Authoritarian management styles enourages self-interest?

Exploring an idea formed after reading Matt Ridley's The origins of virtue — "Heavy government makes people more selfish, not less." [p.263]. He argues that top heavy intrusive governance has lead to a breakdown in community spirit and a lowered sense of individual responsibility. I wonder whether this would also be true within organisations?

Does authoritarian management lead to less reciprocity and trust, and a tendency towards self-interested behaviours, e.g. do work, get paid, go home; nothing more, nothing less? A lack of social contracts [see first paper] would have an impact.

Are more cooperative [flat] organisations more akin to Ridley's examples of groups of cooperating individuals for the good of the group? Trust is essential...

Hayek's views
The central roles of the state [read organisation/management?] should be to maintain the rule of law [read focus?], with as little arbitrary intervention as possible.

Avoiding conflict...

"The definitive study of conflict avoidance, and its consequences, was Irving Janis’ famous analysis of the Bay of Pigs disaster. John F Kennedy presided over a cabinet made up of people with formidable and robust intelligence. Yet these great minds managed to persuade themselves of the efficacy of invading Cuba - a decision that with hindsight was absurdly dangerous. Janis studied how the group managed, subtly, to suppress doubts and concerns - creating the illusion of unanimous enthusiasm for a project where really there was no consensus. They had the illusion of trust, but not the reality."

Source: John Moore 'The value of trust'.