Leadership requires authority

Flat hierarchies and the team capability of the boss - these are typical demands on modern leadership culture. The role of superiors has undoubtedly changed, and traditional leadership behavior must be reconsidered. But one thing remains: the necessity of authority, without which leadership is not possible. Leadership may take place respectfully and on an equal footing, but it excludes equality. Leadership is not a partnership, because in a partnership all parties are equal, they have the same decision-making power and share the same level of responsibility. Leaders who try to act in a partnership manner come across as ingratiating. Employees usually respond to such behavior with disdain. There is a real and tangible power imbalance between leaders and the led. Those who want to lead must acknowledge, affirm, and know how to utilize this imbalance. This is the prerequisite for exuding authority and being respected by employees. Authority is incompatible with authoritarian behavior But what exactly is authority? There is a conceptual confusion here because those who possess authority do not behave authoritarian! The dictionary equates "authoritarian" with "totalitarian, dictatorial, demanding unconditional obedience." Such behavior would contradict our current societal values. Authority, on the other hand, stems from a strong personality that exudes dignity and commands respect. Such a person does not need to assert themselves with all their might and every means available. Instead, they have influence, and people allow themselves to be led by them because they trust them. In simple terms, authoritarian leaders lead through their positional power. For example, they may threaten, issue warnings, grant perks, etc., to influence their employees' behavior. Leaders with authority, on the other hand, do not need these means to control their employees' behavior. Because they are taken seriously as individuals, and their words carry weight. Therefore, leaders with authority rely much less on their positional power to make themselves heard and potentially prevail. Their personality is their most important leadership tool. Positional power does not sustain Leadership with natural authority is far more effective than positional power. Because authority that emanates from the individual uses trust and respect as the basis for collaboration. Positional power, on the other hand, operates through reward and punishment. Essentially, it is a form of training: good behavior is rewarded, disobedience is punished. Leaders who rely on their positional power often overlook the costs: Even if employees seem to comply, it does not mean they have been won over and convinced. On the contrary, if superiors use their positional power too casually, they create unintended effects. Employees who feel forced into a certain work behavior respond in the long term with resistance, escape, or resignation. Resistance is usually expressed in covert rebellion, pay-off reactions, and sometimes open provocation. They retaliate against the superior in one way or another. Alternatively, employees may simply withdraw: they call in sick more often, they mentally resign, or they actually resign. Some turn to substances or fantasy worlds. Others resign because they feel helpless against authoritarian leadership. Consequently, they cease all self-initiative and become lifeless puppets until the end of the workday. All of these reactions are immediate consequences of an authoritarian leadership style. Furthermore, authoritarian leadership always rests on two pillars: the dependence and fear of the employees. Such a leadership style is simply undignified for both parties. Therefore, I advocate for natural authority as the foundation of leadership. Without it, there is no trust between leaders and the led, no reliability, and no security. Thus, no joy in work. For more information on the topic of authority in relation to leadership, click here: http://www.trainers-excellence.de/redner/marion-lemper-pychlau.html