As humans we often see people with power as leaders, whether they have power over a small group, an organization, or even a country. This makes sense in that power can be defined as “the capacity to produce effects on others, or the potential to influence others” (PSU L. 7, p. 3). The most important part of this definition, though, is the potential to influence others. Influence can be said to be the actual changing of a person’s, or group’s, attitudes, values beliefs, or behaviors due to the use of influence tactics (PSU L. 7, p. 3). Without any change in attitudes or beliefs, a person is not typically considered to have power. That is why the terms influence and power so often go hand in hand. However, while we might consider an individual in power a leader, it is important to consider how that person achieved his/her power. By looking at a historical leader who used referent power tactics and then contrasting this leader with one who employed coercive power tactics, it becomes obvious that simply obtaining power does not always mean the individual in question is in reality a good leader.
One of the ways in which a person can earn power is through the use of referent power tactics. This type of power tactic includes both the leader and the followers. More specifically, it is the power that accompanies a strong relationship between the leader and the followers. When the relationship between both parties is strong, followers often look to the leader as a role model, and thus, respect him/her enough to easily be persuaded by the leader’s message (PSU L. 7, p. 5). Though this approach to power takes time, it is typically one of the better ways in which to secure power and to be considered a good leader. A historical leader that can be thought to have used this tactic is Dr. Martin Luther King Junior. In his mission to gain racial equality in America, he often made speeches in which he sympathized with the poor, sick, and marginalized citizens, and these people became his followers. Furthermore, he promoted so strongly the use of nonviolence and Christian teachings to achieve his goals, that he earned a type of power that had the ability to make many positive changes. Furthermore, because Dr. King used a type of power that relied so heavily on his relationship with his followers, really taking into consideration their wants and needs, his legacy has stood the test of time, and he is constantly referred to now as one of the greatest leaders in American history. If he would have used another power tactic, however, such as coercive power, it is not likely that he would have earned the prestige he has today.
Unlike referent power, which is based on a strong relationship between the leader and his/her followers, coercive power concerns primarily the leader and the situation. It does not depend highly on the followers themselves. Furthermore, this tactic gains power, or control over others, through the fear of punishment or the loss of valued outcomes (PSU L. 7, p. 5). Although instilling fear into the hearts of followers does inevitably produce power for the leader, this kind of power cannot typically be said to create good leaders. Moreover, leaders who chose to employ this tactic are not often looked at as successful examples of leadership in the years following their control. One example of a leader who ruled in this way was Ruhollah Khomeini. The religious leader of Iran from 1979 to 1989, Khomeini strictly implemented Sharia Law, or Islamic religious law. Opposition to his laws was often met with extremely harsh punishment, typically death, and thus his followers obeyed him only out of fear (Frater, 2007). Though he had power over his followers, he is now considered one of the most evil dictators in history, and is a prime example of how not to lead.
While power can effectively create a leader, the way in which the leader is viewed by their contemporaries and then later in history depends heavily on the power tactic they employed. Just as the examples of both a leader who used referent power tactics and a leader who used coercive power tactics would imply, power does not equate to good leadership, and in some cases power can go as far as to create a leader that devastates the lives of his/her followers. It is examples like this that show how power can be used negatively, and how leadership like this must be avoided at all costs.
References:
Frater, J. (2007, September 5). Top 10 Most Evil Men – Listverse. Retrieved April 19, 2013, from http://listverse.com/2007/09/05/top-10-most-evil-men/
Lesson 7: Power and Influence. (n.d.). Retrieved February 20, 2013, from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/sp13/psych485/003/content/07_lesson/01_page.html
MICHAEL D CARLSON says
The ability to influence followers and convince them to perform the tasks delegated through coercion, because of trust and adoration in my opinion is the most powerful, leadership power that a leader could have earned. Mother Teresa is a great example of a powerful leader, she did not obtain her power through living as the example herself. Leaders such as Ghandi, Mother Teresa, and Dr. King practiced what the preached and led by example.