Infamous dictators were terrible for people — but can some elements of their psychological tactics work in the modern workplace?
Let’s be absolutely clear from the outset: history's great dictators were, without exception, catastrophic for humanity. Their legacies are written in suffering, oppression, and collapse. Nobody in a Canadian office tower should be modelling themselves on 20thcentury strongmen.
And yet, leadership research keeps stumbling across something that could make some uncomfortable: several of the psychological tools those figures deployed with ruthless effectiveness are, in diluted and ethically redirected form, the same tools that can make managers compelling and effective.
Future-of-work specialist and former people and culture executive Sachi Kittur argues that leaders can’t simply walk away from psychology if they want to succeed today. “At the end of the day, leadership is really about psychology and psychological tactics,” says Kittur. “Any leadership playbook is going to all the frameworks, whether the ones from 30 years ago or the more modern, progressive leader playbooks — they're all rooted in psychology.”
Find a common enemy — just pick one you’re allowed to hate
Every great dictator understood one thing above all else: nothing unites a group faster than a shared threat.
Organizational leaders can’t do any of that. What they can do is understand the underlying psychology and use it constructively.
When organizations channel the instinct to find an enemy destructively, they create toxic environments characterized by fear, resentment, and mistrust. Kittur has seen how shortterm pressure tactics backfire over time. “When these have been used, they're known to drive short-term results, but over time, it's actually quietly eroding trust and employee engagement,” she says. “It ultimately impacts performance, so it doesn’t serve the purpose it was intended to serve.”
The constructive version is to give your team a legitimate enemy: a competitor eating your market share, an aggressive deadline, a looming regulatory change. The adversary doesn’t need to be a person — it just needs to be real, external, and something your team can collectively push against.
Talk up your wins — loudly and relentlessly
Dictators, and narcissistic leaders more generally, are exceptional propagandists: they talk up their wins loudly, relentlessly, and often dishonestly. Research shows that this visible confidence helps them make powerful first impressions.
The ethical version for managers is much simpler. Celebrate genuine wins, give credit by name, and make sure your team regularly hears what is going well.
For Kittur, the way forward is not to abandon these psychological levers but to overhaul how they are used, with a focus on honesty and directness. “You take the psychological tactics and retool or reshift them towards what I call trust-based leadership tactics, where you're taking those same kinds of principles of influence but you're actually applying it towards transparency, purpose, and shared accountability,” she says. “That’s a model that's going to actually get you to your sustained performance versus forced output.”
Project absolute certainty — even when you’re winging it
Watch footage of any successful 20thcentury demagogue and the posture is remarkably consistent. Chin up. Voice steady. No visible doubt.
Kittur cautions that the goal is not swagger for its own sake, but clarity that lowers anxiety. “I think we need to retire this idea that decisive and human leadership are opposing forces — in today's environment, the best leaders are actually able to do both and they're able to assess the circumstances on when to apply what,” she says. “It's less about control and more about clarity — if you give clear direction, clear priorities, and clear communication, all of a sudden you're diffusing anxiety and you're replacing it with drive and performance,” she says.
The practical application: in a crisis or a period of genuine organizational uncertainty, leaders should project calm and direction even when they feel neither, and be honest about what they know and don’t know, while still offering a path forward, says Kittur.
Centralize decisions in a crisis — then let go when it passes
Research on authoritarian leadership in harsh economic conditions finds an uncomfortable pattern: directive, topdown leadership can lift results when conditions are very difficult, but becomes a drag on performance when conditions improve. The iron fist works — briefly.
Leaders can step into a more directive mode without permanently damaging culture, provided they explain what they are doing and why, according to Kittur. “You have to communicate and provide clarity of the situation that you're dealing with, and why it may warrant more assertive, time-sensitive action from the leader versus more collaborative and consensus-based,” she says, adding that the leader’s job is to ensure that people understand the risks and the stakes during a crisis.
In addition, leaders can have the most impact when they put trust in their team and accept that they might sometimes fail, says Kittur.
Create a cult of mission, not a cult of personality
Research on narcissistic leadership consistently finds the same pattern: narcissists make excellent first impressions, but over time their arrogance, exploitativeness, and selfcentredness damage relationships and ultimately destroy their effectiveness.
Kittur believes that HR systems either reinforce missioncentric leadership or quietly reward narcissists, and that the real test is in what organizations let slide. “Your culture and your leadership is represented by the behaviors that you tolerate in the organization,” she says. “As a leader, it's important to showcase the character and the behaviours that you're touting in your values, culture, and statements.”
The sustainable version of dictatorial charisma is to attach that energy to a mission that’s genuinely larger than the leader. When followers believe in the mission rather than the person, the organization can survive beyond any one personality.
Use psychological tools with caution and discretion
None of this is an argument for authoritarianism. The research is clear that authoritarian leadership styles are, in most contexts and most of the time, associated with lower employee satisfaction, higher turnover, reduced creativity, and worse outcomes overall.
The classic fearbased managerial model has had its day, says Kittur. “The data now tells us that it’s crystal clear that [authoritarian leadership) isn’t translating into engagement, business performance, and business results,” she says. “It will erode culture, it will erode trust, and it will erode engagement.”
Kittur also believes that it’s the HR leader’s job is to kind of nip any red flags tied to narcissistic or authoritarian management as they emerge. “Really focus on coaching, correcting, supporting, and helping leaders understand some other ways that could actually get better collaboration and better outcomes,” she says.
What the research does suggest is that certain psychological levers are genuinely powerful. Focus. Clarity. Projected confidence. Celebration of wins. Shared adversity. These aren’t the exclusive property of history's villains. They’re the raw materials of leadership, and they are available to anyone willing to use them for good ends.
“I don't think we can abandon psychological tactics,” says Kittur. “We need to retool them for the current day and more specifically around modern leadership.”
