There's a big difference in this case between a position of authority and an authoritarian leader.
Typically most people would regard good leaders as people you follow because they inspire confidence, you feel like you can trust them, and that your efforts will be rewarded. Authoritarian leaders on the other hand are typically those who use their ability to punish people to force compliance.
While the owner of a private company doesn't need the approval of their employees to make decisions I would never work for someone who uses threats and doesn't explain the rationale behind their decisions.
Perhaps a better analogy is that the CEO is captain of the ship. You get credit for things going well but if things go wrong you are responsible. It does not matter who screwed up. There's a wide range of ways to implement that model ranging from despots like Chainsaw Al to consensus builders like Jim Whitehurst. [0, 1]
Typically most people would regard good leaders as people you follow because they inspire confidence, you feel like you can trust them, and that your efforts will be rewarded. Authoritarian leaders on the other hand are typically those who use their ability to punish people to force compliance.
While the owner of a private company doesn't need the approval of their employees to make decisions I would never work for someone who uses threats and doesn't explain the rationale behind their decisions.