This week’s reading on Power and Influence made me think of all the corrupt leaders (I use that term loosely) in our world that have been able to lead people down paths that ultimately caused harm. It made me wonder what kind of leader is able to take otherwise normal, intelligent human beings and convince them that lies are essentially truths or manipulate them to do things they might not otherwise do.
As human beings and being social creatures we are predestined to try to lead and to be led; some more than others. Because of this inherent trait, sometimes we all too quickly line up to go along with those whom appear to be leaders; whether self-proclaimed, nominated, hired or voted into office. We put our leaders on pedestals. We not only turn a blind eye to their short-comings and misbehaviors but we tolerate them. The very studies of Stanley Milgram and Pavlov’s dog illustrate this tendency. We are willing to carry out certain tasks simply because someone in authority mandates it.
Jim Jones, Charles Manson, David Koresh are just a few. So what is it about these “types” of leaders that enables them to provoke such final consequences for being so powerful? It is obviously the function of leader, follower and situation. Jim Jones became a powerful leader in the middle of the civil rights era. At a time when the nation was separated by color, he offered common ground. His function of power was the situation. Charles Manson gathered a group of followers in the late 1960’s that shared a passion for his unconventional lifestyle and drug use. His mode of power was his followers. David Koresh committed long bible passages to memory while immersing himself in the study of the bible. He listened to evangelists on the radio for hours and tried to imitate them in order to overcome a childhood stutter. His knowledge of the bible and disputes with other pastors led him to the Branch Davidians. His mode of power was that of followers and situation.
What do they all have in common? Jim Jones had legitimate power, Charles Manson had referent power and David Koresh had expert power. Their common ground after obtaining this power was their ability to influence their followers; to change attitudes, values, beliefs and behaviors. Each one also had coercive power. They had the ability to control others through fear and intimidation. So what do we know about effective leaders? They take advantage of all their sources of power, they have a strong influence over their subordinates, they appear to share some power with their subordinates and finally they work daily to increase their various power bases. Not everyone uses the power they have for good.
Jones, J. (2013). The Biography Channel Website. Retrieved from: http://www.biography.com/people/jim-jones-10367607
Koresh, D. (2013). The Biography Channel website. Retrieved from:
http://www.biography.com/people/david-koresh-9368416.
Manson, C. (2013). The Biography Channel website. Retrieved from:
http://www.biography.com/people/charles-manson-9397912.
Pennsylvania State University World Campus (2013). PSYCH 485 Lesson 7: Power and Influence
https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/sp13/psych485/001/content/07_lesson/printlesson.html
Riggio, R.E. (2011). Why the world tolerates corrupt and dangerous leaders. Psychology Today. Sussex Publishers. 1991-2013. Retrieved from: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cutting-edge-leadership/201104/why-the-world-tolerates-corrupt-and-dangerous-leaders
LUKE JOHN GRAHAM says
All of these men certainly used coercive power to achieve their dark goals. This facet of the sources of power definitely seems like a way we can tie the ‘dark’ leaders that you mentioned together. One of the most powerful things is that these leaders were aware of the power they wielded and used it to coerce their followers. Another interesting thing you mentioned is how these leaders also took advantage of the situation they were in. All of them took advantage of historical situations in which they abused their power and went unchecked. I think that this idea is another way we can study historical ‘dark’ or ‘evil’ leaders and tie them all together.
GERRY A THERRIEN JR says
Your philosophical argument about the why leaders use their power for nefarious means aside; I do not believe that the leaders you mentioned had any power. It was the perception of power granted by their following. President Obama has legitimate power that comes with the position of his office. Celebrities hold referent power because of the influence of television. Jim Jones, Charles Manson and David Koresh had no power. The influence they held over their followers was great but only because the power of the followers themselves. By definition a leader must have followers; this is what gives them power. We can characterize Mickey Mouse and Optimus Prime as leaders but what makes them “great” or “corrupt” is how generalized society interprets their actions. Doesn’t that mean that as followers our “following” is conditional of our interpretations of the “evidence?” It’s our responsibility to do so since the creation of such power comes from us. Adolf Hitler used influence long before he had any real “power”. I’d be willing to bet that if things went differently he’d be touted as one of the greatest leaders alive. On the other hand Ronald Reagan is considered by many as one of the best presidents for the military might and superiority of this country. No one wants to hear about the assassination orders and black ops missions that gained us such a moniker. Question Authority! Don’t drink the kool-aid just because someone told you it tastes good.