LEADERSHIP AND AUTHORITY

      It’s time to make another clear distinction—what we are not talking about here. Very often the word “leader” is used euphemistically to mean “boss” or other authority figure. In those cases, it is used to indicate who is in charge through his or her formal authority and also to elevate the importance of what that person is doing. In reality, a large percentage of people who have the title or designation of leader are not leading at all. They may be directing or providing managerial functions, but they are not leading. They are in positions to exercise power through authority.

      Renowned sociologist Max Weber outlined three different types of authority in his “tripartite classification.” He described charismatic authority, traditional authority, and rational formal authority. Each of these is a description of how authority is established within a group of people in order to achieve consistent social behavior. All of these are useful in understanding how power is used in society and how various social behaviors can occur or not occur. He describes the charismatic authority of historical figures, such as Jesus and Mohammed, and how their deep personal beliefs and powerful presence achieved authority over society to such an extent as to have people change their beliefs and social practices to follow their way. He noted the social phenomenon of “routinization of charisma,” which occurs when others take the personal authority granted to a person and create a formal and rational authority base to replicate it. An example is the charismatic authority Jesus possessed that was later adopted into organized religions that claimed a heritage of authority based on following his teachings. In this manner, the charismatic authority was transferred into the formal authority of religion.

      Yet this only describes authority and not leadership. While Jesus might have had the personal power to tell people what to say or do, it is doubtful that he would have been so direct or so controlling. It is more likely that he honored choice in every way. By the same token, when we look at the writings of the Buddha, we get the same sense of engagement with others. While he might have shown people how they could achieve enlightenment, he was not out to direct their behavior or to control what they did or did not do. Instead, both of these people presented a series of personal choices. As they stood in the place of enlightenment, they beckoned others to join them.

      This distinction of authority is one of control and power. This is crucial to understanding true leadership. When we talk about leadership, we lean toward having people who follow because they want to, not because they have to. When we get into the social nuances of empowered systems, we see that this type of leadership is generous and allows others to share in the direction and to expand on their own passions as well. This allows for the synergy of groups and allows the natural phenomenon of collective consciousness to do the creative designs on its own.

      In this book, leadership is described as an act and a practice. A person who is in a position of authority and who has extended impact over the lives of others must also lead. Calling a person a leader does not make him or her one. Giving a person a supervisory, managerial, or executive position does not make him or her a leader. It simply gives that person authority. This distinction is called personal and positional power. People in authority roles have positional power, but they also need to develop their personal power. Many times, this will seem paradoxical, as such people will wonder why they need to develop the ability to cause other people to take action because they want to—rather, these people may feel they have the authority to make other people take action, even if they don’t want to. In truth, a sustainable organization is built through a shared intention of a group of people, not the control actions of one. This comes through the peoples’ collective choice to follow the passion of its leadership, whether one person or many.

      As you develop your personal ability to lead, remember that all groups want leadership at a primordial level and will find it without any external stimulus. The most compelling and constructive leadership for groups comes through calm, assertive, and deeply inspired direction. One does not need to use power to lead a group but will use whatever power is available toward an external mission. When you lead from a place of inspiration, people will naturally gravitate toward you. Your ability to sustain that passion and maintain your direction will keep them with you.

      In summary, we have examined several aspects of leadership and why the ability to inspire others matters. Our ideal of a connected and dynamic leadership starts from a place of solid personal inspiration. It is about the power of purpose—of passion—and it leads to an engaging style of personal connection. This leadership runs deeply through the limbic system and creates a web of emotional connection through the phenomenon of contagion. Leaders who come from a place of inspirational presence have an effect on groups that stimulates their creativity, opens their sense of vision, and expands their thinking. These leaders offer a compelling direction for others and lead through their passion and heart connections, rather than through power, control, or authority. While there are compelling reasons from a human perspective to lead from this stance, there is also strong evidence of the positive impact it can have on organizational performance. Let us take some first steps in learning how to embody this leadership style.