out, which means you're left with a bunch of 'yes-men' who either share your biases and perceptions, or are hiding any disagreement and telling you what you want to hear.
Anyone or anything blocking you is a threat...
When you have power over them, you get rid of them. If you don't have the power to do that, you need to gain more power so you can.
Any rules, laws, or conventions that block you are dealt with the same way. They're in the way, get rid of them.
Bit by bit you have someone who hasn't gotten rid of every safeguard, every guardrail, everything and anything that could limit their ability to do what they want.
And when they've done that, they've generally created a system where 'yes-men' enable them... where dissent and disagreement are a threat that constantly needs stamped out... where nobody can tell them when they're doing something foolish, or short-sighted, or wrong... where they never seem able to create the future they dream of, so they always have to blame that failure on everyone getting in their way.
'Everything would be great and the world would be beautiful if it weren't for those nasty XXXX'
And it's pretty much just miserable for everyone. Even for the one at the top, who's supposedly able to do whatever they want.
