In contemporary organizational economics, unchecked authority represents a hidden cost that extends beyond governance inefficiency into the realm of financial performance and human capital depreciation. When power becomes concentrated in the hands of a few, it distorts the economic functions of decision-making, resource allocation, and productivity management. This imbalance often results in higher transaction costs, reduced employee motivation, and diminished organizational efficiency. Economically, unchecked authority disrupts the equilibrium between control and creativity, leading to losses in innovation potential, absenteeism, and higher employee turnover—all of which escalate operating expenses and reduce profitability. From a structural standpoint, rigid hierarchies suppress participatory management, thereby weakening the organization’s adaptive capacity in competitive markets. The psychological and economic burden on employees manifests through stress, burnout, and a perceived lack of autonomy, ultimately lowering performance and morale. The study aims to analyse the economic costs and structural implications of unchecked authority, emphasizing how power asymmetry influences organizational sustainability and employee well-being. Researchers seek to identify measurable economic indicators—such as productivity ratios, compensation disparities, and efficiency metrics—that reflect the real cost of authoritarian leadership. By integrating economic analysis with human resource perspectives, the research aspires to propose a balanced model of authority distribution that promotes fiscal prudence, organizational resilience, and employee empowerment. The ultimate objective of the researchers is to help organizations align their governance structures with principles of economic efficiency and psychological well-being, thereby ensuring long-term growth and stability.