Strength, power, leadership and authority

Close but distinct words and in the corporate world the distinction is really relevant.

Force is physical capacity to change the state of rest or uniform motion of a material body. In practice, it is coercion. To prevent drivers to run, build a speed bump. To force someone to do something, you aim a weapon.

Power is hierarchy. The foundation is clear: ranks. The Chief, the Superior. The corporate structure ensures this maintenance, the "M structure" - the famous inverted tree of charts. Do not aim a gun, but you can dismiss, transfer, prevent a promotion, choose another one.

Leadership is the ability to influence. It depends on charisma, which is the power to charm, to seduce, that makes a person wake up a instant approval and sympathy of the masses. Leadership is often valued in corporations, but this is not necessarily a good thing.

That who looks into the twentieth century, sees a fair amount of leaders who brought serious problems precisely because of their ability to influence people, by his charisma. Gandhi was a leader, but Hitler and Stalin were also. Therefore, leadership should not necessarily be seen as a desirable attribute, on the contrary, we should have special attention to charismatic individuals - they may induce people to undesirable actions.

Finally, there is authority. That's a desirable attribute in the enterprise. Authority is moral, comes from the example. People will do what we want or what we demand because they see us as a model. An employee will work better because he sees his boss working well, will arrive on time because he notices his boss allways on time.

Authority does not follow the hierarchy. Officials of lower rank may have superior influence over the team than the top of the head. When those in power also hold the authority, the team will certainly be well conducted and the working environment will certainly be of better quality.
I like administration a lot