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.
No comments:
Post a Comment