Leadership != Control: How to Avoid the Authoritarian Spiral

The article cuts straight to the problem: when leaders can act without accountability, they tend to resort to coercion, bullying, and emotional outbursts that sabotage collaboration. It argues that the antidote is a system of checks and balances that makes authority visible and answerable.

In public companies the board of directors and an independent compliance function are meant to serve that role. The compliance leader reports to the audit committee, not the CEO, allowing whistleblowers to bypass a problematic executive. The piece cites Dambisa Moyo's observations that public firms face far more external scrutiny, forcing them to adopt transparent governance structures.

For smaller organizations without formal boards, the author suggests pragmatic substitutes: appoint an ombudsperson who has the owner's ear, or form a small complaints committee of trusted employees. These low-cost mechanisms give staff a safe channel to surface issues before they fester into toxic culture.

The payoff for technical leaders is clear: a governance framework that curbs authoritarian drift frees teams to focus on real work, improves morale, and reduces the hidden costs of fear-driven management. By building structures that keep power in check, leaders can nurture the kind of collaborative environment that drives sustainable innovation.