The very short answer in that ideology and the objective realities (which in turn shape ideology, which is then used to inform decisions that change the environment etc.) didn't really align with this. So Stalin's leadership style did not seem out of step with what was expected.

Firstly you have the Bolshevik ideological emphasis on a more elite, conspiritorial, vanguard party. This was an formulation that said the Russian communists shouldn't just wait for revolution, class consciousness etc. to appear, but that they should be actively working towards this - as led by a party elite. So workers control and so forth could still be part of the ideological platform but there was an assumption that in order to get there, someone might have to lead them there.

Part of the reason for this interpretation/implementation of Communist ideology was the nature of trying to run the political movement in Tsarist Russia. Hoping for Communism to simply bubble up naturally, or to run your political movement on an open and democratic basis, when the police are actively going to break up anything remotely threatening to the monarchy would be pretty foolish. When a large part of your party is in exile outside Russia to avoid arrest, or indeed imprisoned or internal exile post arrest, it places more emphasis on those who are still at liberty to use underhanded means to keep things moving.

Next up we have the experience of the revolution and subsequent civil war. Collective leadership didn't seem all that effective or desireable when it was either seen not to have achieved anything. So for example those in favour of strong leadership would point to the interventions that brought about the revolution itself with the collective vote supporting it being left as an afterthought. Alternatively collective leadership might be seen as desireable but not viable in the situation - so for example the more Soviet-based early phase of the revolution had come unstuck, with internal political strife and out in the regions being rolled up by stronger opponents in the various 'White' forces. Any collective or non-interventionist plans the Bolsheviks might have had coming into power probably went out the window with the Civil War - collective leadership isn't all that attractive when annihilation seems close and there doesn't seem to be enough people/resources to support it anyway.

From a more ideas-based perspective we have the role of Lenin within the party. While he wasn't officially meant to be the boss of everyone (in that none of his formal offices quite gave him that job), his informal position was treated as unassailable. Part of this was an assumption that Lenin had been completely right to that point, had achieved so much etc. and that surely anything he was saying now was the right path. So this sets up a the role within the party of a leader who everyone has to defer to, even when they're acting outside of any established rules or role.

Returning to the practical we then have how Lenin's position in practice became unassailable - his crushing of other factions. Be it the Workers Opposition or any other real or actual faction which opposed Lenin, the rules and general spirit in the party was turned against any direct and open opposition to the leadership. At this point in my ramble you might be wondering where Stalin comes into this, and part of that answer is here - Stalin was a key member of Lenin's team when it came to defeating any factional challenger. This role would serve to empower Stalin in a practical sense - being given tools and effectively the training needed to 'operate' the party.

So I guess the final step in all this background in Stalin's own role in entrenching his position. Particularly after Lenin's death Stalin did a fair bit (e.g. his eulogy at the funeral) to ensure he was seen as the inheritor of Lenin's role and ideological legacy. He then was able to form various alliances and eventually a more stable 'team' to ensure his practical power, and eventually his opponents were removed from any practical power while being destroyed as any kind of ideological force in the political landscape.

Some references:

• Robert Service's Lenin biography (in setting Lenin's role and going into some detail about the factional/ideological battles)

• Volume 1 of Stephen Kotkin's Stalin Biography (sets the scene well on what running the Bolshevik party in the Russian Empire was like, Stalin's role in the factional conflicts, and his consolidation of power)

• Sheila Fitzpatrick's On Stalin's Team (moreso the first couple of chapters about Lenin's nascent team and Stalin's formation of his own).

• Evan Mawdsley's The Russian Civil War (covers the early revolution and its reliance on the Soviet councils, and the later phase where they ceased to be relevant/effective)

• W. Bruce Lincoln's Red Victory (on some of the political aspects of the Civil War)