Concept of power, hegemony, ideology and legitimacy

Since ancient time, social theorists tried to define the queries that people who lack economic power
consent to hierarchies of social and political power. They have used philosophy, hegemony and
discourse as main notion to explain the intersections between the social production of knowledge and
the continuation of power relations. The Marxist thought of ideology explains how the dominant ideas
within a given society reveal the interests of a ruling economic class. Marx and others relate ideology to
a vision of society dominated by economic class as a field of social power. However, theorists of gender
and “race” have questioned the place of class as the locus of power.

Power:

Power is a multifaceted notion. Power is a vital element of human survival and it has signs and
manifestations in every aspect of social life, from interpersonal relations through economic transactions,
to spiritual and political disagreements (Frank Bealey, 1999). Power is associated with politics, authority,
and wealth. The idea of power is that of being able to influence the actions or decisions of another,
whether there will be through the use of soft-power tactics or blatant force. Historically, power has
been considered by such criteria as population size and region, natural resources, economic strength,
military force and social constancy. It is documented that the notion of power is the most powerful in
the arena of Political Science. Many theorists like Socrates. Plato, Aristotle have affirmed the importance
of power in their own way. In India, Acharya Kautilya (Chanakya) gave importance of power in his
famous book Kautilya Arthsastra because it was the basis of whole human life (Frank Bealey, 1999).

Many theorists explain the concept of power.

Cline (2012) defined as “the ability, whether personal or social, to get things done either to enforce
one’s own will or to enforce the collective will of some group over others. Power is therefore an ability
or potential of an individual or groups of individuals to influence and compel action. Power can be force
or influence of action whether accepted/recognised or no.

Probably the best known description of power is Webber theoretical model who characterize power as
the chance of man or number of men to realize their own will in a communal action even against the
resistance of others who are participating in action (Frank Bealey, 1999).

Table: Max Weber's typology of power:

Type of power

Coercion

Authority

Charismatic
Traditional

Legal-rational

People are forced to do as they are told under threat of punishment( for example, in a prison or a school
class room) People obey because of the personal qualities of the person doing the telling. Well
known charismatic figures include Jesus Christ, Hitler, Chairman Mao and so forth. However, charismatic
figures arise in any social grouping and such people assume positions of authority over others on the
basis of personal qualities of leadership perceived in that individual by other group members. Those
who exercise authority to do so because they continue a tradition and support the preservation and
continuation of existing values and social ties (for example, The Royal Family). Those in authority give
orders(and expect they will be obeyed) because their job gives them the right to give orders. Anyone
who fills the same position has right to give orders, which means this type of authority is not based upon
the personal qualities of the individual. Orders are only to be obeyed if they are relevant to the situation
in which they are given (for example, a teacher could reasonably expect the order to “complete your
homework by Thursday” to be obeyed by a student in their class. The teacher could not reasonably
expect that same order issued to the student’s parent would be obeyed. Similarly the order to “Go down
the street and get me a newspaper” would not be seen as a legitimate order for the teacher to give
his/her student, hence student the student would not feel compelled to obey).

This form of power is the typical form that exists in our society and is sometimes referred to as
“bureaucratic” power since it is based upon status of an individual’s position in social hierarchy, rather
than individual himself.

Russell said that power was the production of intended effect. Lukes argued that power is being
exercised by hegemonies whose interest was to maintain status quo by fashioning people’s perception,
belief, and values so that their stated preferences were contrary to their interest (Frank Bealey, 1999).

According to Laswell and Kaplan, "The concept of power is perhaps the most fundamental in the whole
of Political Science, the political process is the shaping, distribution and exercise of power (in a wider
sense, of all the deference values or of influence in general)". H. J. Margenthau stated that “power
politics was rooted in lust for power which is common to all men and for this reason was inseparable
from social life itself." In the view of Erich Kaufman, politics is inseparable from power. Slates and
Government exist to exert power. In each country and in the world at large there is either a balance of
power, as unstable balance of power, or no balance of power at all. But there is always power political
power exists in the world and will be used by those who have it." Herbert and Edward Shills defined
power as the ability to influence the behaviour of others in accordance with one's own ends. Catlin
adopts Mas Weber's description of politics as "the struggle of power or the influencing of those in
power."

In the modern time, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Treitschke and Neitzche have emphasised the significance of
power. Other famous theorists, Catlin, Charles Marriam, Harold Laswell, H.J. Morgenthau etc. have
established power as one of the fundamental concept. According to Catlin, concept of power is basic in
Political Science. MacIver is of the view that everything that is happening around us is in some way or
the other concerned with power. It is power which vests the state with order and peace.

Power is related with prosperity and its use to gain social importance through bribe, cajole, support or
block various forces in person’s own interest. The theory of power is also closely associated to that of
realism. Since power provides a sense of security in holding with the logic that nobody can
hurt/influence people when they have the ability to hurt/influence them. Therefore, each party should
try to maximize and combine its power. Power is one of the most essential and yet difficult concepts in
international relations. “Few problems in political science are more confusing than the problem of social
power. Despite extensive use, power remains a slippery and challenging notion.

There are some dispute upon basic definitions, individual theorists proposing their own more or less
characteristic terminology, and unexpectedly little consideration of the implications of alternative
usages. That some people have more power than others is one of the most blatant facts of human
existence.

In Western traditional thought, Power is major concepts about political phenomena. In general, power is
a” Disappointing concept”. According to H. Carr and Hans Morgenthau, power has been an important
(some would say too important) variable in international political theorizing. Although some may regard
power analysis as traditional and redundant, current modification in social science philosophy about
power propose the possibility of invigorating this approach to understanding international relations.

Sources of Power:

Power comes from numerous sources, each of which has different effects on the targets of that power.
Some originate from individual characteristics; others draw on aspects of an organization's structure.
There are six types of power that include legitimate, referent, expert, reward, coercive, and
informational.

Legitimate Power: It is also known as "positional power". This is the power individuals have from their
role and status within an organization. Legitimate power usually involves formal authority delegated to
the holder of the position.

Referent Power: Referent power originates from the ability of individuals to attract others and build
their faithfulness. It is based on the personality and interpersonal skills of the power holder. A person
may be admired because of a specific personal mannerism, such as charisma or likability, and these
positive feelings become the basis for interpersonal influence.
Expert Power: Expert power draws from a person's ability and knowledge and is especially strong when
an organization has a high need for them. Narrower than most sources of power, the power of an expert
typically applies only in the specific area of the person's expertise and credibility.

Reward Power: Reward power comes from the ability to bestow valued material rewards or create other
positive incentives. It refers to the extent to which the individual can provide external motivation to
others through benefits or gifts.

Coercive Power: Coercive power is the menace and application of sanctions and other negative
outcomes. These can include direct punishment or the withholding of desired resources or rewards.
Coercive power relies on fear to induce compliance.

Informational Power: Informational power derives from access to facts and knowledge that others find
helpful or valuable. That access can signify relationships with other power holders and convey status
that creates a positive impression. Informational power has numerous benefits in building credibility
and rational persuasion. It may also serve as the basis for beneficial exchanges with others who seek
that information.

Power has various forms, and characteristics. It can be exercised with different degrees of intensity, with
force and aggression or, on the contrary, with kindness and politeness. Nye distinguished the power
(1990).

One form of power is hard power. In general, Nye defined power as the “ability to affect others to get
the outcomes one wants” and command or hard power as coercive power wielded through
inducements or threats (2009). Hard power is based on military interference, coercive diplomacy and
economic sanctions (Wilson, 2008) and relies on tangible power resources such as armed forces or
economic means (Gallarotti, 2011). The efficacy of any power resource depends on context. Professor
Joseph Nye, Machiavelli said that for a Prince it was safer to be feared than to be loved. Nye squabbled
that it is better to be both.

Soft power is the ability to create a centre of attention of people to one side without compulsion.
Theorist defined that soft power is the capacity to persuade others to do what one wants (Wilson,
2008). According to Nye, persuasive power is based on attraction and emulation and “associated with
intangible power resources such as culture, ideology, and institutions” (2009). Cooper emphasised the
importance of legitimacy for the concept of soft power (2004). State activities need to be perceived as
legitimate in order to enhance soft power.

Legitimacy is therefore central to soft power. If a people or a nation believes objectives to be legitimate,
then leaders are more likely to persuade them to follow their lead without using threats and bribes. In
other words, militaries are well suited to defeating states, but they are often poor instruments to fight
ideas. According to Nye, “victory” depends on attracting foreign populations to our side and helping
them to build capable, democratic states. Soft power is vital to gaining peace. It can be analysed that it
is easier to attract people to democracy rather than to coerce them to be democratic.

The effectiveness of hard and soft power approaches depends on the accessibility of power resources
(Heywood, 2011).

Another important feature of the hard-soft-power scale is time. It appears that generating hard power
requires much less time as its resources are tangible. On the contrary, soft power takes comparatively
long to build as its intangible resources develop over a long period of time. Similarly, the temporal
dimension of the gain of hard power and soft power strategies differs. While military or economic
coercion tends to result in an immediate but short-duration outcome, attraction and persuasion have
the tendency to cause long-term change.

Another type of power is smart power. It is “the ability to merge hard and soft power into a winning
strategy”. It involves the “strategic use of diplomacy persuasion, capacity building, and the projection of
power and influence in ways that are cost-effective and have political and social legitimacy”. Smart
power means developing an incorporated strategy, resource base, and tool kit to achieve some key
objectives, drawing on both hard and soft power. It is an approach that not only emphasizes the
necessity for a strong military, force but also invests heavily in alliances, affiliation, and institutions at all
levels to spread influence and establish legality.

To summarize, power is the capability to influence or control the behaviour of people. The term
"authority" is often used for power perceived as legitimate by the social structure. Power can be seen as
sinful or unjust, but the exercise of power is accepted as endemic to humans as social beings.

Hegemony:
The notion of hegemony is especially difficult to enumerate both in concrete political terms and in a less
tangible philosophical manner. It is the political, economic, or military predominance or control of one
state over others. In Ancient Greece (8th century BCE - 6th century CE), hegemony signified the politico-
military supremacy of a city-state over other city-states. The dominant state is known as the hegemon.

In the 19th century, hegemony represented the "Social or cultural predominance or ascendancy;
predominance by one group within a society or milieu". Afterwards, it could be used to mean "a group
or regime which exerts undue influence within a society." Also, it could be used for the geopolitical and
the cultural preponderance of one country over others, from which was derived hegemonism. It means
that the Great Powers meant to establish European hegemony over Asia and Africa. In theoretical
viewpoint, hegemony is the expression of society's ruling classes over the majority of the nation or state
over whom they propose to rule. Gramsci (1971) describes hegemony as, “a conception of the world
that is implicitly manifest in art, in law, in economic activity and in all manifestations of individual and
collective life.”

Five dimensions of the concept of hegemony:

There are five basic dimensions of hegemony that range from obvious to more subtle. These are
explained as under:

Military: The hegemon has the strongest military in the world, considerably stronger than any of its
rivals. Its military alliance system is significantly stronger than any rival military blocs.

Economic: The hegemon has the biggest and most technologically advanced economy in the world. It is
a major trading partner of most of the nations of the world, including most of the major powers.

Political: The hegemon has array of political allies, and friendly relations with most nations and major
powers.

Institutional: The hegemon, working with its associates, makes most of the rules that govern global
political and economic relations. The hegemon, along with its allies, usually controls most of the
international institutions. Thus, most of the policies of the international institutions favour the hegemon
and its partners.

Ideological: The hegemon mainly determines the terms of discourse in international relations. Marx
wrote, "The ruling ideas of any age are the ideas of the ruling class." Currently, the predominant ideas
about globalization are the ideas of hegemon.
The Marxist theory of cultural hegemony, related particularly with Antonio Gramsci. It is the idea that
the ruling class can influence the value system and customs of a society, so that their view becomes the
world view (Weltanschauung). According to Terry Eagleton, "Gramsci normally uses the word hegemony
to mean the ways in which a governing power wins consent to its rule from those it subjugates".
Contrasting to authoritarian rule, cultural hegemony "is hegemonic only if those affected by it also
consent to and struggle over its common sense". Gramsci defines cultural hegemony, which was of
particular significance when he was writing in the 1930's, in a world that was dominated by ideological
concerns. This kind of hegemony and cultural control is a persistent political reality that has been a
feature of culture and society since the first recorded migrations of man.

Athenians made hegemony an everyday feature of the ancient world, whereby people were defined
through their status within the broader Greek political and cultural hierarchy. The Greeks emphasised
their cultural ideal of hegemony with language and politics, especially the concept of citizenship, which
is the major feature in the study of political and cultural hegemony. The United States uses its visa
system, for example, to distinguish between alien visitors from within the wider plates of the hegemony
that it has created.

In the ancient world, Plato and Aristotle categorized the several types of hegemony together to form
'civilisation'. Therefore, to be an Athenian Greek was to be a civilised member of the hegemony of the
emerging nation state; to be a 'barbarian' was to be an uncivilised member of the outposts of society,
the parts where hegemony had previously failed to infiltrate as a paradigm and as a cultural and
economic force. This phenomenon has since been reflected in the twenty first century with President
Bush's 'with us or against us' stance to global terrorism, where hegemony was once again used as the
primary force in the continuation of the dominant military, political and economic power of the period.

It becomes obvious that hegemony must co-exist with the comprehensive notion of empire, which is
itself constructed upon the concrete foundations of economic dynamism harvested through the
procurement of resources. The notion of empire changed irreversibly during the beginning of modern
history where industrialisation proved to be the catalyst for the significant, seismic shift in the view of
hegemony as cultural, economic and political benchmark. The nineteenth century was certainly a crisis
in terms of the redrawing of the conceptual limitations of hegemony. The Victorian period observed the
traditional European empires of France, Belgium, Britain and Germany use their vast military and
economic superiority to carve up the undeveloped world amongst each other with the procurement of
raw materials and economic resources utilised as the main motivation for extra territorial action.

Ideology:
Ideology has been the subject that caught great attention during the last half of the twentieth century.
Ideology has recurred as an important theme of inquiry among social, personality, and political
psychologists. Ideology is one of few terms to have originated in political science, having apparently
been developed by Count Antoine Destutt de Tracy, who survived the revolution to publish Elements
d’Ideologie in 1817 (Hart 2002; Head 1985). The term has been contentious almost from its inception
(Sartori 1969).

In fundamental term, an ideology is a belief or a set of beliefs, especially the political beliefs on which
people, parties, or countries base their actions. It is a plan of action for applying these ideas.

In wider perspective, ideology can be explained as the way a system a single individual or even a whole
society rationalizes itself. Ideologies may be idiosyncratic (Lane 1962), impractical, or even delusional,
but they still share the features of coherence and temporal stability. In the view of Erikson & Tedin
(2003), ideology is a “set of beliefs about the proper order of society and how it can be achieved”.

Napoleon used “ideologue” as a nickname to indicate irrational dedication to democratic principle. By

the mid-nineteenth century, the main principle of the ideologues popular sovereignty was attacked from
both the right (divine right) and the left (dictatorship of the proletariat). Marxist theory used the
concept of ideology to define the process through which the dominant ideas within a given society
reflect the interests of a ruling economic class. However, ideology has established a problematic notion,
as many of its advocates have treated it as a relatively stable body of knowledge that the ruling class
transmits wholesale to its subordinate classes. Marx confronted liberal democratic ideology, criticising it
as a rationale for class oppression. The negative implication of ideology was reinforced by Karl
Mannheim, who contended that ideology was inherently conservative because it derived its ideal model
of society from the past and who contrasted it with utopian thinking, which he defined as future-
oriented (Geoghegan 2004). David McLellan (1995) stated that ‘Ideology is the most elusive concept in
the whole of the social sciences.’

Stuart Hall (1992) appraised several moments of theoretical “interruption” in cultural theories of
ideology. These include the discourse theories of post-structuralism and postmodernism, on one hand;
and the impact of feminist and critical “race” scholarship, on the other. The disruption of post-
structuralism is important for foregrounding the salience of language as a medium of social power. In
contrast, feminist theory contributes a notion of the personal dimensions of political power and
highlights questions about gender. Similarly, critical “race” theory focuses on racialized patterns of
power and destabilizes the class subject of ideology theory.

In the start of the twentieth century, the term ideology was rarely employed beyond limited references
concerning political philosophy. This obscurity was apparent in the pages of the Review.
Basically, a political ideology is a belief system that provides a perspective on various political issues,
such as the proper role of elected officials and the types of public policies that should be prioritized.

Legitimacy:

In political science, legitimacy is the widespread acceptance of an authority, usually a governing law or a
regime. Political legitimacy is considered a rudimentary condition for governing, without which a
government will suffer legislative impasse and collapse. In political systems where this is not the case,
unpopular regimes survive because they are considered legitimate by a small, influential choice. In
Chinese political philosophy, during the historical period of the Zhou Dynasty (1046–256 BC), the
political legitimacy of a leader and government was derived from the Mandate of Heaven, and unjust
rulers who lost said mandate therefore lost the right to rule the people.

Types of legitimacy:

Legitimacy is "a value whereby something or someone is acknowledged and accepted as right and
proper". In political science, legitimacy generally is understood as the popular acceptance and
recognition by the public of the authority of a governing regime, whereby authority has political power
through consent and mutual understandings, not pressure. German sociologist Max Weber explained
the three types of political legitimacy

Traditional

Charismatic

Rational-legal

Traditional legitimacy derives from societal custom and habit that highlight the history of the authority
of tradition. Traditionalists understand this form of rule as historically accepted, hence its continuity,
because it is the way society has always been. Therefore, the institutions of traditional government
usually are historically continuous, as in monarchy and tribalism.

Charismatic legitimacy originates from the ideas and personal magnetism of the leader, a person whose
authoritative persona charms and psychologically dominates the people of the society to agreement
with the government's regime and rule. A charismatic government usually features feeble political and
administrative institutions, because they derive authority from the persona of the leader, and usually
disappear without the leader in power. However, if the charismatic leader has a successor, a
government derived from charismatic legitimacy might continue.
Rational-legal legitimacy evolves from a system of institutional procedure, wherein government
institutions establish and enforce law and order in the public interest. Therefore, it is through public
trust that the government will abide the law that confers rational-legal legitimacy (O'Neil, Patrick H.,
2010).

Significance of legitimacy:

Legitimacy is significant for all regimes. Legitimacy sustains political constancy as it establishes the
reasonableness of a regime, or says, provide reason for the regime to exist. Weber point out that regime
must arouse legitimacy belief of the people if they tend to maintain their rule. Election, a significant
element of democracy, is very important in the process of legitimization. Authoritarian regimes also
tend to continue election, even non-competitive election. It is because election contributes to provide
justification for the existence of a regime, thus consolidates its legitimacy (Heywood, 2002).

Another device for regime to get legitimacy is constitution. Being a set of rules which lays down a
framework in which government and political activity are conducted, its legitimization function can be
analysed on two ways. First, constitution is almost a prerequisite for a state to be recognized by other
states, where the external legitimacy comes from. On the other hand, constitution can be used to
promote respect and compliance among the domestic population, thus building up internal legitimacy.

According to Samuel Huntington, a regime with strong legitimacy must have three kinds of legitimacy
(1993).

First is ideological legitimacy, that is, the value proposition of regime must be generally, voluntarily
recognized by the people. Enforced ideological indoctrination is difficult to sustain such kind of
legitimacy.

Second is procedure legitimacy. The formation, change and operation of regime must be checked by
citizen's vote. The ruling authority is limited and restricted by constitution or legal procedures.

The third is performance legitimacy, which means that a regime supported by people should have
satisfied performance.

For a regime that only based on single legitimacy, if her performance is unsatisfied, people may question
the value and procedures which the regime based on, thus legitimacy crisis would occur. Therefore, he
stated that economic crisis is a political barrier that makes difficult for authoritarian regimes to come
across. It can be said that Political legitimacy is the people’s recognition and acceptance of the validity of
the rules of their entire political system and the decisions of their rulers.
Power, Authority & Legitimacy Theory:
Power

All politics is about power – achieving and maintaining it – Hobbes – basic human urge is to seek ‘power
after power’. Programmed – Dawkins’ selfish gene. Conservative viewpoint.

The ability to get someone to do something they otherwise wouldn’t do – ‘power to’.

Distinguished with authority by power being the ability to do and authority right to do.

Distinction from influence – ability to affect outcome even if not having actual final power to decide –
influence is a minor form of power by affecting their actions without inciting force/fear – e.g.
manipulation.

Lukes sees power in three forms: decision-making, agenda setting and thought control.

Decision-making – associated with liberal and pluralist perceptions focussing on who actually makes the
decisions. Boulding argues decision-making influenced in three ways: the stick (coercion), the deal
(mutual benefit through negotiation), and the kiss (sense of loyalty and commitment to individual, thus
he has power).

Dahl observed decision-making ‘Critique of the ruling elite model’ and found no single elite in charge,
pluralist approach, everyone has a say. Different groups have a say on different aspects. Reality was an
“example of a democratic system warts and all”.

Elitist critiques argue this fails to understand unequal influence of key elites – real decisions made by a
fixed elite – real power belongs to banks and military C.Wright Mills.

Hobbes – physical or mechanical power whereby power is used against an individual’s will – individual is
subservient to it, otherwise life would be nasty, brutish and short. Advocates strong, monarchical
government.

Agenda setting – Bachrach Baratz –idea of non-decision making. Schattschneider “some issues are
organised into politics and others are organised out”.

Links to influential parties who collectively agree or just block discussion – slight elitist theory.

B and B and ‘mobilisation of bias’ yet individuals and pressure groups can change agendas, yet more
likely to do so on issues represented by well informed and articulate. Elite tend to dominate flow of
information and media and so use this to their advantage. Look at the way demonstrations are
portrayed in the media.

Marxists would argue agenda setting is a facade for bourgeois dominance with parliamentary systems of
government being “the executive committee of the bourgeoisie” (Marx).

Thought control – previous two assume that people and groups are rational and capable of knowing
their own mind. The ability to manipulate human behaviour can be shaped – some argue this is where
the real power lies.
Marxist ideas based on favouritism of state towards bourgeoisie and their power through economy and
politics – Gramsci and bourgeois hegemony – bourgeoisie literally control popular culture and so control
the way we think. Therefore we think life is only better with material goods so bourgeoisie benefit even
more.

Vance Packard – consumer based society and only think we’re happy when we have material goods.

New Left ideas and Marcuse – link to totalitarianism but with media, TUs, adverts, culture replacing
brutal coercion manipulating needs.

Difference between ‘real’ and ‘felt’ interests – Engels and false consciousness. Don’t know what is in our
real interest – no longer rational.

Liberals reject this – individuals are rational.

Authority

Generally distinguished from power through the means by which compliance and obedience are
achieved – Heywood “authority is power cloaked in legitimacy”. Authority a form of rightful power.

Authority based on a perceived ‘right to rule’ (Weber) with a moral aspect.

Weber linked authority to legitimacy – different approach from others stating that legitimacy gave
power authority.

Weber – authority is important irrespective of how it’s achieved. As long as there is the perception that
authority is legitimate it’s fine.

Authority seldom exercised in absence of power.

Weber – traditional (respect for elders), charismatic (value opinions and words through their
responsibility), legal-rational (respect for right of state – parliament’s legal rights to pass new laws).

Traditional – sanctified by history and based upon ‘immemorial custom’. Hierarchy – Burke – ‘wisdom of
the ancients’. Patriarchalism – links to hereditary systems. Less relevant today, although evident in one
form in theocratic states – the resurgence of this type of authority can be seen as a response to the
failure of other types in degenerative Western capitalism.

Charismatic – based entirely upon the power of an individual’s personality. Owes nothing to status,
social position or office, yet can be used to promote the interests of society (Rousseau and Law Giver).

Charismatic has an almost messianic quality – treated with suspicion – Talmon and criticism of
Rousseau.

Legal-rational – situation for most liberal democratic Western capitalist societies. Operates through a
body of clearly defined rules – linked to formal powers of office not office holder. Less likely to be
abused than other 2 as the limit of authority is defined.
Arises out of a respect for the rule of law and is evident in the constitutional framework of long-
established states. Can be seen as de-personalising as there can be a relentless spread of bureaucracy
e.g. civil service.

De jure authority – authority in law. Authority from an office. Operates according to a set of rules.
Closely linked to traditional/legal-rational. Related to being IN authority.

De facto – authority in practice. Closely linked to charismatic. Authority by virtue of who they are –
being AN authority.

Relationship between power and authority

Authority is the legitimate exercise of power but debate as to whether this requires morality or
PERCEPTION or rightfulness.

Ruling by power alone eventually lead to unsustainable use of coercive resources – Mao – “all power
stems from the barrel of a gun” and is the antithesis of authority.

Can authority exist without power? Weberian sense of traditional and charismatic forms all exert
influence without the need to persuade. Legal-rational based on office and power invested in the office
thus need power. Also being ‘an authority’ doesn’t need recourse to power but can have influence.

Different views of authority

Liberals – authority instrumental, coming from below through the consent of the governed – social
contract.

Do not want too much state involvement therefore authority is limited, rational and purposeful leading
to preference for legal-rational.

Conservatives – comes from above from those with experience and wisdom. Benefits other but there
are few limits leading to authoritarianism through charismatic.

Authority – justified? Essential for maintenance of order. Enemy of freedom – Libertarian/Anarchist

view. Marxists – authority manufactured to mask rule by the bourgeoisie. Expectation to give
unquestioning obedience is wrong as it threatens reason – Mill – intellectual diversity.

Legitimacy

To be in a position to exercise authority. Links to power and authority by transforming the former into
the latter – turns naked power into authority.

Moral right to rule – Locke and consent – social contrast theory – we consent to be governed. If there is
a formal constitutional basis, we can see legitimacy.
Hobbes – social contract – dictatorship could have legitimacy as it is meant to protect the individual –
the Leviathan state – legitimacy comes about by preventing people getting harmed – implied consent.

For Rousseau the state is legitimate if it upholds the general will.

Likes of Weber see a belief in legitimacy as important no matter how it is achieved.

How do governments gain and maintain legitimacy?

Social contract – tacit and formal agreement whereby state’s legitimacy is based on protection of
citizens (Hobbes) and promotion of rights and freedoms (Locke) and the common good (Rousseau).

Locke challenged Hobbes as he believed a man could not give away more power over himself than he
himself has. Tacit consent is given to the government by anyone who has “possession or enjoyment of
any part of the dominions of any government”.

Popular compliance – populace have a belief in the right to rule which in a democracy is based around
the exercise of legal-rational authority.

Constitutionalism – Beetham – legitimacy operating under existing established principles thus power
exercised through the existing constitutional process if this adheres to the widely held beliefs and values
of a society.

Went against Weber’s view as it ignores how legitimacy came about. Leaves the matter largely in the
hands of the powerful, who may be able to manufacture rightfulness by public relation campaigns.
Power is legitimate if it fulfils 3 criteria:

1. Power exercised according to certain rules.

2. Rules justified in terms of ruler and ruled – marrying the shared belief between government and
people (communitarianism).

3. People must give consent – how much consent must people give to give something legitimacy?

Active consent – seen through ballot box with a mandate given to exercise legitimacy –
elections/referendums and strengthened by universal suffrage – Mill.

Legitimation crisis – neo-Marxist Habermas – legitimacy of a political system could collapsed because of
the pressures created by democracy and capitalism. Democracy – voting becomes a means of
consumerism. Capitalism – increased desire leads to recession – can’t continually provide what people
want – e.g. extensive welfare provision. Legitimation crisis created after government intervention and
conflict of free-market.

Social contract – Giddens – communitarianism – Etzioni – taking social contract and trying to improve
civic engagement through modern political systems.

Ideological Hegemony – Conventional image of liberal democracies is that they enjoy legitimacy because
they respect individual liberty and are responsive to public opinion. Critics – democracy is little more
than a facade concealing the domination of a “power elite”.
Ralph Milliband – liberal democracy is “capitalist democracy” – there are biases which serve interests of
private property and ensure the long term stability of capitalism.

Marxists state that bourgeois ideology denotes sets of ideas which conceal the contradictions upon
which class societies are based – ideology propagates falsehood, delusion and mystification. Ideology
operates in interests of the ruling class.

Modern Marxists – political competition does exist but this competition is unequal. Gramsci drew
attention to the degree to which the class system was upheld not simply by unequal power but also
what he called bourgeois hegemony.

Legitimacy in a dictatorship

Weber argues that traditional and charismatic authority can be legitimate if accepted by populace. Marx
argued that a dictatorship of the proletariat would be legitimate as it was acting in the best interests of
the masses; likewise dictators claim to uphold common good without popular approval. Traditional
monarchs also claimed to be adhering to divine right as the best form of determining the common good.

Definition of Power:

Nature of Power:

Corporatist Theory of Power:

Definition of Corporatist Theory:

Corporatism Defined:

Corporate Body: Role:

Corporatism in International Field:

Definitions and Nature of Authority:

Power and Authority:

Weber’s Classification of Authority:

1. Traditional Authority:

2. Charismatic Authority:

3. Legal-Rational Authority:
Definition of Power:

Power and authority are perhaps the most vital aspects of all organisations in general and political
organisations in particular. Power is related to taking of decisions and for the implementation of those
decisions. No organisation, whatever may its nature be, can do its duty or achieve objectives without
power.

Robert Dahl in many of his works has defined power and analysed its various aspects. In his A Preface to
Democratic Theory Dahl calls power a type of relationship in respect of capability and control. Take a
very simple example. There are two men—A and B. If A possesses the capability to control B then it will
be assumed that A has the power. So power involves a successful attempt to do something which he
could not do otherwise.

In any society there are diverse interests and all are alike. When there are conflicts among them one
interest proceeds to dominate over the other and the interest which prevails upon the other the former
may be called powerful interest.

Karl Deutsch says that power means the ability to be involved in conflict, to resolve it and to remove the
obstacles. Though Deutsch defines the concept in the background of international politics, its relevance
to national politics is, however, undeniable. In domestic politics or pluralistic societies there are many
competing groups and all struggle to capture power or to influence. The group which succeeds finally
will be called powerful.

D. D. Raphael (Problems of Political Philosophy) has analysed power from various aspects. He believes
that generally power means the ability. Raphael says that in French there is a word “Pouvoir”. In Latin
“Potestas” is commonly used. Both these words (these are verbs) mean “to be able”.

Raphael is of opinion that the English word power is derived from these two words and naturally power
may be used to mean ability and hence his definition of power is specific kind of ability. Why specific
kind? Let us quote him: “The ability to make other people do what one wants them to do”.

Some political scientists want to mean that there is a special type of power which may be designated as
political power. For example, Alan Ball feels that power may generally be used in political sense. Hence
political power may broadly be defined as the capacity to affect another’s behaviour by some form of
sanction. Leslie Lipson (The Great Issues of Politics) thinks that power is nothing but the ability to
achieve results through concerted action.

Hague, Harrop and Breslin’s definition is slightly different: “In a broad sense the power is the production
of intended effects”. A sociologist’s definition of power is: the possibility of having one’s own decision,
select alternatives or reduce complexities for others. Thus, power means the capacity to make decisions
binding and ability to discharge responsibilities and perform certain functions.

Nature of Power:

From the definitions of power noted above we can get certain features and the first such feature is it is
used in relational sense. When there is only one actor or element the issue of power does not arise. It is
because power implies ability to influence or control others or to get things done by others. Naturally
power relates to the relationship or interaction between two or among more than two elements or
actors. So power is always viewed in the background of relationship.

In the second place, “power is disaggregated and non-cumulative it is shared and bartered by numerous
groups spread throughout society and representing diverse interests”. In any pluralist society there are
numerous groups and they all compete among themselves at various levels to capture political power or
to influence the agencies who exercise their influence.

Hence it is observed that power is not concentrated at any particular centre. Again, all the centres of
power do claim to have equal or almost equal amount of power. In other words, there is an unequal
distribution of power like an unequal distribution of wealth.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Thirdly, in a class-society there are diverse interests and each power centre represents a particular
interest. This point may further be explained. In any capitalist society there are several classes, both
major and minor, and each class strives for the realisation of its own interests which are generally
economic.

But there may be political interests. However, the conflicts among the classes sometimes lead to the
other conflicts and this is the general characteristic of capitalist society. But the advocates of the
capitalist system argue that this conflict does not create an atmosphere of class struggle. There are
processes of peaceful resolution of all conflicts. At least Talcott Parsons and many sociologists think so.
According to these persons the capitalist system is so structured that the conflicts do not create any
impasse.
Fourthly, Maclver is of opinion that power is a conditional concept. Power, Maclver says, is an ability to
command service from others. But this ability, he continues, depends in some measure upon certain
conditions and if the conditions are not fulfilled properly power cannot function. Power is not something
which is permanently fixed. It is subject to change and it has source.

If the source dries up power generation or enhancement will stop. Again, mere existence of sources
cannot cause the rise of power. The holder of power must have the ability to use or utilise the sources of
power. All these conditions establish the fact that power is conditional.

Fifthly, power (used in political science) is a very complex notion. How it is used, what consequences it
produces, how it is to be achieved-all are in real sense complex. No simple analysis can unearth the
various aspects of power. Different people use different terms to denote power. For example, Dahl uses
the term ‘influence’ to mean power.

Corporatist Theory of Power:

Definition of Corporatist Theory:

In recent years political scientists are taking and showing added interest about corporatist character of
power. A corporatist theory denotes that in a capitalist society there are many classes and groups and
an organic unity and class harmony among them are essential among them all and this is essential for
the proper functioning of society as well as for its betterment.

On experience it has been found that up to the Second World War (1939-1945) pluralism was
enormously encouraged because it was thought that through the competition society will get the scope
of rapid development. But in the seventies of the last century the feeling traversed along a different
path. Harmony and unity were stressed as key to power as well as to progress.

Corporatist theory thus stresses that the diverse elements of society are to be unified into one body.
This will form one corpus or the word Corporatism. Corporatism is nothing but the unification of various
diverse elements of pluralist society into one body or corpus. The main purpose is to make a powerful
organisation.

Corporatist theory of power does not take pluralism as harmful for social progress, because pluralism
invites competition and division and this finally weakens the society. Pluralism envisages division in
interests and, at the, same time, keen competition among them. It also admits of independent existence
of the interests.
Corporatism Defined:

A recent analyst (Schmitter) defines corporatism in the following language: Corporatism is the specific
political structure which typically performs the post-liberal advanced capitalist, organised democratic
welfare state. Contemporary corporatism is generally “Conceived as a system of interest representation
in which the constituent units are organised into limited number of singular, compulsory hierarchically
ordered and functionally differentiated categories recognised by the state and granted a deliberate
representational monopoly”.

The fact is that during the last few decades corporatism has advanced rapidly and it has become a
salient feature of a capitalist society. The origin of corporatism can conveniently be traced to the strong
urge for survival. The different business organisations and industries were fighting among themselves to
keep their physical existence intact. But the unhealthy competition ultimately foiled their attempts.

So the organisations decided to form a harmonious and unified corporation so that they can fight
unitedly against all odds and evils. The organisation of the corporate body created a power centre in
society. The corporate body began to influence the policy making and policy implementing functions of
the state authority.

Thus, in a capitalist society there are at least two (and in many cases more than two) centres of power—
one is state and the other is corporate. Thus the most important aspect of corporatism is the existence
of different centres of power should lead to any perceptible damage of capitalist system.

Corporate Body: Role:

Ralph Miliband has given us a very beautiful and vivid account of corporation or corporate body in
advanced capitalist countries. With the advancement of capitalism the powers and importance of
corporate bodies have increased at an unprecedented rate. The small and medium sized industries have
failed to cope with the growing problems of economy. Miliband says, the advanced capitalism is
synonymous with giant enterprise.

It has been estimated by experts that in employment, investment, research, development, military
activities, policy making the corporatism has been able to establish its overwhelmingly disproportionate
importance. In fact, the corporate bodies are the chief or potential sources of power and authority and
the situation has reached such a pass that the corporatism is in unrivalled position. Miliband concludes
that there is every reason to believe that the giant enterprise or corporatism will accumulate more and
more power and importance in the coming years and there is no agency in advanced capitalist country
to halt its growth.
Corporatism is controlling all the key centres of power in advanced capitalist states. Miliband is of
opinion that this tendency—gargantuan nature of corporate body—is inevitable. In capitalist society the
domestic economy and politics cannot be thought of corporatism.

Corporatism in International Field:

The growing importance and increasing role of the corporate body are not confined within the national
area of the state. Simultaneously the internationalization is on the advanced stage. The multinational
corporations have intensified their functions in numerous forms in various developing countries of the
Third World.

This is quite unavoidable because the developing states require both investment and sophisticated
technologies for rapid development and for these they are to depend on MNCs. The MNCs are not only
controlling the economy and other elements of development but also the politics.

The governments of the Third World states are practically forced to accept the terms and conditions of
the corporate bodies and if they refuse that will result in the withdrawal of help. This tendency has
become more and more pronounced in the age of globalisation. Many Third World states are inviting
the big corporations of the industrialised nations to take the task of rapid economic development.

The nation states of the earlier epochs are being cornered by this advancement of large corporate
bodies. Ralph Miliband rightly says that the power equations of the present generation are to be
understood and analysed in the background of corporate bodys’ growing influence. This is the central
idea of corporatist theory of power. The corporatist theory is, however, not free from weakness. It is
faced with challenge posed by domestic policies and Industrial Corporation of developing nations.

Definitions and Nature of Authority:

“The right or the capacity or both to have proposals or prescriptions or instructions accepted without
recourse to persuasion, bargaining or force”. Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics- defines the term in
the following words: the power or right to give orders and enforce obedience, the power to influence
others based on recognised knowledge or expertise.

“Authority can most simply be defined as legitimate power…….. Authority is, therefore, based on an
acknowledged duty to obey rather than on any form of coercion or manipulation. In this sense authority
is power cloaked in legitimacy or rightfulness”.
R. S. Peters’ definition is: “Authority is derived from the Latin word auctoritas and auctor. … An auctor is
he who brings about the existence of any object or promotes the increase or prosperity of it whether he
first originates it, or by his efforts gives greater permanence or continuance to it” (Authority. by R. S.
Peters, published in Political Philosophy. Edited by Anthony Quinton).

In the opinion of Maclver “By authority we mean the established right within any social order to
determine policies, to pronounce judgments or relevant issues and to settle controversies or, more
broadly, to act as leader or guide to other men” (The Web of Government).

“Authority is the right to rule. It exists when subordinates acknowledge the right of superiors to give
orders. Authority is more than voluntary compliance”.

D. D. Raphael offers a very precise definition of authority. He says: “To have authority to do something is
to have the right to do it”. Authority is, therefore, a kind of right to do something. But Raphael explains
the term right in the following manner. Here the word right carries a lot of significance and that is why
he elaborates it. In his opinion the right has two meanings.

An authority or a man has right implies that he may do something or he is permitted to do something. It
may be that the person has been licensed to do the job or take an action. Here the term right is used in
the sense of freedom. According to Raphael right has another meaning. This meaning proposes that
right means to receive something. Right also means the claim to something. Let us explain it. An
individual can claim to have something from another person or source. When right is used in this sense
we call it right of recipience.

Hence we find that authority is used in both senses. An individual can do something and when he is
challenged by others he will meet the challenge by saying that he has the authority to do the work. He
receives this authority either from the established law or from the consent of the people. This consent
may be unanimous in character or majority opinion. Here authority is cloaked by legitimacy.

Power and Authority:

The readers, I am sure, have acquired preliminary ideas about two vital concepts— power and authority.
It is now high time to go through the relationship between them. Power, in its broadest sense, is the
ability to achieve desired results. Power also means the ability to do something.

These are the common interpretations of power. But this ability may not be legitimate. An individual or
a military general may by physical force seize political’ power but behind that there may not be sanction
of law or constitution. In that case, the person’s ability to force others to do something is also not
authorised by law. So it is held that power is not legitimate, the authority is always legitimate. Behind
every act or decision of the authority there shall be approval of law. Law and constitution always stand
behind an authority.

A person having power may demand obligation from other persons. But if they refuse to act accordingly
the holder of power legally or constitutionally cannot force him to show obligation. Behind power there
lies coercion or application of coercive measures or physical force. But people show obligation to the
authority on the ground that it is legally entitled to claim obligation.

In explaining authority we have seen that the holder of authority is empowered to do something or
claim something. It means that authority, whatever may its nature be, is always based on law or
legitimacy. So it is said that the authority is not only legal but authorities claim is based on right. In other
words, authority has full freedom to demand something. We can say that authority has freedom.

But this conception is not applicable to power. This relation between power and authority has been
stated by Leslie Lipson in the following words. “What demarcates authority from power is that the
former is power recognised as rightful. Authority is government that all accept as valid. Its exercise is,
therefore, sectioned by those who approve the particular act or agent and is tolerated by those who
disapprove. … Authority is power clothed in the garments of legitimacy”.

The relationship between the two can be explained still from another angle. Raphael observes that
authority can exist without power. This may be illustrated in the following way. A man may be invested
with authority of an office in accordance with law or formal rules. Naturally he can take any decision.
But he fails to exercise his authority on the ground that majority men do not support or recognise him.

This may be due to the popular mass upsurge. On the other hand, power can exist without authority.
This frequently happens in many countries. The military rulers demand obligation from citizens though
he has not that authority. But people, out of tear, obey the order of the person who holds and exercises
power. This is a very common feature of many Third World states.

Weber’s Classification of Authority:

Max Weber, the doyen of sociology, has classified authority on the basis of legitimacy Authority’s claim
to do something and to demand allegiance from the citizens are based on arguments which Weber calls
legitimacy. Needless to say that Weber uses the term legitimacy in the light of greater and wider
perspective.
There are three types of authority. The first is traditional authority. Second is charismatic authority and
the third is legal-rational authority. This classification, though not fool proof one, is still recognised and
accepted by majority people.

The above mentioned types of authority are explained below:

1. Traditional Authority:

The first type of authority is called traditional authority because authority is based on customs and
traditions which are long established. That is, people of a community show respect to a particular
authority on the ground that their forefathers did the same and naturally they cannot violate the
tradition.

In earlier epochs authority existed and received obedience from the citizens. The tradition continues.
The authority, in this way is sanctioned by the tradition. An aspect of the traditional authority is that
there is no legal sanction behind such authority. Simple customs, traditions and conventions have made
the authority legitimate.

The records of the activities of the traditional authority are to be found in the pages of history. Weber
says that in ancient time and even in middle Ages in many political systems the traditional authority
existed. There was also traditional authority in tribal societies of all countries. This was due to the fact
that political system in its present form did not develop in the tribal societies. But this did not adversely
affect the functioning or management of tribal societies or political systems of earlier epochs.

In hereditary social and political systems the traditional authority exists. In many countries of Africa (or
West Asia) there are hereditary systems or dynastic rulers. The son or daughter of a ruler becomes ruler.
The rulers of the hereditary system have built up the tradition and that tradition continues.

The governing system of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Morocco provide the examples of traditional
authority and hereditary system. In some industrialised countries the hereditary systems still prevail.
These states are Britain, Spain, Belgium and the Netherlands. Britain has no written constitution, but
there is a constitutional system or framework based on tradition, customs, convention etc. and British
people obey them and give them legal sanction. The British parliament also obeys these customs and
conventions. In some countries, customs, conventions and written laws and constitution all are mixed
together.

2. Charismatic Authority:
Charismatic authority is Weber’s second type of legitimate authority. People obey the authority or show
allegiance mainly due to the charisma possessed by the authority. An individual creates tremendous
impact upon the mind of the people by dint of his personality or charisma. Not all individuals or men
holding power possess such type of personality or charisma. If we open the pages of history we shall find
that few leaders such as Hitler, Mussolini, Nepoleon, Ayatoallah Khomeini, and Fidel Castro possessed
he charismatic power.

The charisma is so powerful that people do not go into the legal aspects of the power. With the help of
charisma the authority exercises power and people accept it. Charismatic authority is not always
supported by law. Charisma is a special quality or gift of God. Sometimes charisma and legality are to be
find a single person. For example, de Gaulle of France, Margaret Thatcher of Britain had exceptional
qualities to influence people.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Nehru of India had the same qualities. But all these persons came to power through legal and
constitutional means. Not in reality it is not always clear who is simply a charismatic authority and legal
or constitutional authority. This is specially correct if we consider the regimes of Hitler and Mussolini.
Hitler, Mussolini and even to some extent de Gaulle forcefully seized political power and they remained
in power with the help of charisma.

3. Legal-Rational Authority:

Weber’s final classification is legal-rational authority. In almost all the modern states this type of
authority is generally found. It is legal because the formal authority is supported by existing laws of the
constitution. It is rational on the ground that the posts and positions are clearly defined by law. Power
and duty are also clearly stated Rational-legal authority is the explicit form of a right to give orders and
to have been obeyed.

The core idea of the legal-rational authority is the holder of the authority has the right to issue orders or
to take decisions and also the authority (sanctioned by law) to implement them. When the authority is
challenged by rebellion or recalcitrant elements the authority has the power/ability to take legal action.
Everything is cloaked with legality.
An important aspect of legal-rational authority is—it cannot do anything or take any decision on its own
accord. Whatever the authority wants to do it must have legal sanction. Legal-rational authority can be
called a type of limited form of government. John Locke contemplated such type of government. Later
on legal- rational authority laid the foundation of liberal form of government.

The government cannot whimsically interfere with the freedom of citizens. The central theme of the
legal-rational authority is law and rationality is the vital points. There is no place of whims and the
rationality in such authority.

Difference Between Power and Authority:

When the question is about influencing or manipulating others, two things go that side by side in the
field of management are Power and Authority. These two are used to make people respond in the
manner directed. Power is referred to as the capacity of an individual to influence the will or conduct of
others. As against, authority is termed as the right possessed by a person to give the command to
others.

Many of us think that these two terms are one and the same thing, but there exists a fine line of
difference between power and authority. While the former is exercised in a personal capacity, the latter
is used in a professional capacity. So, on this topic, we are going to throw light on the basic differences
between the two, have a look.

Content: Power Vs Authority

Comparison Chart

Definition

Key Differences

Conclusion

Comparison Chart

BASIS FOR COMPARISON POWER AUTHORITY

Meaning Power means the ability or potential of an individual to influence others and control
their actions. The legal and formal right to give orders and commands, and take decisions is known as
an Authority.

What is it? It is a personal trait. It is a formal right, given to the high officials.

Source Knowledge and expertise. Position & office

Hierarchy Power does not follow any hierarchy. Authority follows the hierarchy.
Resides with Person Designation

Legitimate No Yes

Definition of Power

By the term power, we mean the personal capacity of an individual to influence others to do or not to
do an act. It is independent and informal in nature derived from charisma and status. It is an acquired
ability that comes from knowledge and expertise. It is the right to control other’s actions, decisions and
performances.

Power is not hierarchical, i.e. it can flow in any direction like it can flow from superior to subordinate
(downward) or junior to senior (upward), or between the persons working at the same level, but
different departments of the same organization (horizontal), or between the persons working at
different levels and departments of the same organization (diagonal). In this way, it is not confined to
any boundaries. Moreover, the element of politics is usually attached to it.

Definition of Authority

Authority is legal and formal right to a person, who can take decisions, give orders and commands to
others to perform a particular task. It is conferred to high officials, to accomplish organisation’s
objectives. It is hierarchical in nature, it flows downward, i.e. delegated from superior to the
subordinate.

In general, authority is exercised to get things done through others. It is attached to the position, i.e. any
person who gets the position enjoys the authority attached to it, the higher the position, the higher
would be his authority. As the authority lies in the designation, in the absence of authority, the position
offered to the person would be of no use. Moreover, it is restricted to the organisation only.

Key Differences Between Power and Authority

The difference between power and authority can be drawn clearly on the following grounds:

Power is defined as the ability or potential of an individual to influence others and control their actions.
Authority is the legal and formal right to give orders and commands, and take decisions.

Power is a personal trait, i.e. an acquired ability, whereas authority is a formal right, that vest in the
hands of high officials or management personnel.
The major source of power is knowledge and expertise. On the other hand, position and office
determine the authority of a person.

Power flows in any direction, i.e. it can be upward, downward, crosswise or diagonal, lateral. As
opposed to authority, that flows only in one direction, i.e. downward (from superior to subordinate).

The power lies in person, in essence, a person acquires it, but authority lies in the designation, i.e.
whoever get the designation, get the authority attached to it.

Authority is legitimate whereas the power is not.

Conclusion

After reviewing the above points, it is quite clear that power and authority are two different things,
where power has nothing to do with level or management or position. On the other hand, authority
completely depends on these two, i.e. the position level determines the level of authority a person has.
In addition to this, the authority relationships, i.e. the relationship between superior and subordinate
are depicted on the organisational chart. Conversely, the power relationship is not shown in the
organisation chart.

Concept of Authority

Usually, power is compared to an authority in the real world. But when you look closely both terms are
absolutely different from each other. Power is something that is referred to as the ability to influence
the attitude or behavior of any individual. While authority is generally a representation of someone’s
position. It is derived from multiple sources like seniority, technical competence, etc. The power of a
manager is considered as their ability to ask the subordinates whatever they wish them to do. In simpler
terms, when you broaden the concept of authority you get power.

Power and Authority

The manager’s power can be measured in his ability to-

Punish the individuals

Withdraw the rewards

Provide rewards, etc.

Thus, the main sources of power can be considered as the dominating personality, expertise, rewards,
etc. While authority is described as an institutionalized power which is bestowed by the organization
formally. We have learned the difference between authority and power. Now we will broaden the
concept of authority to understand it further.

Concept of Authority

In management, authority is summarized as a right to guide and direct the activities of others.
Furthermore, to secure them from their responses that are also in tandem with the organizational goals.

Thus, it is a right that utilizes the resources of the organization in order to make the decisions. For this,
the authority has the right to direct the others so that individuals perform their duties.

This also helps in achieving organizational goals. Also, it refers to the right to make the decisions and to
carry out these decisions.

In alternative terms, it can also be said as a right to act. Barnard says that authority is a communication
character in a formal organization due to which a contributor accepts it.

Also, the authority can be the power required to take the decisions which can guide the action of others.

Learn more about Importance and Steps in Delegation here in detail.

Characteristics of Authority

There are certain characteristics that the concept of power follows. These are:

Authority is considered as a relationship between the two people – the subordinates and their superior.
The people with superiority frames the decision and transmits it. They think that the subordinates will
accept these decisions and executes them.

The person who is given a position of authority is legitimate and legal. This position is supported by law,
tradition, and standards of authenticity. Thus, authority is also considered as formal.

Authority is necessary for achieving the organizational goals. Thus, the basic use of authority is to
influence the attitude and behavior of the subordinates in terms of doing the right things at the correct
time.

So, the organizational goals are achieved by the subordinates. The person who has authority influence
the behavior of individuals who otherwise might do the thing.
The person who has a position of authority does not enjoy it unlimitedly. There are limits and extents to
which the position of authority can be attained. It is predefined. The person with the authority is
expected to use it within the rules, policies, and regulations.

Authority also gives the person a right to make a decision. Furthermore, a manager can only decide his
orders about what his subordinate should or should not do. Thus, authority is exercised using the
decision and looking when they are carried out.