“The only test of leadership is that somebody follows voluntarily” (Greenleaf, 1998:31).

“By power is meant every opportunity/possibility existing within a social relationship,

which permits one to carry out one’s own will, even against resistance, and regardless of
the basis on which the opportunity rests” (Weber, 1980:28; translation – VK).

Leadership does not exist without power. Thus we have to reflect on power in order to lay a
theoretical foundation for responsible leadership. Following French and Raven (1960), it
introduces seven power bases, which are illustrated by examples from society and the
church. Describes the different cultural perceptions on power shows how the cultural
parameter of power distance may influence the appropriate leadership style (Hofstede &
Hofstede, 2005). It is argued that our understanding of a right or wrong use of power is
strongly influenced by the culture in which we grew up.
In a somewhat naïve understanding of servant leadership (Greenleaf, 1977), I used to give
talks titled “Leading without power”. It took me some time to understand the following
three facts about power:
 Power is more than formal power
 Power is not bad in itself
 One cannot lead without power
Defining leadership and power
Pragmatic sense inspired by Greenleaf (1977:15; 1998:31): A leader is a person whom
other persons follow; i.e. a person who dares to say “I will go, come with me” and where
people follow this call. A leader in this sense might be a boss in a typical workplace
hierarchy, a leader within an organization of volunteers, a teacher at a university, a
speaker or an author who has influenced people through his/her ideas, etc.
Power and Influence Theories
Power and influence are deeply ingrained in human consciousness and fundamental social
phenomena. Toffler argues that the human psyche is the product of power and that
fascination with power is the basis of politics. Organisational actors seek power to control
and determine the future of organisations, the outcomes of interpersonal conflicts, and
personal security perception in organisations. Theories of power and influence take an
entirely different approach to explain leadership from those previously discussed. Rather
than personality traits or environmental factors, these theories consider the various ways
that leaders use power and influence to achieve desired organisational outcomes. Mostly,
they examine the personal style of the leader. They include the full range leadership model
of transactional and transformational approaches to leadership and, by default, laissez-
faire leadership. This theory group includes the later developed theories of authentic
leadership and ethical leadership and the prior developed full-range leadership model by
Bass and Avolio includes three leadership styles, known as transactional, transformational,
and laissez-faire leadership.
The Role of Power
Underlying the concern for developing the role of followers in the leadership process is the
reality of power. Power plays a major p~ in the interactions occurring in organizational life
(see Pfeffer, 1981). It cannot be ignored if we hope to understand and improve the
functioning of organizations from within (Kanter, 1981; Mintzberg,1983). Power over
others is also especially intertwined with an understanding of leadership processes, with
regard both to its appropriateness and limitations (Hollander, 1985). Yet, despite the
relevance of power to organizations in general, and to an understanding of leadership in
particular, research studies of power and leadership are not well integrated. Also,
assumptions about power often remain unstated and untested. Like love, its importance
and existence are acknowledged, but its study is often resisted. And those with the most
power and influence in organizations have typically been most able to shield themselves
from study (Kipnis, 1976).
Sharing Power
One of the clearest bridges between the study of power and leadership in organizations has
been in the area of subordinate participation in decision making (PDM). Advocates of
PDM have theoretical roots in a human relations approach to management that stresses
social interaction and power equalization. Unfortunately, little agreement exists on a
definition of participation, and wide variations exist in its content, degree, scope, formality,
and on whether it should be mandatory or voluntary (Locke & Schweiger, 1979). To some
extent, however, all forms of participation embody the idea that employees should be
permitted or even encouraged to influence their working environment. Accordingly, a
continuum of employee influence can be offered ranging from no influence (autocratic
decisions) through various levels of opinion giving (consultative decisions) to truly joint
decision making (power sharing) (e.g., Tannenbaum & Schmidt, 1958).
Implementing participation by followers also may require skills a given leader does not
possess. Recent work by Crouch and Yetton (1987) has suggested that high performance
costs may be incurred by managers with poor conflict management skills who attempt to
bring subordinates together to resolve conflict. Alternatively, performance increments may
be associated with such meetings convened by leaders with good conflict management
skills. If participation by subordinates is to be encouraged, then organizations need to
consider ways in which managers can be trained in the skills required to implement
meaningful participation.
Barriers to Empowerment
In Vroom and Yetton's (1973) normative model of decision making in leadership, leaders
are urged to expand participation and delegation for individuals when (a) they lack the
information necessary to make decisions themselves and subordinates have enough
information to make high-quality decisions, (b) subordinates share the organization's goals,
and (c) subordinate acceptance and commitment are needed. Yet each of these components
requires an assessment by the leader that may be biased toward the leader's preferred
outcome, whether autocratic, participative, or something in between. Thus, autocratically
oriented leaders may be more inclined than participatively oriented leaders to feel that
their own information is sufficient, that subordinates lack information and commitment,
and that subordinate commitment is not needed or important for most decisions.
In fact, research has shown that leaders contemplating participation pay close attention to
how much information they have themselves and whether subordinates share the
organization's goals, involving others when they lack information and when others share
the goals, as the model suggests they should. Leaders are also more likely to underestimate
the need for subordinate commitment to the effective implementation of decisions, making
guidelines dealing with the importance of obtaining subordinate commitment the most
commonly violated provision of Vroom and Yetton's (1973; Vroom & Jago, 1988) model.
Furthermore, it would be difficult for subordinates ever to obtain enough information to
make quality decisions if leaders use their own information power in a way that deprives
subordinates of what they need to participate (see Mulder, 1971).
Power as a sociological process
“Power is the ability to influence the actions and the opinions of people and so causes
effects in affairs and people” (Zaaiman, 2007:374).
1. The essence of power relations
According to Russell (2004:4, 6) power is a core term in sociology. Max Weber’s
definition of power already indicates that power presupposes a social relationship.
Power is a social process between human beings or groups of human beings (Hentze et
al., 1997:389). Based on Koers’ idea to exercise power there have to be two actors,
either two persons or two parties: the powerful actor, indicated by P, and a subordinate
actor, indicated by S, and there must be a social relationship between both. For
example, a teacher living in South Africa and a student of an elementary school in
Germany usually would not have any social relationship. The South African teacher
thus cannot exercise any power over the German student.
The influence of leadership is not limited to borders and places, and people of a society
can be influenced by reading the texts related to that person. So the relationship
between power and subordinates changes from a direct face-to-face situation to an
indirect one. Today, with the existence of social media, this happens faster and
technology plays a huge role in this relationship.
2. The different bases of social power