It is not necessarily clear for many reasons. First of all there is the extent to which each pharaoh was seen as divine versus there being a divine spirit of royal authority which each ruler had as an attribute. I find the argument for the latter to be very convincing since in the New Kingdom the pharaoh was only deified by being directly identified as Osiris after they were dead.

When Akhenaten made Aten the sole god, the unprecedented step he made was not just supressing the cults of other gods, even in private. Furthermore, Akhenaten and his wide Nefertiti seem to have been the only ones allowed to directly worship the Aten. Others had to direct their prayers through the royal family. Whether this goes so far as to constitute worship of the pharaoh is unclear, but unlikely. The revolutionary idea was that the pharaoh was the sole conduit to the divine. However there was a relief carved showing Akhenaten performing a traditional religious festival, however where usually images of the gods would be in the picture there are lots of little Akhenatens watching the ritual instead. Maybe a statement about the pharaoh's divinity but maybe just one artistic innovation among the many many that the period is known for. So it really is not terribly clear.

Lastly, about the idea of "converting the kingdom". It is not even clear whether Akhenaten's religious revolution was monotheistic at all. Aten was an already existing god who had probably merged with Horus and Ra by the late 18th dynasty and even during Akenaten's reign there are inscriptions referring to Aten and using the names of other traditional gods (specifically Ra and Horus). The real theological revolution was in the depiction of Aten not as a personified, humanoid form, but as just an image of the sun emitting rays of light, each of which ends in a little hand reaching down.

So there are lots of reasons why this question is not clear-cut at all in terms of an answer.

EDIT: Oops, made a silly mistake. Akhenaten is the person, Akhetaten is the city.