Authorities

Within human society a number of hierarchical levels developed. Founded on the core functions there were always individuals who would become leaders of the army, in the God celebrating services; Churches, monastic establishments or centers of excellence for further learning activities. There have always been several basic pillars of human society. Some people were determined to protect the others against the enemies, other people took care of the wounds, injuries and illnesses. Another group of people would share the teachings of the old legends, stories and “talked” wisdom.

Over the following centuries the original structure transformed into the several types of government, dictatorships, monarchies or traditional tribe-orientated republics. Even in the corporate world these styles can be easily recognized. Companies and business organizations have at least three activity-based streams – the hunters (salesmen) who are responsible for generating the customers, the medicine men (service supplies staff responsible for fulfilling the various needs) and “wisdom – keepers” who are preparing and testing the products and services before their launch to the market.

The today's business reality is far more complex and complicated than the plain description above. We may see the predictors analyse the various trends, we may see the evangelists promoting the replacement of the old features to their newest versions and we may see the gate – keepers securing the stability of the internal processes. All these roles are assigned to the men and women qualified and motivated to do these jobs. Companies are structured by different organizational models which may vary by size, region or type of business. But the most important is the authority aspect of the managers who are having the direct responsibilities for the use of financial, material and human resources.

The authority depends on the way how each person behaves in the communication with the others, this can be passive or aggressive in style. The power of the leaders also depends on the way how these leaders communicate with their subordinates. The use of logic may be difficult sometimes, the use of examples may be distressful so each manager or leader should concentrate in the use of the spoken word, keeping the dialogue simple and plain so it is easy to understand and repeat to others.

This is the fundamental, but most powerful way how to share your own ideas to help inspire and motivate other members of the team or organization. For this reason the managers should be comprehensible so that their speech is straight forward and easy to interpret the easy key messages. The level of loyalty and support from the side of the subordinates often depends on the mutual understanding between the leader and his/her team. This mutual understanding forms the basic roots of authority and allows it to grow with trust and agreement. The use of authority doesn’t mean to use the power because some one likes it but because it allows others to understand the reasons why the power should be used.

What are the possible scenarios? The first example is the situation when the individual understands the aims and goals of the manager while full unity exists between them. The other example is when the individual partly respects the leader’s vision but only visible evidence may be available. The third example is the individual doesn’t understand the manager’s aims and sees that no support exists, no evidence is available and so no coordination is offered because some action steps couldn’t be precisely described in the work environments this could include working instructions or manuals of actions.

In other words it is an important part of the control that the leader can provoke and use the individual interests, skills or professional vigilance to contribute to the overall path of the success. People should like to co-operate with the authoritarian leader. If they are forced to do so then just minimum of all possible outcomes may be delivered. Good leaders should be visible, compassionate, knowledgable and approachable.

This is the reason why the “open door” policy works and is frequently used in many companies.

Authority as a general must be seen in front of the audience. Napoleon, Hitler or Martin Luther King knew this and used it to great effect. Therefore, their personal examples have been so inspiring for others.

One characteristics of the communist regimes in Eastern Europe was a huge barrier between the communist leaders and their nations. Their power was based on the repressions, secret police forces and top-down approach. It was nearly impossible to meet the communist leaders on the streets, during the various ceremonies they were physically present but in the distance from the marching crowds below them. Their authority was based on the fear, evil and unbreakable paragraphs in the constitution. Every year the top prominent leaders made their assumptions how the communist society will move forward but there were just empty words. There were no human connections between the communist leaders and their nations. For most of their nations they were just puppets on the screens because the real leaders representing the authority were elsewhere.

One of the visible aspects of the new post-communist leadership was their vocabulary, communication and skills to present their visions, plans and aims in the most understandable way. The dominance of these “new” leaders depended on their activity, a good visual look and they were not afraid to present on national TV during many different situations. Their authority was based also on the fact they served as examples which people were confronted with and liked to be seen like “them”.

Authority depends on many things such as honesty, inspiration, knowing the targets and the way how the managers treat their fellow team as collaborators and not as slaves or ‘numbers’. A lot of disrespect started in these situations when the people felt the distance, the false communication, the unfair treatment or the pretending that something else other than the people wanted to hear or be listened to. This disrespect of course is also the true opposite of what the leaders wants to achieve. In such a situation the leaders should want to change the attitude, the communication style or anything else that may bring back the interest of their communities.

Napoleon, Hitler or Churchill were in their best moments when the ordinary people trusted then and wanted to follow them not because they were afraid of them but because they liked them.

All future new leaders will need to be transparent in their values and armed with open communication skills it will be important because people like to be confronted with the human element. If people can talk, listen or debate it’s all for a healthy cause.  In case the many organizational layers are between the originators of the message and their recipients than the authority may fall or be compromised.

This is something the authoritarian leaders should avoid at all costs to ensure a successful outcome.