We very often describe a leader as a person who wields power over followers. House (1984) defined power as “the capacity to produce effects on others” (PSU WC, 2014, PSYCH 485, L.7, p.2). The researchers French and Raven (1959) identified five main sources of an individual’s power as knowledge and expertise (expert power), strong interpersonal relations (referent power), an organizational role and position (legitimate power), a control over desired resources (reward power), and a potential to impose negative sanctions and remove positive rewards (coercive power) (PSU WC, 2014, PSYCH 485, L.7). Additionally, there are many factors that can affect an individual’s power such as clothing, office space, furniture, and situation. One situational factor that can produce a change in an individual’s potential to influence others is the existence of a crisis situation (Hughes, Ginnett, & Curphy, 2012). Researchers found that leaders can exert more power during a crisis than during a normal situation (Hughes, Ginnett, & Curphy, 2012). In crisis situations, leaders usually use their legitimate and coercive powers to influence their followers.
One of the leaders who exploited a crisis situation in order to gain more control and power over followers is the former President George W. Bush who exceeded his presidential power on several occasions. Firstly, he ordered the post 9/11 detainees held at Guantanamo to be put on trial before military commissions which violates the Geneva Convention (the Supreme Court ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006)). Secondly, Bush approved direct access to all telephone calls of all U.S. private citizens by the National Security Agency; this decision is an apparent abuse of the Presidential power. Finally, but not last, there are Patriot Act provisions that clearly infringe the rights of the citizens guaranteed by the First Amendment. President Bush manipulated an emergency situation (9/11) in order to exercise his excessive legitimate and coercive power. Even though followers are more willing to accept the increased direct power in a crisis situation, it is not an excuse for a leader to abuse it.
There are, however, some crisis situations that require the profound use of legitimate and coercive power in order to avoid a catastrophe. I would like to use an example of a leader who has a reputation of a villain, Stalin. Nevertheless, Stalin was a very effective military leader who was able to mobilize the country in the face of destruction by the Nazi army. Stalin, in less than one year from the moment of the Nazi’s invasion, created a very effective Russian army and built the military industry that produced advanced ammunition and weapons. This leader was effective in this crisis situation because he achieved his goal – the Russian army destroyed the Nazi army. Definitely, he used his legitimate and coercive power to a great excess. Even though many of his influential tactics were illegal and brutal, the Russian veterans of the World War II (my two grandfathers were the veterans) admired him and respected him as one of the most effective Russian military leaders.
The situational factor plays an important role in what type of power a leader uses. Leaders are more apt to exert legitimate and coercive power in the presence of a crisis than in absence of a crisis to influence subordinates. Leaders, however, should not abuse this power and when the situation changes should switch to expert and referent power.
References
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006).
Hughes, R. L., Ginnett, R. C., & Curphy, G. J. (2012). Leadership: Enhancing the lessons of experience. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Companies.
Pennsylvania State University World Campus. (2014). PSYCH 485. Lesson 7: Power and influence. Retrieved from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/ fa14/psych485/001// content/07_less/01_page.html