Leadership Style: From Laissez-faire to Authoritarian in Prague



Leadership Style: From Laissez-faire to Authoritarian in Prague

As a successful manager in the Netherlands, I always believed in the power of freedom and personal responsibility within my team. My leadership style was centered on giving people the space to share their ideas, approach their tasks in their own way, and leverage their creativity and initiative. This worked incredibly well in the Netherlands, where the corporate culture thrives on openness and collaboration.

When I was sent to Prague to get the logistics warehouse back on track, I assumed I could apply the same leadership style. However, I quickly discovered that what worked in the Netherlands didn’t translate well to the Czech environment.

The Culture Shock: What Didn’t Work in Prague?

When I started in Prague, it became clear that the culture was very different from what I was used to in the Netherlands. In the Netherlands, my team was accustomed to an informal, open communication style, where they could freely share their ideas and feedback with me. However, my team in Prague didn’t feel comfortable with this approach. They weren’t used to taking responsibility or offering suggestions without clear guidance.

Instead of the freedom I had promoted in the Netherlands, I noticed confusion and chaos due to a lack of structure. The team members appeared hesitant, unsure, and at times even passive in their work. There was a noticeable lack of direction and discipline, and as a result, the processes in the warehouse were faltering. Instead of achieving results, I was faced with a team that wasn’t taking action.

The Realization: Laissez-faire Doesn’t Always Work

This was a pivotal moment for me as a leader. I realized that I couldn’t just apply my usual leadership style here. What had worked in the Netherlands wasn’t effective in Prague. The culture required a different approach: more control, more direction, and, above all, more authority.

The need for clear guidance was not just a preference—it was a necessity. Without clear expectations, there was a lack of action, and without a solid structure, there was no progress. Rather than simply guiding my team through advice and suggestions, I had to take the reins and make more decisions myself.

From Laissez-faire to Authoritarian

The transition wasn’t easy. I had to learn how to assert more authority without undermining my team’s motivation. Shifting my leadership style was a challenge, but it was essential for making progress.

What I learned was that, in this case, it was critical to set boundaries and clarify responsibilities. I had to tighten up rules and procedures and ensure that there was no ambiguity about what was expected. I took on more decision-making myself, set clear goals, and worked actively to monitor progress. It became an authoritarian style of leadership, but one where I also allowed for feedback and suggestions—just in a more structured and controlled manner.

Results: What I Achieved

Eventually, I began to see results. The warehouse operations became more efficient, team members gained more clarity around their tasks and responsibilities, and the overall atmosphere began to shift. The team now had clearly defined goals and knew what was expected of them.

Conclusion: Leadership is Flexible

What I learned in Prague is that leadership doesn’t have a one-size-fits-all style. It’s crucial to adapt your leadership approach to the culture, team, and situation you find yourself in. What works in one environment can completely fail in another. Leadership requires flexibility and the ability to adjust your approach when needed. The key to success lies in your ability to adapt your leadership to the context you’re working in and find the right balance between freedom and structure. In Prague, this meant a shift from laissez-faire to a more authoritarian style, and that change was critical to getting the warehouse back on track.