Real authority is exercised simply and naturally.
6 May 2014
Read by 3688 persons
Text: Authority stems from a position within a company or a sociogram.
Flexibility and firmness, two attitudes to adopt as needed.
Commanding, governing, and educating are the three components of authority.
Real authority is exercised simply and naturally
Authority and authoritarianism. Many managers confuse these two concepts. Indeed, leadership requires firmness, but it does not consist of crushing one's collaborators. A good manager is one who shows the way and succeeds in creating adherence to a company project. According to Mohcine Ayouche, CEO of BMH coach, "effectively expressed authority in a company is one that knows how to constantly adapt to interlocutors and situations." He highlights the different facets of the concept and the ways to assert oneself smoothly.
How do you define the concept of authority in the company?
There are two kinds of authority. First, the one that stems from a position within a company. It is given by a hierarchy or by a recognized instance that holds authority in the organization. This authority is derived from an organizational chart.
We have a second one that comes from a sociogram, that is to say, a system where social relationships are informal. It is granted by the opinion of others, whether they are N+1 or N-1 in the company. This is a natural authority, which one either has or does not have. Obviously, it is an influence that one possesses over others. It is based on charisma and leadership.
I would add that there is also a form of authority that one grants oneself and which is based on trust.
Why should a manager impose their authority in an organization?
In my opinion, authority has a main virtue which is to develop the momentum of an entire team towards a common goal and around a unifying project composed of values, which knows how to integrate a strong meaning and a shared future in which everyone will be able to recognize themselves, and find a benefit for themselves.
It also serves to regulate relationships, to arbitrate when necessary between contradictory opinions that can quickly turn into tensions and conflicts. Logically, individuals subscribe to this logic of authority and not to suffer the whims of the "boss".
How do you see the exercise of authority in our companies?
There is no need to generalize. It is not exercised uniformly. It all depends on the personal characteristics of managers and their management style. The higher their maturity, the more authority is shared. Conversely, a manager full of their power and installed in an extremely directive style will be more inclined to assert their authority rather than helping the team progress. We then fall into authoritarianism.
I think that effectively expressed authority in a company is one that knows how to constantly adapt to interlocutors and situations, both flexibly and firmly when necessary.
It is expressed in an open-minded and exchange space for oneself and for others. It does not need to be imposed by force or through manipulation. True authority is exercised simply and naturally, leaving space for the other to express themselves fully. We then speak of natural authority that is accepted and welcomed by the majority. Authoritarianism is very often a sign of a lack of authority and a profound lack of self-confidence.
Isn't there a contradiction between the demands of a hierarchical position and the desire to develop the autonomy of others?
I would like to specify that authority has three components.
First, to command. This amounts to giving clear orders, enforcing the law...
Then to govern. That is to say, to lead others towards a collective objective, to unite and federate.
Finally, the third component is to educate. This is to help each member of the team progress.
Often, managers put more effort into enforcing their hierarchical position instead of reinvesting usefully and more effectively in the development of the autonomy, responsibility and creativity of collaborators. How many times have we not seen a subordinate who has more aura than their superior? Once again, it is authoritarianism that blocks this autonomy.
To answer the question, I would say that there is no contradiction between hierarchical position and the development of autonomy. On the contrary, authority promotes autonomy and collective intelligence. Moreover, in this case, authority is strengthened and perpetuated because it creates initiative, creativity, motivation and even more expression of the immense potential and talents that only need to be freed.
In terms of power, there are four components:
- the power "Of", that is to say, to do something, to give an order...;
- the power "With", that is to say, to accompany others;
- the power "Over", that is to say, to command;
- the power "For", that is to say, to assist others.
Therefore, if authority is well shared, we are in the logic of the power "For". Today, the trend we observe is that managers are evolving towards an attitude of coaching manager and not the fact of directing in a strict way.
How can it be developed?
It is through exemplarity and humility that one gains the appreciation of others. It is also by putting oneself in the position of the collaborator and questioning the reasons why one can grant them trust. Poor supervision inevitably leads to a degradation of the ability to influence. It is therefore necessary to set achievable and credible objectives, not to monitor everything if one claims to give autonomy... In short, do everything to maintain trust, clarity, reliability and recognition. Managers who know everything do not exist. There are only managers who believe they know everything.
How can one establish one's authority without creating conflict when one takes the head of a new team?
Legitimacy through status is not enough. A manager is first and foremost a member of the team. They are not superior to it. They must be at its disposal.
But they must necessarily assert themselves when it comes to deciding on a specific issue or a problem that directly concerns them. But when it comes to visions and objectives to be achieved, it is above all necessary to seek the adhesion of the troops. The manager must show the way and how to follow it. This is the difference between leadership and authoritarianism.
What are the limits not to exceed?
Authority should not be exercised for personal interest, but to chart a course, to show the way... One must also not be disproportionate in sanction. If a fault corresponds to a warning, one must not pronounce a reprimand. The right sanction is first of all proportionate to the professional misconduct reproached. Finally, the manager's authority must not hinder the smooth running of the team. They must be able to manage their weaknesses.
If a manager is not able to fully assume their role as a catalyst, they might as well resign.
Managers' opinions
It's a matter of respect
The manager must exercise their authority over their team while maintaining a relationship of mutual respect. It is important to know that a good manager must listen to their team and must be able to make decisions and assume their consequences. Personally, I do not like to put pressure on a collaborator, even if sometimes the environment requires it. The first thing to do to establish one's authority is to set common rules both internally and externally. Internal authority is managed by clear procedures (how to implement a quality procedure, how to lead a project, how to respect deadlines...). The rules must be simple to be credible. It is also to avoid any missteps. Externally, particularly with clients and suppliers, we demand quality of service. In my opinion, one should not seek to reprimand or exert one's authority for everyone to fulfill their mission. I like to leave autonomy to collaborators while evaluating the progress of projects. In other words, one should not wait for problems to accumulate or become important to deal with them. Showing authority also means assuming decisions personally. When there is a reproach to be made, I like to do it in a serene and not unhealthy atmosphere. I also think that there are limits to authority. It is not to fall into aggressiveness.
Managers' opinions
Authority rhymes with firmness and rigor
Subconsciously, authority makes one think of the stick and the carrot or the fact of having an influence over others because of one's hierarchical position. One always feels this pressure. In the absolute, it is important for the smooth running of the company. That said, this concept can be substituted by another: motivation through the sharing of objectives, leadership... Gaining authority means creating a favorable and mobilizing climate to get one's message across, and using one's personal charisma to increase one's power of conviction. Obviously, this is not easy in practice. For me, establishing one's authority also implies recognizing the efforts of others. The manager should not reap all the benefits alone. Authority also calls upon other qualities such as exemplarity or active listening. Making one's authority recognized involves behavior that must promote adherence. And the manager who succeeds is the one who also knows how to channel the energies of others. Ultimately, authority rhymes with firmness and rigor.
Managers' opinions
Authority depends much more on what one makes others experience
For me, authority is only real if it is not visible in the company, neither by the manager's presence nor by their actions. A good manager is one who is not constantly present to keep an eye on things. The work must be done correctly and all the rules must be respected with or without their presence. Unfortunately, we find that in our companies, maturity is lacking both among collaborators and on the part of managers. In my opinion, it is better to have one's authority accepted than to have it imposed. We often find that those who are in a position to exercise authority trigger in others behaviors of obedience or resistance. Authority is little related to one's own personality, it depends much more on what one makes others experience.
Brahim Habriche.
Lavieeco.com
Posted online May 6, 2014.
Flexibility and firmness, two attitudes to adopt as needed.
Commanding, governing, and educating are the three components of authority.
Real authority is exercised simply and naturally
Authority and authoritarianism. Many managers confuse these two concepts. Indeed, leadership requires firmness, but it does not consist of crushing one's collaborators. A good manager is one who shows the way and succeeds in creating adherence to a company project. According to Mohcine Ayouche, CEO of BMH coach, "effectively expressed authority in a company is one that knows how to constantly adapt to interlocutors and situations." He highlights the different facets of the concept and the ways to assert oneself smoothly.
How do you define the concept of authority in the company?
There are two kinds of authority. First, the one that stems from a position within a company. It is given by a hierarchy or by a recognized instance that holds authority in the organization. This authority is derived from an organizational chart.
We have a second one that comes from a sociogram, that is to say, a system where social relationships are informal. It is granted by the opinion of others, whether they are N+1 or N-1 in the company. This is a natural authority, which one either has or does not have. Obviously, it is an influence that one possesses over others. It is based on charisma and leadership.
I would add that there is also a form of authority that one grants oneself and which is based on trust.
Why should a manager impose their authority in an organization?
In my opinion, authority has a main virtue which is to develop the momentum of an entire team towards a common goal and around a unifying project composed of values, which knows how to integrate a strong meaning and a shared future in which everyone will be able to recognize themselves, and find a benefit for themselves.
It also serves to regulate relationships, to arbitrate when necessary between contradictory opinions that can quickly turn into tensions and conflicts. Logically, individuals subscribe to this logic of authority and not to suffer the whims of the "boss".
How do you see the exercise of authority in our companies?
There is no need to generalize. It is not exercised uniformly. It all depends on the personal characteristics of managers and their management style. The higher their maturity, the more authority is shared. Conversely, a manager full of their power and installed in an extremely directive style will be more inclined to assert their authority rather than helping the team progress. We then fall into authoritarianism.
I think that effectively expressed authority in a company is one that knows how to constantly adapt to interlocutors and situations, both flexibly and firmly when necessary.
It is expressed in an open-minded and exchange space for oneself and for others. It does not need to be imposed by force or through manipulation. True authority is exercised simply and naturally, leaving space for the other to express themselves fully. We then speak of natural authority that is accepted and welcomed by the majority. Authoritarianism is very often a sign of a lack of authority and a profound lack of self-confidence.
Isn't there a contradiction between the demands of a hierarchical position and the desire to develop the autonomy of others?
I would like to specify that authority has three components.
First, to command. This amounts to giving clear orders, enforcing the law...
Then to govern. That is to say, to lead others towards a collective objective, to unite and federate.
Finally, the third component is to educate. This is to help each member of the team progress.
Often, managers put more effort into enforcing their hierarchical position instead of reinvesting usefully and more effectively in the development of the autonomy, responsibility and creativity of collaborators. How many times have we not seen a subordinate who has more aura than their superior? Once again, it is authoritarianism that blocks this autonomy.
To answer the question, I would say that there is no contradiction between hierarchical position and the development of autonomy. On the contrary, authority promotes autonomy and collective intelligence. Moreover, in this case, authority is strengthened and perpetuated because it creates initiative, creativity, motivation and even more expression of the immense potential and talents that only need to be freed.
In terms of power, there are four components:
- the power "Of", that is to say, to do something, to give an order...;
- the power "With", that is to say, to accompany others;
- the power "Over", that is to say, to command;
- the power "For", that is to say, to assist others.
Therefore, if authority is well shared, we are in the logic of the power "For". Today, the trend we observe is that managers are evolving towards an attitude of coaching manager and not the fact of directing in a strict way.
How can it be developed?
It is through exemplarity and humility that one gains the appreciation of others. It is also by putting oneself in the position of the collaborator and questioning the reasons why one can grant them trust. Poor supervision inevitably leads to a degradation of the ability to influence. It is therefore necessary to set achievable and credible objectives, not to monitor everything if one claims to give autonomy... In short, do everything to maintain trust, clarity, reliability and recognition. Managers who know everything do not exist. There are only managers who believe they know everything.
How can one establish one's authority without creating conflict when one takes the head of a new team?
Legitimacy through status is not enough. A manager is first and foremost a member of the team. They are not superior to it. They must be at its disposal.
But they must necessarily assert themselves when it comes to deciding on a specific issue or a problem that directly concerns them. But when it comes to visions and objectives to be achieved, it is above all necessary to seek the adhesion of the troops. The manager must show the way and how to follow it. This is the difference between leadership and authoritarianism.
What are the limits not to exceed?
Authority should not be exercised for personal interest, but to chart a course, to show the way... One must also not be disproportionate in sanction. If a fault corresponds to a warning, one must not pronounce a reprimand. The right sanction is first of all proportionate to the professional misconduct reproached. Finally, the manager's authority must not hinder the smooth running of the team. They must be able to manage their weaknesses.
If a manager is not able to fully assume their role as a catalyst, they might as well resign.
Managers' opinions
It's a matter of respect
The manager must exercise their authority over their team while maintaining a relationship of mutual respect. It is important to know that a good manager must listen to their team and must be able to make decisions and assume their consequences. Personally, I do not like to put pressure on a collaborator, even if sometimes the environment requires it. The first thing to do to establish one's authority is to set common rules both internally and externally. Internal authority is managed by clear procedures (how to implement a quality procedure, how to lead a project, how to respect deadlines...). The rules must be simple to be credible. It is also to avoid any missteps. Externally, particularly with clients and suppliers, we demand quality of service. In my opinion, one should not seek to reprimand or exert one's authority for everyone to fulfill their mission. I like to leave autonomy to collaborators while evaluating the progress of projects. In other words, one should not wait for problems to accumulate or become important to deal with them. Showing authority also means assuming decisions personally. When there is a reproach to be made, I like to do it in a serene and not unhealthy atmosphere. I also think that there are limits to authority. It is not to fall into aggressiveness.
Managers' opinions
Authority rhymes with firmness and rigor
Subconsciously, authority makes one think of the stick and the carrot or the fact of having an influence over others because of one's hierarchical position. One always feels this pressure. In the absolute, it is important for the smooth running of the company. That said, this concept can be substituted by another: motivation through the sharing of objectives, leadership... Gaining authority means creating a favorable and mobilizing climate to get one's message across, and using one's personal charisma to increase one's power of conviction. Obviously, this is not easy in practice. For me, establishing one's authority also implies recognizing the efforts of others. The manager should not reap all the benefits alone. Authority also calls upon other qualities such as exemplarity or active listening. Making one's authority recognized involves behavior that must promote adherence. And the manager who succeeds is the one who also knows how to channel the energies of others. Ultimately, authority rhymes with firmness and rigor.
Managers' opinions
Authority depends much more on what one makes others experience
For me, authority is only real if it is not visible in the company, neither by the manager's presence nor by their actions. A good manager is one who is not constantly present to keep an eye on things. The work must be done correctly and all the rules must be respected with or without their presence. Unfortunately, we find that in our companies, maturity is lacking both among collaborators and on the part of managers. In my opinion, it is better to have one's authority accepted than to have it imposed. We often find that those who are in a position to exercise authority trigger in others behaviors of obedience or resistance. Authority is little related to one's own personality, it depends much more on what one makes others experience.
Brahim Habriche.
Lavieeco.com
Posted online May 6, 2014.
