After about half a century of attempting to absorb information about history and feeling I may have acquired what Oscar Levant referred to as a smattering of ignorance, I feel it possible, when evaluating the potential effectiveness of dictatorship, we may lead ourselves into an intellectual corner by the use of the word "absolute" when discussing the nature of dictatorship or what is referred to often as "absolutism".
I am left with the impression that no matter how effective a given individual has been in consolidating power, it is never literally "absolute". It is always dependent on factors that are essential for the acquisition and maintenance of the power, more often than not the interested loyalty of what Alexis de T. called "the organized adolescents of the world known as the military class". In some cases it may depend on having a wife who will not poison you or a Praetorian guard who will not slit your throat in that tunnel up on the Palatine Hill or having a populace that will tolerate the autocrat.
There seem always to be important and essential factors that limit an "absolute" autocrat, beginning with the degree of the individual´s competence/incompetence. (The last Czar of the Russian Empire is a good example.) I can think of a myriad of other examples, but, I recognize the degree to which my opinion may be well-received depends on not going on at length too much.
Suffice it to say, my point in answer to the question posed is that the success of any dictatorship (in the eyes of those of us who would judge him/her benevolent or tyrannical) in making a country successful, depends, in the first instance on what you mean by a successful country, (a Switzerland or a Norway or some totalitarian state that has temporarily defeated its competition, North Korea or Venezuela, perhaps.)
In the second instance, when a dictator is involved, it depends on the degree to which the dictator either cows opposition (using, deceit, intimidation, fear of violence or the use of it) or placates it, (using bread and circuses, munificence, permissiveness, public works, easy credit and other bribes) and uses scapegoats for whatever does not placate the unruly masses and whether there exist factors or institutions that limit the power. A good study on this is Rome under Augustus, the Pax Romana. (See, Stark, Rome on the Euphrates, page 149, "Augustus´Handling of Power" and page 153, Tragedy of the Facade".)
If this makes sense, then, to judge success, after defining what a successful country is, I suggest we may need to look less at the manners and mores of a putative dictator and examine closely his/her methods and the available factors that limit the exercise of the power. In the ultimate instance, it is the results that count and, looking at history, one might conclude that no dictator can make a successful country unless, over time, he/she becomes less and less of a dictator.