Power, Influence, Authoritarianism: How Do We Understand the Difference?
These days, I’m troubled by the way power and influence is understood. Polls and recent election results from several countries suggest that many people are attracted to the idea of a “strong leader” – i.e., an authoritarian. In fact, there are many kinds of power – positional power, referent power (derived from one’s closeness to a source of power), relationship power, information power, moral authority. and many other names for the “ability to cause change,” as an old teacher of mine defined it. Personal power is based on a set of resources, tangible or intangible, that one controls, including personal properties such as beauty, intelligence, celebrity, and charisma. It is responded to or respected by those who need or want something from the person in power. It can be used for good or evil; to save or to destroy. Authoritarianism in families, governments, or organizations means a concentration of power in the hands of the few with the absence of individual freedom to make important choices.
Reading today’s headlines, one might think that power and influence derive only from being feared. And indeed, military and police power, authoritarian rule, and the ability to hire and fire, for example, have in common the resource of being able to hurt, punish, or extract concessions in exchange for compliance with the wishes of the person or group in authority. This kind of power, however, is not influential. Minds are not changed. Actions are often taken under duress, and the results are frequently of poor quality. People at the receiving end of authoritarian power do what they think they must do to avoid reprisal.
Influence is about putting power to work…