A leader has five sources of power, and each has its place. Using power wrongly often means that leader’s lose their influence (and then their followers). How should the balance be struck?

How often do you tell, and when do you sell? A leader with authority has the option to do both, but each is a path with widely different consequences.

When we tell (instruct using Positional Power), we give an instruction that must be followed without question (God damn it!) Followers are not consulted, but specifically directed without giving them their own opinion on how to achieve the desired outcome. The advantage of this path is that the desired outcome tends to happen quickly. The downside of this tactic is that it often undermines followers and disengenders them. What often follows, a little later, is a reduction in respect and loyalty.

When we sell (persuade using Personal Power), however, we give followers a choice. They’re not required to achieve an outcome in the manner we suggest, but make their own mind up. The advantage of this path is that the relationship between leader and follower is enhanced – trust and respect grows. Followers gain a learning experience. The downside of this tactic is that it often takes too long for the desired outcome to realize, and sometimes the result is total failure.

It’s a fine line to tread – a leader must use either tactic. It requires experience, judgment and insight. I believe there is a rule of thumb to employ which can guide us in which path to take:

If a leader’s assessment of followers is such that followers are not motivated enough to achieve the desired outcome by themselves, they must TELL (instruct). If followers are motivated to achieve the result off their own bat, then they must SELL (persuade).

In a nutshell, to make the best decision on what basis of power to employ, we must assess if the short-term goal is more important than a dip in our followers’ confidence and motivation, and our own position of influence. Using Personal Power generally had the most sustainable leadership outcome.

Need to know more?

Check out this great paper available on HBS Working Knowledge – Authority versus Persuasion.

©2012 SimonStapleton.com. All Rights Reserved.

A Leader isn’t a Leader without Followers. This is convention, but do you know what type of Follower you are, and what type of Followers do you have as a Leader?

Take a look at this HBS Working Knowledge article which discusses the various categories of Follower – although it’s important to understand that a Follower’s behavior is specific to a single Leader. The article describes how a group following a leader are becoming more organized, and that their influence is increasing whilst the power and influence of the Leader is reducing.

This got me thinking about the impact of Web 2.0 and social networking. Take Facebook as an example. Groups are forming around brands such as Coca-Cola, external to the control of these entities themselves. The group organization is creating knowledge and awareness amongst what are their Followers, which in turn becomes power over the brand. Once the group reaches a critical mass, they begin to shape the future of the brand.

Can this translate into the corporate environment? I think it’s an interesting question. Particularly when you read about corporations considering bringing the power of tools like Facebook within their corporate boundaries. Will collaboration tools begin to create new socialist organizations?

To go back to the title question, and bringing in the HBS Working Knowledge article again, I think the future of employee power will depend on the culture of the organization insofar as whether it encourages or tolerates activists or diehards. Both of these types of followers will create the spectrum of influence that social networking inside the organization enables. I.e. if your organization is heavy on activists, then the power of Followers will be a force for what the workforce desires – your organization will become a co-operation. If your organization is heavy on diehards, then the power of Followers will embed your company values to unprecedented heights.

I think the key difference between consumer-oriented, external social networking around a brand and the internal version is that organizational policies will come into force. Business Leaders must understand the implications I describe above to be one step ahead of the worforce’s power-base. Rules and policies will be applied to the content. IT systems will be sophisticated enough to flag to Human Resources any groundswell of anti-corporate activities. If they don’t chaos could ensue.

Therefore, I think IT will be much more involved in the management of HR systems. I also think we might see a momentary definition of the new-world employee as Employee2.0

What I’ve written here are fresh thoughts and a fresh perspective I’d like to explore further, so I welcome your comments.

Update: There is a great article on mashable.com that discusses this subject

©2012 SimonStapleton.com. All Rights Reserved.