Signs of autocracy / Culture / Resilience

Signs of autocracy

Identifying when a social enterprise is moving towards autocracy requires a keen eye for shifts in power dynamics, decision-making processes, and organisational culture. Because social enterprises often have a strong mission and a desire for efficiency, autocratic tendencies can sometimes be disguised as "strong leadership" or "streamlining."

Here are key warning signs to look for:

Centralisation of Decision-Making:

Decisions made solely at the top: A noticeable decrease in consultation with team members, beneficiaries, or other stakeholders on significant strategic, programmatic, or operational decisions.
Lack of transparency in decision-making: Decisions appear to come down from on high without clear reasoning or an understanding of how they were reached.
Reduced input from the board: If the board of directors, which should provide oversight and strategic guidance, becomes a rubber stamp for the leader's decisions, or if the leader actively marginalizes board members who challenge them.

Suppression of Dissent and Alternative Views:

"Yes-person" culture: Employees or team members who consistently agree with the leader are rewarded, while those who offer constructive criticism or alternative ideas are subtly or overtly sidelined, ignored, or punished.
Lack of open forums for discussion: Meetings become monologues from the leader, or opportunities for open debate are removed or actively discouraged.
Fear of speaking up: Team members express reluctance to voice concerns or different opinions, fearing repercussions.
Public shaming or private reprimands for dissent: Individuals who challenge the leader are publicly or privately humiliated or disciplined.

Erosion of Democratic Processes and Norms:

Changes to internal governance: Alterations to bylaws, policies, or operational procedures that concentrate more power in the hands of the leader or a small inner circle.
Manipulation of data or reporting: Information presented internally or externally becomes increasingly curated to support the leader's narrative, rather than reflecting objective reality.
Disregard for established rules: The leader or leadership team starts to bypass or selectively apply rules and policies, especially if they impede their desired outcomes.
Weakening of accountability mechanisms: Internal checks and balances (e.g., internal audits, performance reviews) become less rigorous or are controlled by the autocratic leader.

Shift in Communication Style:

Top-down communication only: Information flows primarily from the leader downwards, with limited channels for upward feedback or horizontal communication between teams.
Lack of genuine dialogue: Conversations are less about collaborative problem-solving and more about the leader issuing directives.
Secrecy and information hoarding: Key information is withheld from relevant team members or stakeholders.

High Turnover and Disengagement:

Loss of experienced or innovative staff: Talented individuals, especially those who value autonomy and collaboration, leave the organization.
Decreased morale and motivation: Team members appear disengaged, uninspired, or are simply "going through the motions."
Increased absenteeism or quiet quitting: Employees start to withdraw their full effort.

Focus on Personal Power over Mission:

Cult of personality: The organization's identity becomes increasingly tied to the individual leader, rather than its mission or collective impact.
Self-serving decisions: Decisions appear to benefit the leader's status, power, or personal interests more than the organization's mission or beneficiaries.
Suppression of external scrutiny: The organization becomes less open to external evaluations, partnerships, or collaborations that might challenge the leader's authority.

Rigidity and Resistance to Change (from the bottom up):

Inflexibility: The organization becomes less adaptable to new ideas or changing external circumstances if they don't originate from the leader.
Stagnation of innovation: New programs, approaches, or creative solutions become rare, as they are not fostered or are actively suppressed.

Why these matter specifically for social enterprises:

Social enterprises often rely on collaboration, community engagement, and a participatory approach to achieve their social mission. Autocratic tendencies directly undermine these core values. When a social enterprise becomes autocratic:

Its impact can diminish: Without diverse input and genuine engagement, solutions may be less effective or miss the true needs of the community.
Its legitimacy can be questioned: Stakeholders and beneficiaries may lose trust in an organization that doesn't practice the values it preaches.
Its talent pool shrinks: Mission-driven individuals are often drawn to social enterprises precisely because of their values and opportunities for meaningful contribution, which an autocratic environment stifles.

Observing a combination of these signs, especially a trend of increasing centralization and decreasing openness, would strongly suggest a social enterprise is moving towards a more autocratic style of management.

Signs of autocracy

Signs of autocracy

Here are key warning signs to look for:

Centralisation of Decision-Making:

Decisions made solely at the top: A noticeable decrease in consultation with team members, beneficiaries, or other stakeholders on significant strategic, programmatic, or operational decisions.

Lack of transparency in decision-making: Decisions appear to come down from on high without clear reasoning or an understanding of how they were reached.

Reduced input from the board: If the board of directors, which should provide oversight and strategic guidance, becomes a rubber stamp for the leader's decisions, or if the leader actively marginalizes board members who challenge them.

Suppression of Dissent and Alternative Views:

"Yes-person" culture: Employees or team members who consistently agree with the leader are rewarded, while those who offer constructive criticism or alternative ideas are subtly or overtly sidelined, ignored, or punished.

Lack of open forums for discussion: Meetings become monologues from the leader, or opportunities for open debate are removed or actively discouraged.

Fear of speaking up: Team members express reluctance to voice concerns or different opinions, fearing repercussions.

Public shaming or private reprimands for dissent: Individuals who challenge the leader are publicly or privately humiliated or disciplined.

Erosion of Democratic Processes and Norms:

Changes to internal governance: Alterations to bylaws, policies, or operational procedures that concentrate more power in the hands of the leader or a small inner circle.

Manipulation of data or reporting: Information presented internally or externally becomes increasingly curated to support the leader's narrative, rather than reflecting objective reality.

Disregard for established rules: The leader or leadership team starts to bypass or selectively apply rules and policies, especially if they impede their desired outcomes.

Weakening of accountability mechanisms: Internal checks and balances (e.g., internal audits, performance reviews) become less rigorous or are controlled by the autocratic leader.

Shift in Communication Style:

Top-down communication only: Information flows primarily from the leader downwards, with limited channels for upward feedback or horizontal communication between teams.

Lack of genuine dialogue: Conversations are less about collaborative problem-solving and more about the leader issuing directives.

Secrecy and information hoarding: Key information is withheld from relevant team members or stakeholders.

High Turnover and Disengagement:

Loss of experienced or innovative staff: Talented individuals, especially those who value autonomy and collaboration, leave the organization.

Decreased morale and motivation: Team members appear disengaged, uninspired, or are simply "going through the motions."

Increased absenteeism or quiet quitting: Employees start to withdraw their full effort.

Focus on Personal Power over Mission:

Cult of personality: The organization's identity becomes increasingly tied to the individual leader, rather than its mission or collective impact.

Self-serving decisions: Decisions appear to benefit the leader's status, power, or personal interests more than the organization's mission or beneficiaries.

Suppression of external scrutiny: The organization becomes less open to external evaluations, partnerships, or collaborations that might challenge the leader's authority.

Rigidity and Resistance to Change (from the bottom up):

Inflexibility: The organization becomes less adaptable to new ideas or changing external circumstances if they don't originate from the leader.

Stagnation of innovation: New programs, approaches, or creative solutions become rare, as they are not fostered or are actively suppressed.

Why these matter specifically for social enterprises:

Social enterprises often rely on collaboration, community engagement, and a participatory approach to achieve their social mission. Autocratic tendencies directly undermine these core values. When a social enterprise becomes autocratic:

Its impact can diminish: Without diverse input and genuine engagement, solutions may be less effective or miss the true needs of the community.

Its legitimacy can be questioned: Stakeholders and beneficiaries may lose trust in an organization that doesn't practice the values it preaches.

Its talent pool shrinks: Mission-driven individuals are often drawn to social enterprises precisely because of their values and opportunities for meaningful contribution, which an autocratic environment stifles.

Observing a combination of these signs, especially a trend of increasing centralization and decreasing openness, would strongly suggest a social enterprise is moving towards a more autocratic style of management.