A Benevolent Dictatorship

There are many different structures for organizing people into work teams including leader-centered, shared leader, self-directed and self managed. But there’s another structure that can be very useful even though you rarely hear of it. It’s called the benevolent dictatorship and I learned about it from a company president who was skeptical about his teams’ ability to stay focused and move forward on a timely basis.

After thinking about the available team structures he concluded that none precisely fit what he was trying to do. So he modified self-directed team fundamentals to insert review sessions at critical points. If he was happy with the progress achieved by the time of the review session he would allow the team to continue without interference. But if he was unhappy with the progress achieved he did not attempt to coach or counsel or negotiate with the team to come to a suitable answer acceptable to all. Instead he would dictate what he wanted done, set a new review date and then allow the team to work without interference.

For example, he might begin a project by discussing the problem, area of concern or desired improvement with the team. When he believed that the team had a good grasp of what he was asking them to do, he would ask them when they would be ready to present project goals and a rough outline of approach. Based on the response, which might be negotiated or even dictated to the team, he would set the date for the first review meeting. At that meeting, if he was pleased with the results he would ask the team when they would have a detailed action plan ready for review. Based on that response, which might be negotiated or even dictated to the team, he would set the date for the next review meeting. As long as he was pleased with the results, each review meeting would continue on the same basis.

The dictatorship came into play in a powerful way whenever he was not pleased with the progress made or the results achieved by the time of a review meeting. At that time he would decree what he wanted done. Using the example above, if the team didn’t make sufficient progress by the first review meeting or if at the first review meeting he disagreed with either the goals or the rough approach set by the team, he would decree the goals as well as the approach they were to follow. Then he would ask the team when they would have a detailed action plan ready for review. Based on that response, which might be negotiated or even dictated to the team, he would set the date for the next review meeting.

I see a lot of merit in his approach. If done correctly, it balances control with empowerment. As long as a team understands its mission by carefully listening to his input, he will empower them to work independently to the first review point. If they are on target at that point, he allows them to move independently to the next review point. And so on until he ends up with mission accomplished. Teams are not overly pressured, but they are not allowed to slack off. Teams are allowed a lot of flexibility as long as they stay on target. And the strategic review points prevent the waste of time and resources associated with a team that gets itself way off base.

About me: Dan Pelley teaches team organization, formats and structures as part of his "Participative Management (Building High Performance Teams)" program, one of five programs leading to a Certificate in Supervisory Management. 137 companies in Connecticut (CT), Rhode Island (RI), Massachusetts (MA) and New York have one or more people who earned this certificate.

Copyright © 2009 Daniel W. Pelley
All rights reserved.