The 15 types of Authority (and their characteristics)
People are social beings who, for better and for worse, have created a structure in our civilizations based largely on power. Laws, norms, social obligations, rights, traditions and obedience to powerful figures has formed, shapes and will be part of our social nature.
And it is that already in our origins, the survival needs forced humanity to create, in the communities, rules that had to be fulfilled to face the dangers of the world. And since then, although the concept has evolved a lot, the term "authority" continues to be present in all human societies.
In this context, we can understand authority as the right, power and faculty to command or govern people who are subordinate to a certain figure or institution, differing from mere "power" by the fact that it is imposed through force While in authority there is a more or less established consent on the part of said subordinates.
Now, are all forms of authority equal? No. Not much less. It all depends on how this power to command over others is exercised and the context in which it takes place. It has nothing to do with the authority that a father exercises with his children or the authority observed at the political level in a dictatorial system. Therefore, in today's article, we are going to explore the different forms of authority that exist according to different parameters.
By authority we understand the exercise of certain command powers with a legitimate character. That is to say, authority is the right and faculty to command or govern people who are subordinate to a certain figure or institution who exercises this authority not through mere power, which is based on implantation by force, but as a result of a consensual relationship with the aforementioned subordinates.
The authority is based on generating norms, laws or guidelines of conduct and establishing and defining the lines that a person who is in the range of action of this figure must follow. Thus, authority can be understood, in a general way, as the consensual power that a person or institution exercises over one or more subordinate persons.
Now, the seriousness of not complying with what is established by these authorities depends not only on their degree of power, but also on the context in which it occurs. For this reason, it has been necessary to differentiate different kinds of authority according to these and other parameters. And then we are going to analyze them.
Moral authority is one that is not imposed through laws, but rather emerges naturally through respect and admiration for the qualities that a leader manifests. It can be personal, that is, based on the moral values defended by the authority figure, or technical, that is, based on the knowledge and experience that this figure has and that is highly valued by the people around him. It is an authority based on respect.
The legal or formal authority is one that it is imposed through laws. That is, authority is not based on admiration and respect for a figure, but on the ability of this to administer both rewards and punishments in a society. Thus, it emerges from the imposed superiority (which does not have to be bad, as it can be perfectly democratic) and from the power that this figure has over others.
Rational authority, also known as bureaucratic or legal, is one in which subordinates obey rules imposed by the institutions of power since these are perceived as suitable for society. That is to say, they are social norms that are imposed but that we ourselves, making use of reason, assimilate as legitimate. We obey authority but not out of fear of punishment, but because the rules are rational.
Traditional authority is one in which power is exercised based on custom. That is, the authority has the power by tradition, being an inheritable, irrational and / or delegable power. Norms are not based on rationality, but on the fact that they are part of the custom of a society. In other words, a power exists "because it has always existed."
Charismatic authority is one in which a leader has power thanks to his charisma. Respect and admiration for the charismatic personality of a leader is what makes some people agree to become subordinate to it. It is not based on values or experience as in the case of moral authority, but on the charisma of the authoritarian figure.
Inconsistent authority is one in which the leader or institution exercises power inconsistently, thus being the opposite pole to the rational. Norms imposed by authority are perceived by subordinates as nonsense. The orders are incoherent and the limits of the imposed rules are not clear, creating a general climate of confusion.
The coercive authority is one in which the authority, worth the redundancy, adopts a more authoritarian character, in the bad sense of the word. It is a form of authority that, in general, is imposed by force, with characteristics of inflexibility, domination and a tendency to impose more severe punishments against those subordinates who rebel against the authoritarian figure. Of course, dictatorships are based on this form of authority.
In contrast to authoritarian, democratic authority is one in which the leader and institutions are elected, through vote, by the people. Thus, it is a more flexible and consensual authority, valuing the opinion of citizens. There are also penalties for not complying with the rules and laws, but these sanctions are fair and commensurate with the seriousness of the offense.
Permissive authority is one in which the power relationship between the leader and subordinates is weaker, the conception of "authority" being even diffuse. And is that there is no proper exercise of powerBecause subordinates can, unless they break a few basic rules, do what they want, when they want.
Informal authority is one in which there is no well-regulated authority figure at the legal level. It is, as its name suggests, the most ephemeral authority that can circulate among the members of the same social group. It is born of mutual acceptance and verbal consensus, so there is no regulation as such.
The operational authority is one in which the leader or mandatory institution does not exercise power over a specific group of people, but over an action or issue. The decisions that are made do not affect people directly.
The administrative authority is one in which the subordinates they obey because they are committed to authority. It is similar to the rational one, but in this case there is no such exercise of considering whether some imposed norms are coherent or not. We take for granted that they are and, therefore, we commit ourselves to authority, complying with what is imposed on us.
Linear authority is one in which power is exercised directly. That is, there is a "line" that connects the leader with the subordinate. This form of authority is what we find, as can be easily deduced, in companies in which there are different ranks of hierarchy. We, the employees, must respect the directives of our boss, who, in this case, adopts the role of authority.
Functional authority is one that, being also applied basically in the work environment, is based on the idea that no superior or boss has full authority over subordinates or employees. In as opposed to linear, with a more authoritarian character, authority is more partial and relative.
Family authority is one that occurs in the context of the family. It is a form of authority that, being more or less lax and flexible, is based on seeking that children receive an optimal education and that they have respect not only for their parents, but for the rules in general. All that authority that parents exercise over their son or daughter in a linear way is considered a form of family authority, which, for a good coexistence, must exist as long as it is healthy.
Leave a Reply