Different social structures have ruled the world through history. In this analysis Phin Upham reviews some of the most seminal theories on authority – is the basis for power charisma, bureaucracy or tradition?
Max Weber, one of sociology’s seminal figures, borrowed extensively from great thinkers of the past, the histories of civilizations, jurisprudence, the arts, psychology and philosophy, etc. Out of this cloth, he fashioned a radically new set of guiding principles, a new view of the world, an explanatory model of human progression and civilization based on rationalism and a unique view of causality.
Weber’s does more than simply describe the world, in Economy and Society (E&S), and often in his other works, he parses it into its logical constituents. Most famously, he differentiates between the three forms of legitimate domination Rational (legal) grounds, Traditional grounds, and Charismatic grounds. He continues this subtle differentiation by constructing “ideal types” which at first glance seem similar to the questionable concept of Platonic forms at first glance but turn out to be very different. While ideal forms are the TRUE underlying nature of things in the world (and ideas), Weberian Ideal Forms can be better thought of as useful characterizations of types for research or pragmatic purposes. The logic here is not transcendental, but rather thoroughly pragmatic. There is a typical course of action, a structure to certain aspects of human organization and ideas. Weber’s delineation of the three ideal types of authority, rational legal authority, traditional authority, and charismatic authority serve as superlative example of this method. The useful aspect of authority (from a societal point of view are its ability to provide imperative coordination, defined as “the probability that certain specific commands (or all commands) from a given source will be obeyed by a given group of persons.” An authority relationship, thus, is based on the willingness of a subordinate to suspend individual critical judgment and voluntarily accept the judgment of another. Weber identifies three sorts of ideal types for legitimate authority.
The first type is the rational/legal sort of leadership authority which is supported by a legal/official system which has been rationalized and where there is a general acceptance of the legitimacy (or at least legality) of the normative rules or commands. Weber believes that bureaucratic administrations are a result of this sort of authority and that the monocratic type of bureaucracy is the most efficient and therefore the most rational for controlling human action. The system is based on superior technical knowledge at the top, which is used to rationalize and organize those underneath in the bureaucracy. So this type of authority is based on obedience that is given to the legally established impersonal order. In effect, individuals in this system recognize that they cannot know or do not know how they fit into the bigger picture and thus cede control over those they believe have either superior knowledge or perspective.
The second sort of ideal type of authority is the traditional (i.e. familial, military) type of authority. In this type of authority, in which power is often, historically, based on a hereditary monarchy, leadership is historically based or based on some sort of tradition. Weber described three sorts of traditional authority gerontocracy (group of elders), patriarchal (defined by inheritance), and partimonial (absolute authority, slaves, military, fiefdoms). This sort of authority is to based on the loyalty to a chief or specific ruling body (rather than the “office” as in rational authority) and so is not based on impersonal obligation, making Weber conclude that it is less efficient (the ruler can be arbitrary, his decisions are not based rationally). This sort of system, Weber says, has no formal rules, it is circular, irrational, and based on ingrained habituation. Further, traditional authority is ultimately one in which people believe in an order or justified rank of who ruled whom, and this order is reinforces by social rules and ingrained habit. Thus, traditional authority has no basis which is grounded in any one principle or any underlying logic or goal.
Charismatic authority (i.e. religious, political) is authority in which the basis for power of the leader is on some genuine sense of calling which the followers submit due to either their belief in the rulers exemplary character or purpose. Charisma can be an amazingly powerful force and is the greatest revolutionary force for Weber. Leaders are ascribed awesome power and authority by their followers, though if the leader’s charisma fails them for long, the charismatic authority will likely disappear. Leaders having charismatic authority can be secular or religions or political. Charismatic authority is not based on any preexistingly legitimizing grounds or any objectively rational or economic grounds (as the previous types of authority are) but on personal loyalty and inspiration. It is both potentially the most binding type of authority and also the most unstable (potentially).
Weber’s ideal type is an effort to escape the German Geisteswissenschaft and historicism which is individualizing and particularizing. It is not an attempt to capture all elements and nuances of authority but you serve an investigator as a measuring rod to find similarities and deviations in a concrete case. “an ideal type is formed by the one-sided accentuation of one or more points of view and by the synthesis of a great many diffuse discrete, more or less present and occasionally absent concrete individual phenomena, which are arranges according to a one-sidedly emphasized viewpoints into a unified analytical construct.” The three ideal types of authority are not necessarily unrelated. In fact, Weber suggests that charismatic leadership can, once the charismatic leader dies, be the basis of a traditional regime. And a traditional regime, if rationalized, can be the basis for the organization of a rational bureaucracy. This functions on both a national and a firm level. This process of routinizing is an important one.
Incentives to help encourage motivation is an important tool for a bureaucratic regime. How does one get a subordinate to act and what does one do to encourage this action? Motivation in each of the three areas is unique and, as always, often difficult. Human nature, being constant, of course, allows us to say that such things as personal ambition, money, fame, power, and tradition will play a rile in any authority type. They are too powerful and too intrinsic to human nature not to affect every complex relationship. Weber’s ideal types, though, allow us to think about which sorts of motivations are more effective in which sort of situation, and thus each type takes these concepts internalizes them and portrays them uniquely in that system. In a rational firm, where emotions of love, hate, etc. are discourages and the depersonalization and systematization of the subordinate is often pursued, employees are motivated by two primary things: 1) reward – money, perks, and anything that the employee instrumentally desires are one way to reward behavior and incentivize an employee. To enter a firm, one must offer the employee some generally agreed upon (from a societal point of view) desirable things such as money, perks, or the like. Once the employee becomes acculturated to the firm and has spend time there, incentives such as a bigger office (than others have) or job assignments, which have little objective value but in this context subjective value) are used effectively as well. 2) power and authority. People desire to be, as Weber put it, “each man becomes a cog in the machine and, aware of this, his one preoccupation is whether he can become a bigger cog.” So position and power are also incentives in a rational system. One could argue that these are only valued as MEANS to get the first sort of good (material goods, etc) but I think social place and prestige is an intrinsically motivating goal for a human being and is desired for its own sake (however useless and meaningless it appears from some perspectives). A rational ideal type authority cannot call upon personal loyalty or love as a source of motivation. Most modern bureaucracies are rational institutions, and, in fact, the modern world can be seen largely a rationalization of the old. It is important to note, though, that rational authority can take many forms and thus the specific way our society is organized is neither intrinsic nor necessary either historically nor in terms of type (rational authority). Dore illustrated this in his cross cultural description of the Japanese system. As always, any type of authority in a firm is embedded in a society, tradition and culture (as well as coincidental factors) that cause it to turn out the way it does.
In a traditional authority, the authority can incentivize its employees/members largely through a combination of the above described means and also by appealing to their sense of obligation and duty. A traditional authority has some “irrational” sources of authority based on its lineage or its position in society and thus can call upon both rational (instrumental) and irrational sources of obedience (while the rational authority can only call upon instrumentally rational sources). A traditional authority might use guilt (in the form of obligation) or call upon its “right” to demand work. Its power to actually compel this action is often greater than a rational authority, so it can back up its “moral” claims with violence or coercion. Thus 1) duty/obligation/tradition/position 2) force 3) rational tools can be seen as the primary source of traditional authority. In a complex way, tradition is also self-reinforcing. If a traditional authority enforces through might some action for some number of years, and publicizes that this is its right, it might be able to convince its subordinates that this is part of its traditional and just authority. IN a firm, in traditional authority is probably more limited (in the modern era). A family run business such as Hershey might be a good example This company, long a family run business which acted as a munificent community force and drew the best of the local community into its ranks where then contentedly made their careers. Recently, the company has tried to rationalize its business practice, hiring an outside CEO and cutting employees and salaries. A strike is currently on. Traditional business authority in the way Weber meant it is not so prevalent anymore, but, if I may, a form of this is still in place nestled into the largely rational landscape. Some sort of class elite, or school elite has formed in America which has as its basis some traditional legitimacy.
A charismatic authority works to incentives and motivate its people largely through its charisma and personal loyalty – through personal relationships and personal obligation. This is often intermixed with the belief in a cause and the commitment to fulfill this with the charismatic authority (which is the representative of that cause) showing the way. Osama bin Laden is an unfortunate example of the ability of a charismatic leader to incentivise his/her followers to do extraordinary motivated, extreme, and (in this case) evil actions. The Roman slave Spartacus was a more positive example of this type of authority. In some respects, charismatic authority can motivate in a way more extreme and with less reservation than other systems.
Teamwork and employee involvement can be an effective way to incentivize and motivate as well. Some of the crucial elements in this sort of motivation have been discussed above. It seems that, as a type, rational systems would be the most effective. This seems true because, since rational authority is based on comparative incentives and relative status (“bigger cog”) if employees are placed together, they will have an incentive to both do a good job (through teamwork) and also to compete amongst themselves in a sort of red queen strategy to be the best, hardest worker, most committed. This is especially true of teamwork for a rational system.
Employee involvement, though, would also be a powerful tool for a traditional authority since it is necessary for a traditional authority to make the employees feel like a part of the system (hence their obligations to it). So employee involvement in a traditional enterprise would be a powerful tool to increase the identification of the employees to the form and thus to increase their sense of obligation to that system. An employee who feels like the system is not only right and traditional but also feels like they were instrumental in maintaining and forming the system will be very dedicated. There are o greater patriots, no more motivated patriots, for example, than founders. Charismatic leadership, since all ties are directly back to the leader, might use teamwork to reinforce the feelings of its employees and to provide a reference set of like-minded people. But this is more instrumental than a part of the ideal type as described by Weber.
This last point about the nature of teamwork in charismatic authority brings up nicely the point of culture in charismatic authority. Culture is actual element in charismatic authority because charismatic authority is often a world-view which is reinforces by those around the follower. Charismatic firms and groups often stick very close together as a means of reinforcing and psychologically justifying both their own correctness, superiority, or understanding and also because they are often seen as crazy or overly committed to outsiders. A mutually reinforcing, enclosed, and active culture is crucial for the sort of world-view and dedication that charismatic authority often implies. Charismatic firms are often seen as “cult like” such as trilogy in Texas, which has a charismatic CEO. They also use this strong culture to bring in new recruits and indoctrinate, inculturate, and reshape them to their world view (their loyalty to the leader and the leaders ideas). So this strong culture is as much about preaching to the converted, converting new members, and protecting their ideas from outside moderation, as anything else. Furthermore, since a charismatic authority structure is often focused around an individual, there is a very easy and very specific locus around which the organization can draw and create a culture. In other authority forms the core for culture is less tight.
Culture for the rational-legal type of authority was underestimated by Weber. He sees rational authority as “depersonalizing” “[the calculability of decision making] and with it its appropriateness to capitalism… [is] the more fully realized the more bureaucracy “depersonalizes” itself, i.e. the more completely it succeeds in achieving the exclusion of love, hatred, and every purely personal, especially irrational and incalculable feeling from the execution of the official tasks… the emotionally detached and hence rigorously “professional” expert.” Weber, as implied above, saw the “softer” side of rational authority – culture, company loyalty, etc – as no a part of the pure type, or at least not a large part. One major criticism if his is that he underestimated the importance of culture, interaction, emotion, loyalty, fun and interest in rational authority. Man cannot be, as Weber’s view of rational authority sometimes makes them sound, a rational machine pursuing only rationally prescribed and fully rational goals. Thus, I think, culture plays a larger role in motivating and creating the conditions for rational authority than Weber described (this might have been a result of his abstraction to reach an “ideal type”).
Weber described three sorts of bases for authority, and applied this to three sorts of models for the business firm – the charismatic form of authority/firm, the traditional forms of authority/firm, and the rational for of authority/firm. Each responds differently, and differently employees incentives, teamwork, employee involvement, and culture. But by studying these forms, both in firms and in society, we can better understand ourselves, our roles in society and a firm, and our own natures.
Readings:
Randall Collins, Four Sociological Traditions, Chapter 1: The Conflict Tradition.
Max Weber, Economy and Society (Berkeley: University of California Press, [1922] 1978): Types of legitimate domination (pp.212-254); Status groups and classes (pp. 302-307); Class, status, and party (pp. 926-940); Bureaucracy (pp.956-1005).
Randall Collins, “The Weberian Causal Chain” (one-page figure), in Mark Granovetter and Richard Swedberg, eds., The Sociology of Economic Life (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1992), p. 92.
Georg Simmel, The Sociology of Georg Simmel (New York: Free Press, 1950), pp. 87-104, 118-169.
Mauro F. Guillén, The Comparative Approach to Economic Sociology, Chapter 2.
Phin Upham has a PhD in Applied Economics from the Wharton School (University of Pennsylvania). Phin Upham is a Term Member of the Council on Foreign Relations. He can be reached at phin@phinupham.com.
Leave Your Comments