Each of these countries has different political systems, so autocratic systems could of course do good or harm in a positive or negative way. The autocratic country can be kept united despite the antagonism of society. Since autocratic leaders make decisions without consulting the group, the group may not like that they are not able to come up with ideas. The researchers also found that autocratic leadership often leads to a lack of creative solutions to problems that may ultimately harm the performance group. Even before the Covid-19 crisis, the world was in the midst of an autocratic resurgence. The autocratic style seems rather negative. It can certainly be so overworked or applied to bad groups or situations. However, autocratic leaders can be beneficial in some cases, for example. B if decisions need to be made quickly without consulting a large group of people. Totalitarian dictatorship and military dictatorship are often identified with autocracy, but they must not be. Totalitarianism is a system in which the state aspires to control all aspects of life and civil society.
 It can be led by a supreme leader, which makes it autocratic, but it can also have collective leadership such as a community, a military junta or a single political party, as in the case of a one-party state. In some cases, autocratic leaders can also affect the morale of the group. People tend to feel happier and do better when they feel they are contributing to the future of the group. Because autocratic leaders generally do not allow contributions from team members, followers begin to feel dissatisfied and stifled. This style of leadership can also be well used in cases where there is a lot of pressure. In particularly stressful situations, such as. B in military conflicts, group members may prefer an autocratic style. For Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson and James Robinson, the attribution of political power explains the maintenance of autocracies that they usually call “extraction states”.  For them, de jure political power comes from political institutions, while de facto political power is determined by the allocation of resources. Those who hold political power in the present will shape political and economic institutions according to their interests in the future.
In autocracies, de jure and de facto political forces focus on a person or a small elite that will encourage institutions in a way that will maintain de jure political power as concentrated as de facto political power, which will maintain autocratic regimes with extractive institutions. Like other leadership styles, the autocratic style has both some advantages and some weaknesses. While those who rely on this approach are often seen as bossy or dictatorial, this level of control can have advantages and be useful in certain situations. In the human resources department, a restrictive pact is a clause that prohibits a worker from seeking an investment with his former employer after a company/organization has left the company until a certain period of time. A restrictive alliance began as a legal term to govern landowners. It was about how to use and develop land. Description: Types – The non-competition bans that underpin an autocratic leader have criticized Obama for his earlier insistence on the exceptional role that America can play in the world.