Authority: The Ambivalent Power
Often when we talk about leaders, what we actually mean are authorities. This is why I am dedicating the first part of this series to authority.
What is authority? Authority is a role in a social system. A group of people (the “authorizers”) give one or several individuals (the “authority”) power or trust. This comes with expectations; in return, authorizers expect authorities to provide them with services. Services such as: protection, direction, order, or representation.
Authorizers and authorities tend to be highly attuned to each other. Authorities are busy delivering the services expected of them, lest they lose power or trust. Think of the attention politicians’ give to opinion polls, or that a manager gives to the annual feedback he or she receives from subordinates.
At its most basic, authority relationships are be a useful way to organize groups. Consensual decision making can be inefficient and tiresome, so why not name or elect a person to make decisions and provide services on our behalf? Of course, authority can be abused. Many of us have experienced authority figures who did not use their power or trust awarded to them well. So, it’s no wonder some of us mistrust authority. Our individual experiences shape our relationship toward authority.
In my work as a leadership development trainer, I use an exercise to demonstrate the expectations we all have of authorities: I might show up to a workshop as the facilitator, but then intentionally do not perform the duties expected of a facilitator: I sit down and don’t do or say a thing. The group will respond with discomfort, unrest, perhaps even anger. Participants begin to demand that I provide protection, direction, and order. In the “here-and-now” of the workshop group, the desire for “good” authority becomes apparent – and can be debriefed.
The exercise also illustrates the distinction between formal and informal authority.
Formal authority is something that is given – through an office, a job description, an election, or a title. Once given, the authority remains unchanged and stable for a certain time – say, as long as we hold an elected position. During my workshop, I am given formal authority through the contract I have with the client.
Informal authority, on the other hand, is earned – through expertise, experience, seniority, popularity, or credibility. Since our authorizers constantly re-evaluate the authority they award us with along these dimensions, informal authority is more fickle.
Two examples:
Mark Zuckerberg is the highest formal authority at Facebook. His board members expect that he develops the overall product strategy and the general direction of the company. However, as a Facebook user, I am one of many users who determine his informal authority depending on whether I believe Facebook secures my data or not.
Greta Thunberg: The 17-year-old student and climate activist does not have any formal authority because she does not hold any formal office. However, many people are drawn to her message and place their trust in her. Greta-supporters, such as the many students who attended the weekly Fridays-for-Future demonstrations (pre Covid!), award Greta with high informal authority, because they feel represented by her.
What does this mean for you?
Looking at your environment (for example, your workplace), you can reflect on your own authority.
Who gives you formal authority and which services do they expect in return?
Looking at your informal authority: Whose trust have you earned and why? Who are your critics – and why?
Is more authority always better? Or might the many expectations placed on authorities prove to be a burden? And what does all that have to do with leadership? You can read more about that in part 2 here.