I just read an article that said about power and leadership:
But leaders of social-sector organizations have to get things done without the same levers of power available to leaders in the business sector. Business owners and chief executives have had a tremendous amount of concentrated power. They don’t really have to lead. If I put a gun to your head, I can get you to do a lot of things. It means I have power. It doesn’t mean I’ve led. In business, we largely have power, not leadership. In a social-sector organization, power is diffuse. So, getting things done requires the ability to truly lead. If you want to create a movement, you can’t order it or demand it or will it into existence by exerting concentrated power. It just won’t work.
A position of power – doesn’t necessarily equate to leadership. French and Raven’s treatment of power – gives 5 power bases. I think their categories of power fit here in that those in positions of legitimate power can wield their power to bring about change, and it may look like leading, but it is leadership driven by legitimate or positional power.
True leaders – according to French and Raven – will use referent power to lead.
I love the line that says that one cannot order it or demand it or will it by exerting concentrated power. It take someone to lead the movement.