Subscribe by Email

Wednesday, May 24, 2017

Influence vs. Power



I was chatting with a friend one day who rather bluntly claimed, “You have power over other people.” In response, I said, “I don’t have power over anybody, but I do have influence on a few people.” In response, my friend asked, “What’s the difference? Aren’t they the same?”

What do you think? Is there a difference between influence and power, or are they simply synonyms–two words used to describe the same thing? After a thorough study of these two words, especially as they exist in the leadership world, I have concluded that although the outward behaviors resulting from a person having power versus influence may be similar, power and influence are actually very different from one another.

A Lesson from the Aztecs and Apaches


In their book The Starfish and the Spider, Ori Brafman and Rod Beckstrom shared a historical story about some encounters the Spanish Conquistadors had with a few native groups in Central America. Here’s a summary version of the story.

When the Conquistadors, led by Hernando Cortés, first landed in Central America in 1519, they stumbled upon the Aztec capital city of Tenochtitlan. The Aztecs were far from a primitive, nomadic civilization, boasting a population of 15 million people, their own language, an advanced calendar, and a central government, led by their fearless leader, Montezuma II. Upon arriving in Tenochtitlan, Cortés met with Montezuma II, took all of his gold, and killed him. Within two years, Cortés and his men had managed to cause the collapse of an empire which traced its roots to centuries before the time of Christ. Similarly, when an army of Spaniards let by Francisco Pizarro landed in South America in 1532, they took all the gold, killed Atahualpa, the leader of the Inca Empire, and brought the empire to ruins in two years.

As the Spaniards pressed north, they encountered another tribe, the Apaches. From the outside, the Apaches seemed primitive and nomadic compared with the Aztecs and Incas. They didn’t have large cities, roads, or even a central government. Their weapons were far less superior to that of the conquistadors. Yet, the Apaches managed to resist the Spaniards for hundreds of years. It was only when the United States became involved that the Apaches were brought under governmental control. How did the Apaches manage to resist far-superior armies for so long?

Centralized vs. Decentralized Systems


Brafman and Beckstrom’s answer to this question was that the Apaches persevered against the Spaniards because of the way they were organized. Unlike the Aztecs, Incas, and even the Spaniards, all of whom were centralized, the Apaches were decentralized. In a centralized system, there is a hierarchy of command, making it very clear who is in charge. Power, in a centralized system, is held by a few people who demand obedience from people lower in the chain. We are all very familiar with this type of system because it’s the system used by most large corporations. The CEO is in charge (outside of the Board of Directors) and has the most power within the company. If he tells you to do something, you’d better do it. When the Spaniards eliminated the people with the power, the common people were easily conquerable.

Contrast this system with a decentralized system which has no hierarchal structure and therefore, no clear leader. According to Brafman and Beckstrom, “If and when a leader does emerge, that person has little power over others. The best that person can do to influence people is to lead by example.”[1] Rather than being held by a few people, power, in a decentralized system, is equally distributed among all the people. Now, this is not to be confused with anarchy. Unlike anarchy, rules certainly exist within decentralized systems. But instead of needing a group of police to enforce the rules, everyone has the power to ensure the rules are enforced. Wikipedia, although centralized to some degree, is a good example of a mostly-decentralized system since anyone, not just a few select people, can write and edit Wikipedia articles. Because Wikipedia is open-source, it gets a reputation for not being a source of reliable information, but a study conducted by Nature magazine found that Encyclopedia Britannica and Wikipedia are almost equally accurate.[2]

If there’s no leader, how are decisions made within a decentralized system? Specifically, how did the Apaches make decisions? Within each tribe, there were people known as Nant’ans who were spiritual and cultural leaders. They didn’t have power to tell the rest of the tribe what to do; instead, they had great influence on the people. The rest of the tribe followed the Nant’ans, not because they had to, but because they wanted to. Even when an opposing army, such as that of the Spaniards, showed up, the Nant’ans didn’t possess the power to command the tribe to fight. Rather, they would just start fighting and the others would join in too.

All the centralized civilizations the Spaniards encountered were quickly disposed. But since the Apaches were decentralized, the Spaniards couldn’t dispose of them. They didn’t have a central headquarters, central leader, or property that the Spanish could eliminate and thereby bring their civilization to ruin.[3]

Influence vs. Power


At this point, hopefully you see the connection between this story and my discussion on influence versus power. A centralized system operates by distributing power to a few people at the top of the chain. If I have power, people follow me because I’m higher up in the hierarchical chain of command. When I command them to do something, they must obey me. If they decide not to obey me, I have the authority to punish them for their disobedience.

A decentralized system, on the other hand, operates by the influence of many people within the system. If I have influence, people follow me because they respect and trust me, not because they are forced to obey me. They can choose to do something completely different than what I’m doing, and they won’t suffer any consequences for their actions because I have no authority to punish them.

This contrast demonstrates that influence and power are far from being synonyms for one another; actually, they are two very different things and work in two very different ways.

Conclusion


Is it better to have influence or power? I don’t think one is a silver bullet in every situation. There are times when influence seems to be what’s needed and there are times when power seems to be what’s needed. But personally, I would much rather have influence than power. Power is very fragile because it only exists when a system exists to support it. Once the system collapses, the power held by a few people in the system collapses with it. Influence, on the other hand, lasts beyond (sometimes far beyond) the life of a system. People like Aristotle, Jesus, Immanuel Kant, and Martin Luther King, Jr., even though they’ve been dead for many years, all continue to have influence on people around the world.


[1] Ori Brafman and Rod A. Beckstrom, The Starfish and the Spider: The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organizations (New York: Penguin Group, 2006), 19.
[2] Ibid., 74.
[3] The preceding information is from Brafman and Beckstrom, The Starfish and the Spider, 10-26.

No comments:

Post a Comment