Power: Interpersonal, Organizational, and Global Dimensions Monday, 03 October 2005 TOPIC: Personal power, charisma, leadership. We must distinguish between power and leadership. Our current working definition of power is the capacity of person to produce intended and foreseen effects in a relationship with others. Weber (turn of 19-20th century) – power is the probability that someone in social relationship will be in a position to carry out his own will despite resistance. leadership – influencing activities of a group in its efforts toward setting goals and achieving those goals Both power and leadership are interactive – both require a transaction between one party and another – crucial distinction from the usual understanding of leadership: a leader advances goals of group not fulfillment of personal objectives power holders = must have intended effects leaders = may be people who don't have positions (e.g. Gandhi, MLK, Einstein), don't necessarily occupy any formal position but help groups formulate and achieve goals *Every leader has power but not every power holder is a leader.* Those who help groups to formulate goals exercise both power and leadership. Theories of leadership – explain who, how, when, why leadership arises 1. Great Man (sic) theory – depends on the individual characteristics of person – society is made up of people with different degrees of skill – intelligence, honor, etc. – and the masses will be led by those people of superior skill – leadership arises when a person has an excess amount of imagination, intelligence, communicative skills, etc. that they use to exercise leadership over a group – this is a common argument, especially in individualistic society – e.g. elites and the circulation of elites who replace one after another – main concept: man (sic) makes history, not history makes the man – historical examples: Napoleon and the French revolution, Washington and the American revolution, Luther and the Protestant Reformation, Lenin and Trotsky and the Russian revolution of 1917, Einstein and modern physics, Gandhi and independent India, MLK and de-segregation – this theory was the basis of some of the earliest, most conventional notions of leadership – reason for leadership is thought of as entirely personal – the leader has a disproportionate share of “good things” – a bit more rational than more traditional notions of divine influence, e.g. the gods speaking 10/3/05, page 1 of 8to rulers, such as was the case with emperors – psychologists have tried studying but failed to find any dramatic difference – there is no single set of predictors/indicators that make a person a leader – some general trends found in these leaders: smarter, better adjusted, better judgment, interact more, give out and ask for more info, frequently the first to sum up/interpret situation – (President Bush doesn't fit any of this! But a lot of presidents didn't – they may be power holders but not leaders) – it's very hard to know whether these correlations come from of being in the position (are they there before an individual enters a situation?) or from people in certain situations becoming like this...where does the causality lie? 2. Environmental/Situational theories – reverses the first set – main concept: history makes the man – the emergence of a leader is a product of time, place, and circumstance (take a leader out of her specific historical context and you lose the probability of her being a leader!) – these theories ask us to notice that leadership doesn't reside in the person but in the specific needs/motives/aspirations of group that leader helps crystallize – a person into the leader – the question is not what kind of person? but instead who, when, why does a leader become a leader? This rests with knowing about the group and what they want. The needs of the group will tell us who might be a leader or why 3. Sociological theory – puts together Great Man and Environmental – leadership result of three factors: • person[ality] • nature of the group • problems, events confronting the group – the context – this theory explains why a leader in one situation is ineffective in another situation – does not argue that leaders are either authoritarian or democratic, they could be rational/technical type or charismatic/emotional – there is not one type of leader effective in all situations – depends on the personal qualities of the leader in the situation in which he/she leads Illustration: One of the White House press secretaries was conversing with some journalists, berating them because they say history will prove the government's mistakes. The secretary said, “You're wrong. We make history.” – press secretary wanted to assert that they have power to decide events as they unfold – but the journalists meant that they'll be assessed not for what they controlled but what they did not control (e.g. researchers, historians) – historians wait to see the consequences And now onto a particular kind of leadership... CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP Max Weber always used the term charisma (credited for being the author of the theory) as something extraordinary possessed by a person/object thought to give that person/object a unique magical power 10/3/05, page 2 of 8– exercise of genuine charisma = exercise of power (authority, power to command) – differs from legal/traditional power because it is extraordinary, not routinized, not positional, not because they exercise force or coercion, not because they offer economic rewards or inducements – simply by virtue of who they are – what does it mean to be extraordinary? Weber meant it literally – not in the realm of the everyday, not usual, not found very often – Weber uses the term in what he also calls value-free – he doesn't necessarily think it is good – it's just a description of how sometimes one finds people who exercise authority on the basis of their personal attraction (some scholars argue that Weber did indeed have a special regard for charisma; it seemed to be the only example he offered for challenging relentless rationalization he observed in modern history). – essential for the Weberian understanding that people follow a charismatic leader out of devotion, love, enthusiasm, not out of fear (e.g. Joan of Arc, Jesus, Gandhi) Characteristics of