Leadership: Strength vs. Power
As times change, the skills required to be
an effective leader change. In this age of corporate downsizing
and doing more with fewer resources, the job of being a leader
is different. The traditional leadership model of "power" has become less effective
and is now being replaced by a model of "strength."
One of the tools I use while coaching clients
is to look at "distinctions." Distinctions
are the differences between things; sometimes very subtle differences
between things that appear similar. For example, "power" and "strength" appear
similar and have often been used interchangeably when discussing
leadership. However, the distinction between strength and power
is what can make the difference between success and failure in
our new environment. The beauty of really "getting" a
distinction is that the actual understanding of the difference
between ideas gives us a new place to come from.
Let's look at the traditional meaning and connotation
of "power" as
it relates to leadership. Power typically suggests something that
is bestowed on you from the outside. For example: you are promoted,
or your boss puts you in charge of a task force. Power is frequently
tied to position: being a CEO, a manager, partner, judge, parent,
senator. The concept of power implies what you can do to other
people: hire and fire, limit the freedom of others. Power frequently
carries external symbols of itself: large office, big staff, preferential
parking or seating.
The leadership model of "strength" implies
something different. Strength is internal vs. external. Strength
is what you have inside, not what any outside agency promoted
you to. Strength is not dependent on any position: The concept
of strength implies not what you can do to others; but what you
can create from your own resources. Where power sometimes motivates
people through fear, strength leads people through inspiration.
Strength connotes charisma, attractiveness. People more naturally
follow a strong person. They are motivated to act by something
beyond that person's title.
For example, coming from power is: to tell your staff what you
want them to do and leave only minimal room for their comment.
Strength is: to throw out an idea to your staff and watch them
rally around the idea and plan the implementation themselves. Granted,
this takes more personal security. What will you do if they do
not rise to the occasion? Strength can handle that. Power dictates.
As we look at the current magnitude of change in the workplace,
it is clear that strength vs. power has several advantages for
those in leadership. Leaders can no longer depend on their positions
so heavily. Reorganization and downsizing strip executives of positional
power every day. Change is so frequent that the relative hierarchy
of jobs is also unclear. For example, managers today frequently
have multiple reporting lines. Who is really in power?
From a more personal view: managers and executives who have built
their identity around their jobs are experiencing a very rude awakening
when their roles are suddenly changed. We hear many stories of
professionals who have fallen into personal crisis after losing
a position they expected to have until retirement. They depended
too much on the power they were given. And even for managers who
survive a downsizing, they can remain employed but be stripped
of power, thereby forcing an unexpected shift in identity. There
is also the executive who worked up the pyramid for twenty years
to a key position. He may have built his power base by making connections
with those in power; but now the organization's culture has shifted
and some other variable is more valued than those relationships.
Another threat to what looked like permanent power.
By contrast, the concept of strength implies
the personal ability to withstand pressure, handle the stress
of change and continue. As change in the workplace continues
to accelerate, there will be new meaning to the adage: "only the strong survive." Leaders
who base their identity on their personal strength will be the
survivors.
When reorganizations happen, leaders are left
with the challenge of doing more work with less staff. Coming
from a place of "power" is
one way to make the staff work harder -- but this way is limited.
To increase productivity, we will need to tap into people's voluntary
effort as well as what they must do to remain employed. Over time,
it is strength that will inspire people to be more productive.
People respond to strength differently from
how they respond to power. People are attracted to a strong leader
with a vision when that vision includes benefits for all involved.
The leader who can create this picture and communicate it will
need a strong "personal
foundation," the ability to build rapport quickly with others
and a motivating style. This all comes from internal strength vs.
external power.
And how do leaders actually make this shift
from power to strength? There are several things one can do to
change behavior, but the most important shift is in "who you become." Shifting
to strength means becoming a person who is very secure in their
personal effectiveness, regardless of the job they are in. Shifting
to strength means becoming someone who successfully motivates others
to action without external leverage. Shifting to strength means
becoming someone so attractive that others want to join your vision
because it feels right to them. To shift to strength is to become
someone whose personal foundation is unable to be shaken by changing
circumstances.
It's all in the distinction: strength vs. power
