The fundamental theological reflections in section 3.1 were on
power in a broad sense (power to), regardless of whether other
people are involved or not. Since this article is on leadership, which
always involves other people, we will now focus on social power, i.e.
power involving other people. Thus we need a definition that covers
both aspects: power over other people and power to. Zaaiman's
proposed definition is suitable for our context: "Power is the ability ...
to influence the actions and the opinions of people and so causes
effects in affairs and people".
4.1 The essence of power relations
According to Russell power is a core term in sociology:
In the course of this book I shall be concerned to prove that the
fundamental concept in social science is Power, in the same
sense in which Energy is the fundamental concept in physics.
Like energy, power has many forms ...
The laws of social dynamics are – so shall I contend – only
capable of being stated in terms of power in its various forms.
Max Weber's definition of power already indicates that power pre-supposes a social relationship. Power is a social process between
human beings or groups of human beings.
In order 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 rela-
tionship 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.
Figure 1: Power relationship between the powerful P and the
subordinate S
Power relations are asymmetric: the bold line in Figure 1 shows that
P has power over S. The subordinate S has, at least, some power,
indicated by the dotted line. Sometimes S's power is merely the
power to withdraw from P's area of influence either by terminating
the work contract, seceding from church, fleeing or in extreme
situations by committing suicide, as the Zealots did in Masada 73 AD
during the Jewish-Roman war. They preferred to die as free
persons. The conclusion that can be drawn from this extreme
example is that P has power over S only if S allows it. There is no
leadership if nobody follows. Even in the case of brute force S has a
choice, namely to follow P or to give up his/her own life. Sub-
ordination means that S allows P to exercise power over him/her.
It needs to be emphasised that the subordinate S also has power.
Many people feel powerless although they are not without power.
They try to abdicate responsibility by complaining, "I cannot change
it". They keep on complaining about their boss and/or their church
elders for years and years. These people do not notice that they
have a choice. They could, for example, terminate the work contract.
They may have good reasons for not doing so, for example because
they have an obligation to feed their family. But then it is their
decision not to leave. They choose to stay.
4.2 The different bases of social power
Social power can be exercised in many different ways. Russell listed three: "A. By direct physical power over his body ...;
B. By rewards or punishments as inducements; C. By influence on
opinion".
In 1959, French and Raven published an essay listing five different
bases of power. By basis of power they meant the relationship between P and S, which is the source of the power.
These five bases of P's power are:
(a) reward power, based on S's perception that P has the ability
to mediate rewards for him;
(b) coercive power, based on S's perception that P has the
ability to mediate punishments for him;
(c) legitimate power, based on the perception by S that P has a
legitimate right to prescribe behavior for him;
(d) referent power, based on S's identification with P;
(e) expert power, based on the perception that P has some
special knowledge or expertness.
These definitions indicate that it is irrelevant whether P really is able
to mediate rewards/punishments or whether P has a legitimate right
or expert knowledge. It is only relevant whether S assumes this,
rightly or wrongly.
Many authors built on this essay by French and Raven and intro-
duced further bases of power. In Table 1, I follow French and Raven but I split up the referent power into two different power bases. These seven power bases are
classified into four groups, and ordered along a continuum between
"positional power" and "personal power". Positional power is
connected to the position a person holds whereas personal power
depends on the traits or qualities of a person. The power base no. 1
refers to a pure positional power, and the power bases no. 6 and 7
are pure personal power, whereas the power bases no. 2-5 are a
mixture of the two.
Table 1: Taxonomy of seven power bases
| Groups |
Power Bases |
|
| Formal power |
1. Power by legitimation |
More
positional
|
| Power by sanctions |
2. Power by punishment
|
| 3. Power by rewards |
| Informational power |
4. Power by information control
|
| 5. Power by expert knowledge |
More
personal
|
| Power by identification |
6. Power by relations |
| 7. Power by charisma |
A policeman, for example, exercises power by legitimation. So might
a boss within an organisational hierarchy. It represents a pure form
of positional power. There are certain rules/norms identifying the
power of an office holder. If a leader in an organisation refers too
often to his/her formal power he/she is probably lacking personal
authority. But in some contexts, especially in conflict situations, it
may be helpful and necessary to refer to one's formal authority.
Paul, for example, referred to his formal authority as an apostle in
the conflict situations in Corinth (1 Cor. 1:1; 9:1; 2 Cor. 1:1; 11:5)
and in Galatia (Gal. 1:1).
In the case of power by sanctions, we have to distinguish between
whether a person can mediate punishments and/or rewards. In working relations the boss usually has both options. He/she can in-
crease the salary of a subordinate or terminate the contract; he/she
can send the subordinate to a bigger, more beautiful office or to a
smaller, noisier office. This is also known as the "stick and carrot"
method.
In some instances there is, however, only one form of sanction
applicable. Many charity organisations rely on voluntary helpers who
are not paid for their work. Usually there is no way of punishing
voluntary helpers, but they can be rewarded – for example with a
silver medal for 25 years of voluntary work. On the other hand, traffic
police regulating the traffic usually wield power through punishments
only, not through rewards.
At first glance "power by rewards" looks more benign and more
positive than "power by punishment". Most of us would prefer to
praise somebody rather than punishing him/her. However, in some
contexts "power through punishment" actually makes more sense. In
a scenario "power through reward" P becomes active each time
when S behaves as P wishes. In a scenario "power through punish-
ment" P needs only to become active when S does not behave
according to P's will. This is the case with traffic regulation. If some-
body drives too fast or parks wrongly she/he will be punished.
Whereas nobody will be rewarded by the police for driving at the
right speed or parking correctly. Power through reward would in-
crease the working load of the police tremendously. Thus, in this
context it is much more effective to use "power by punishment".
The strongest punishment the church has is expulsion from the con-
gregation, which the church members – depending on the church
doctrine they espouse – may perceive as leading to eternal damna-
tion. In his analysis of the priestly power of the Catholic Church,
Russell (2004:41-54) points out that the medieval popes held a
powerful sanction. With reference to Matthew 16:19 they claimed to
have the "keys of the kingdom of heaven". Obviously, there were
many people before Martin Luther dissatisfied with the behaviour of
the popes, but the keys of the kingdom of heaven provided an
effective way of crushing opposition, because people feared losing
the permission to enter into heaven. The situation changed with
Luther's theology of justification:
Since the power of the Church had been based upon the power
of the keys, it was natural that opposition should be associated
with a new doctrine of justification. Luther's theology made it
possible for lay princes to despoil the Church without fear of
damnation ... (Russell, 2004:51).
An interesting interpretation on the power play during the Reformation by an atheistic philosopher.
Informational power can be exercised in two different ways: either
through control of information or through expert power. "Power by in-
formation control" is usually largely connected to the position some-
body holds, such as the power of a CEO who has access to special
sources of information, whereas "expert power" is related more to
the person who has become an expert in a certain field and who will
retain this expertise even if he leaves the position. The immense
power of the mass media today relies on "power by information
control". The mass media decide what news will, or will not, be avail-
able to the public and what will be not.
As mentioned above, expert power is more of a personal power than
a positional power. It is, however, not a pure personal power. People
believe in their medical doctors not only because of their expertise,
but also because of their position. The power base "expert power" is
a good example for the fact that the subordinate S voluntarily
decides whom he allows exercising power over him. If S is no longer
convinced about P's expertise, he/she will probably look for another
expert. It is also clear that expert power is always restricted to a certain arena. I trust in the expertise of the car mechanic in respect of
my car, but I will not give him any expert power in respect of
planning my future.
Power by identification takes place when S identifies with P. S
follows P not because he/she is forced to, but because S believes in
P as a person. This trust may have grown during a long-standing
relationship. This is what is meant by "power by relation". It is based
on loyalty and friendship. There are also so-called "charismatic leaders" in terms of Weber's definition of charismatic leadership. People follow charismatic leaders because
they are attracted by their charisma and/or by their message even if
they have not known them for long. The former South African
president, Nelson Mandela, is obviously an example of a charismatic
leader. The former German chancellor, Helmut Kohl, was not a
gifted speaker and he was not perceived as a charismatic leader at
all. But Kohl was very good in building loyal relations with other
politicians like George Bush (USA) and Mikhail Gorbachev (USSR).
These trust relations enabled Kohl to enforce the German
reunification in 1990/1991.
Often Christian leaders want to become charismatic leaders. How-
ever, if a leader without any charisma (in Weber's definition of the
word) tries to exercise "power through charisma" she/he will never
succeed. If a non-charismatic leader wants to exercise power
through identification he has to focus on building strong relations
and thus increase his power base of "relational power".
These seven power bases are basic forms. In reality, power is often
exercised through a combination of several power bases. For exam-
ple, Pope John Paul II had legitimate power over the Catholic people
just because he was the Pope. This formal power base was
strengthened through his personal charisma, and through his charis-
ma he also influenced people outside of the Roman Catholic
Church. Thus, a leader may use several power bases simultaneously.
The effectiveness of power bases may change while culture
changes. For example, in the early 1960s Germans had a great deal
of respect for formal power. This has changed since then. For some
decades there has been a steady shift from monolithic, hierarchically
structured organisations to networks of small, flexible organisations.
Today, big companies tend to outsource more and more services to
new small companies. They still work together on a long-standing
basis, but the smaller company is no longer subordinate to the big
company, at least not in a formal way. The relationship has to be
negotiated through mutually agreed upon contracts. Thus networks
of trust are increasingly replacing hierarchies of command. Trust is
becoming the crucial issue (Covey et al., 2006). As a consequence,
personal authority (power through expertise, relationships, charisma) becomes more important than positional, formal authority.
This sociological shift from positional power to personal power
explains some conflicts arising in many of today's western Christian
churches. Today's church leaders (55+) grew up with a high respect
for positional authority. When they were young they would never
have dared to question their church leaders. Today the youth do not
have these inhibitions. They put critical questions to church leaders
because they believe that authority does not rely on position, but on
personal competence. The older generation perceives this behaviour to be disrespectful of an office installed by God. On the other
hand, the younger generation feels alienated because church
leaders do not always respond to critical questions, and these
feelings might lead them to suspect that power is being abused.
These examples of the different power bases should demonstrate
that there is legitimate place for each power base. Each power base
can be misused, but none of the seven power bases is unethical per
se. As a Christian leader I have to reflect: Which power base can I
use in a specific situation? Which kind of power fits both the context
and my personality?