What does benevolent leadership mean?

The original meaning of the word benevolent comes

from the Latin ‘bene’ and ‘volent’ which together mean “wishing well for all”. In other words
it is about being willing to be aware of what one’s actions create for everyone. We can be
benevolent leaders in our personal lives as well as in our relationships and family. We can
choose to be benevolent leaders in any other area of life, be it at work or in our various
communities.

Here are some basic characteristics of a benevolent leader:

 A benevolent leader is aware of what is going on around her and recognizes that she is
the creator of everything in her life.
 A benevolent leader asks what it will take to create more in the world and for everybody,
not just himself.
 A benevolent leader is pragmatic, has a generosity of spirit and looks at the different
futures that can be created based on an awareness of unlimited possibilities.
 A benevolent leader functions from awareness, not from conclusion to create a
sustainable future for the planet and the people.

The last two points require the ability to step outside of our contextual reality. What does that
mean? We look for the reasons why something is happening to us, around us or in the world
which puts it into the context of what we call reality. It is a level of consciousness we have, that
the world functions from.

Being a benevolent leader is becoming a catalyst for change, for a different world. We begin to
look at a different way of being in the world, both as an individual as well as a business in order
to have sustainability. We are willing to develop a strategic awareness to deal with possible
future scenarios. This means being willing to perceive where we will end up if we continue the
way we have operated up to now and where we could be if we are willing to perceive and
implement possibilities.

The traditional way to manage people is easily identifiable. In a traditional context, people are
generally called “resources” just like chairs and printers would be. Sometimes, they are
referred to as “assets” and even “human capital”. If they are assets, why don’t we sell them to get
some money and increase stability? Oh, you can’t and shouldn’t sell people? Well, the
benevolent leader believes that we shouldn’t treat people like objects of numbers.
Now that we defined what a benevolent leader is, let’s dig a little deeper discuss the benefits
and disadvantages of benevolent leadership.

The benefits of benevolent leadership

 The benevolent leader is appreciated

For leaders who don’t care much about power and prefer to be appreciated by being of service to
others, this is the main advantage.
We all had, in one job or another, a boss who was feared by everyone. How was that going for
you? Did you ever invite him for a drink? Did you ever tell him about your awesome weekend?
Would you have gone to him if you needed help with a personal problem? Asking these question
is pretty much answering them. The benevolent leader will experience these things. He isn’t
feared. People trust him.

 Employees love their job

Let’s be honest here: 80% of people who resign actually leave their manager. It happens less
to benevolent managers. Without surprise, people enjoy being treated as human beings in their
workplace. They like that how they feel and what they aspire to aren’t inconveniences but
something to be considered when making decisions.
I know it may seem super obvious the more I repeat it: people don’t like being treated like
objects or cattle… However, I assure you that it happens every day, even in the best
organizations. Let’s not forget this.

 Employees feel safer

A benevolent leader will generally adopt a growth mindset and focus much more on the lessons
learned after a failure than the failure itself. This leaves more room for learning and
continuous improvement. The benevolent leader creates a psychologically safe environment
for his employees.
The benevolent leader knows to show and leverage his imperfect and vulnerable human side. He
makes mistakes too and isn’t afraid to talk about it openly. What’s good for leaders is good for
others as well, so he leads by example.

 The benevolent leader can create ambassadors for the organization

“Wow! I’d really love to have bosses like yours”. Does this ring a bell?
It is likely that some employees will try to have their friends hired in the place because their
managers are using a more human approach, and they like it. You might even observe situations
where candidates who were interviewed (and might not have been chosen for a position) will
refer someone to your organization. I’m not inventing anything, as I lived it myself.
Treating people in a proper manner isn’t only the right thing to do, it also gives you a serious
advantage over your competitors. People will talk about you in a very positive way, and others
will want to come and work with you. Isn’t it refreshing?

 Employees volunteer to do their work

And this happens primarily because the benevolent leaders generally have the reflex to include
their colleagues in the decision-making process. People who feel included and know they can
participate at any time will see themselves as actors in their work, not victims of it.
Victims tend to wait for someone to give them something to work on since they already accepted
their faith: they have nothing to say, can’t choose what to work on, and can’t suggest anything…
Those who are actors of their work aren’t doing it “because they were told to”. They do it
because they have been given the opportunity to want it, to believe in it and to make a
difference and have an impact on their product or clients.

The disadvantages of benevolent leadership

 Making difficult decisions seems… more difficult

Benevolent managers are still managers, and they too will have difficult decisions to make from
time to time. Letting someone go, for instance, is sometimes necessary and it will probably feel
it’s in contradiction with their management style.
Even if, according to a lot of people, there isn’t a good way to let someone go, there is always a
way to make it more human. How? I’m not even sure of this myself, and it always depends on
who we’re dealing with. One must also trust his feelings.
At any rate, one shouldn’t forget that a difficult decision must sometimes be made for the
common good. And one must not forget about those who remain. It’s worth the effort to ask
them how they feel in regards to the decision and if they have any apprehensions or questions.

 It is difficult to keep everyone happy at once

Of course, wishing for everyone’s happiness isn’t a bad thing. The problem occurs when one
hesitates to make a difficult decision out of fear of displeasing someone. Don’t forget that what
you don’t do will often have more impact than what you do. At this moment, things that
would normally be intolerable will sometimes become (wrongfully) tolerable. By wishing not to
displease a person in particular, one can end up with a whole team that’s unsatisfied, and thus
disengaged.
Sometimes, as stated in the previous point, one must make a choice. I’d rather have 9 people
whose morale is at 9/10 and one whose morale is at 4/10 (and maybe it’s a symptom that’s worth
investigating further) rather than have 10 people whose morale is at 5 or 6/10.

 Benevolent leaders sometimes need to support decisions that contradict their values
The benevolent manager will often have a manager himself, who can also (or not) be benevolent,
and who also has to make difficult decisions.
It will so happen that he won’t agree with a solution but will need to support it. It can prove
extremely difficult, especially when it creates a conflict of personal values. In a traditional
setting, this is pretty commonplace. In a benevolent environment, it will generate more waves
and thinking.
I won’t pretend to have a solution for this. One must show transparency and have the courage to
have discussions concerning the disagreement, and adopt a growth mindset: how can we reach a
state where we are better aligned?

 The benevolent leader can be perceived as “weak”

Especially to the fans of traditional management. Those who are more directive, and have no
problem sleeping well after taking decisions that will turn other people’s lives upside down.
Those who stand firm on their position of authority. For those people, taking a benevolent stance
can rhyme with weakness, and suggest a lack of managerial courage. You know what? I think
it’s a good thing.
Would a benevolent leader prefer to be perceived as a heartless person? Would he really be
comfortable with being good at firing people? I think benevolent leaders will be able to accept
the perceptions that come with their management style, even if it isn’t universally popular. After
all, leadership is not about the leader, but about those he cares for and looks after. If his
team is happy and performing, the leader’s reputation isn’t really that important…

There are three classes of supervisory techniques – autocratic, participative or consultative and

free-rein and corresponding to these three techniques, there are three management styles –

autocratic, democratic and laissez-faire. To these one more may be added-paternalistic style.

1. Autocratic or Authoritarian leadership

An autocratic leader centralizes power and decision-making in himself. He gives orders, assigns

tasks and duties without consulting the employees. The leader takes full authority and assumes

full responsibility.

Autocratic leadership is negative, based on threats and punishment. Subordinates act as he

directs. He neither cares for their opinions nor permits them to influence the decision. He

believes that because of his authority he alone can decide what is best in a given situation.

Autocratic leadership is based upon close supervision, clear-cut direction and commanding order

of the superior. It facilitates quick decisions, prompt action and unity of direction. It depends on
a lesser degree of delegation. But too much use of authority might result in strikes and industrial

disputes. It is likely to produce frustration and retard the growth of the capacity of employees.

The employees work as hard as is necessary to avoid punishment. They will thus produce the

minimum which will escape punishment.

This leadership style is less likely to be effective because (i) the new generation is more

independent and less submissive and not amenable to rigid control; (ii) people look for ego

satisfactions from their jobs and (iii) revolution of rising expectations changed the attitude of the

people.

Autocratic leadership may be divided into three classes:

(A) The hard-boiled autocrat who relies mainly on negative influences uses the force of fear and

punishment in directing his subordinates towards the organisational goals. This is likely to result

in employees becoming resentful.

(B) The benevolent autocrat who relies mainly on positive influences uses the reward and

incentives in directing his subordinates towards the organisational goals. By using praise and

pats on the back he secures the loyalty of subordinates who accept his decisions.

(C) The manipulative autocrat who makes the employees feels that they are participating in

decision-making though the manager himself has taken the decision. McGregor labels this style

as Theory X.

2. Democratic or Participative leadership

Participative or democratic leaders decentralise authority. It is characterised by consultation with

the subordinates and their participation in the formulation of plans and policies. He encourages

participation in decision-making.

He leads the subordinates mainly through persuasion and example rather than fear and force.

Sometimes the leader serves as a moderator of the ideas and suggestions from his group.

McGregor labels this style as Theory Y.

Taylor’s scientific management was based on the inability of the ordinary employees to make

effective decisions about their work. Hence the decision-making power was vested with the

management. But recent studies indicate the need for participation by subordinates. The modern

trend favours sharing the responsibility with the employees.

This will foster enthusiasm in them. The employees feel that management is interested in them as

well as in their ideas and suggestions. They will, therefore, place their suggestions for

improvement.

Advantages for democratic leadership are as follows: (i) higher motivation and improved morale;

(ii) increased co-operation with the management; (iii) improved job performance; (iv) reduction

of grievances and (v) reduction of absenteeism and employee turnover.

3. The Laissez-faire or Free-rein leadership

Free-rein leaders avoid power and responsibility. The laissez-faire or non-interfering type of

leader passes on the responsibility for decision-making to his subordinates and takes a minimum

of initiative in administration. He gives no direction and allows the group to establish its own

goals and work out its own problems.

The leader plays only a minor role. His idea is that each member of the group when left to

himself will put forth his best effort and the maximum results can be achieved in this way. The

leader acts as an umpire. But as no direction or control is exercised over the people, the

organisation is likely to flounder.

An experiment conducted among Boy Scout Clubs of the USA in 1940 shows autocratic

leadership is likely to rouse antagonism in the group and produce hostility towards the leader. In

democratic groups, the absence of the leader made little difference, while in autocratic groups

productive work dropped to a minimum, when the leader was out of the room.

Democratic leadership is more likely to win the loyalty of the group. The laissez-faire groups

also developed friendly approaches to the leader as in the democratic group. But suggestions

from the groups were very low and they were also less productive.

4. Paternalistic leadership

Under this management style the leader assumes that his function is fatherly or paternal.

Paternalism means papa knows best. The relationship between the leader and his group is the

same as the relationship between the head of the family and the members of the family. The

leader guides and protects his subordinates as members of his family.

As the head of the family he provides his subordinates with good working conditions and fringe

benefits. It is assumed that workers will work harder out of gratitude. This leadership style was

admirably successful in Japan with her peculiar social background.

This leadership style has still been widely prevalent in small firms in India. However, this

paternalistic approach is unlikely to work with mature adult employees, many of whom do not

like their interests to be looked after by a “godfather.” Instead of gratitude, it might generate

antagonism and resentment in the subordinates.