I think the key to the original article is the adjective 'small' attached to the word 'business.'

A lot of big thinkers in the organizational behavior game have acknowledged that what it takes to start something and run something small and growing is radically different from what it takes to scale it and sustain it over time. David Hearst referred to the distinction as 'hunters vs herders'. As someone who has run his own small firm for 14 years, I can promise you that the generally accepted definition of a nurturing, empowering team leader is next to useless in this context. A small company's right to exist is usually anchored in distinctiveness, and distinctiveness is neither accomplished nor protected by running some kind of happy little commune. I'll stop short of agreeing with the author that dictatorship is the only way to lead a small company. But I will tell you that if I had to do it over again, I would trade a lot of generous staff bonuses and individual autonomies and personal development opportunities for a little more committed, focused visionary dictatorship. As a leader, my regret is not that I was not kinder, but that I was not more assertive.