The Other Side of Leadership: Moving from Authoritarian to Authentic
Robert Palmer, PhD
The difference between influence and authority is significant yet clandestine. It’s a difference of intention. Influence is based on authenticity, while compliance is based on authoritarianism. Deep down in the heart of the authoritarian leader is the realization that they don’t have what they need to influence people. Something is missing inside them because they aren’t succeeding like they thought or hoped they would. Often, leaders who lack influence double down on their authority. Authoritarians deny their responsibility and ignore accountability, which is a leader’s most destructive choice. The abuse of authority usually indicates that a leader can’t influence themselves or others to the necessary performance levels to achieve success.
The reckless use of authority is destructive, painful, wasteful, and unnecessary. Instead of expressing humility and learning to bear responsibility and be accountable, they have skipped the learning process, and in their arrogance, they exercise more authority than they have. They say things like, “I’m the leader,” “I’m in charge,” and “It’s my name on the building!” Authoritarian leaders have one thing that gives them away—they tell people what to do. They are the lid over the imagination and innovation of their people’s performance. Authoritarian leaders limit their people by limiting their capacity and capability to function fully. Authoritarian leaders sustain dysfunctional leadership (i.e., influence) rather than reinforcing the full functioning of themselves and their people.
Based on the premise of the leader and leadership dynamic (i.e., influence vs. authority), the true path to being influential is to be a Centered Leader. Deep down in the heart of the Centered Leader is the realization that they don’t have what they need to lead people in every situation. They choose to be humble, realizing they need to improve and help their people improve, and that is the single most enhancing choice a person makes as a leader. Influence is premised on two types of functioning: 1). intrafunctioning, and 2). interfunctioning. Centeredness manifests from aligning the inner self with the outer self, allowing one’s authenticity to emerge as a significant influencer that empowers oneself and others to be fully functional. Bennis (1989) conveyed that becoming a leader is the same as becoming an integrated human being.
The function of leadership is the most persuasive power in the world, specifically in organizations where that power impacts the quality of life of every individual working at the organization. Leaders impact society at the local, regional, national, and global levels. Today, organizational leaders make large amounts of money, leverage more power, and pull more clout than ever. Nevertheless, leaders fail their organizations, people, and society. The other side of leadership is a transformation to centeredness.
Reference:
Bennis, W. (1989). “Managing the Dream: Leadership in the 21st Century”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 6-10. https://doi.org/10.1108/09534818910134040.