Tyranny...The Answer to Inaction?

"Greek sources label Pisistratus and his sons tyrants. This was a foreign word signifying individuals who ruled over Greek cities, and in fact many cities, not just Athens, went through a period of one-man rule in the late seventh and sixth centuries B.C. Whether they ruled well or badly, whether they seized power or inherited it or were appointed by a higher authority, the Greeks called these rulers tyrants, not kings...For this reason, and because tyrants were often associated with arbitrary and cruel behaviour, the word has negative connotations."
-The Ancient Mediterranean World

As a society, we take great pains to avoid concentration of power in any individual, especially in our governmental systems. The rise of bureaucracies and parliaments have facilitated a dilution of power, and many countries, such as America, have established governments where there are internal checks and balances so as to prevent complete power being vested in a single person or body. Afraid of arbitrary rule, we see an eminent corruption in an individual who wields too much power. Concentration of power seems to be the recipe for the demise of freedom.
However, this has not always been the case. Throughout history, this concept of "tyranny" has often proved favourable. In times of civil unrest, war, or instability, having one man making decisions and following a set policy was more effective than having different bodies vying to exercise their own opinions, wasting time and causing divisiveness within a nation. In many cases, when power becomes too spread out, the actions of a government become futile. In modern times, inaction, caused by minority governments and opposing parties, is a problem that many countries struggle with.
Should we be so quick to condemn the concentration of power?