How Burns Defines Leadership in Relation to Power
Core Ideas
The core idea of Burns’ Leadership is that leadership is a contract between the leader and the led; the led have a choice when it comes to whom they will follow. It is not as if there is but one option only. There are always alternatives—but the led choose to follow the leader because the leader reflects their values and presents the vision and mission that they are willing to buy into. He provides the tools they need to make it all happen. He recognizes his commitment to them as a leader and that recognition serves as the basis of moral leadership. It is deontological at its core; the concept is derived from duty ethics—i.e., that which is most moral is that which corresponds with one’s duty in life. It is the duty of the leader to serve the led. It is the duty of the led to follow the leader. The contract they take up—that relationship between leader and led—is fundamentally a moral one. There can be no success unless both sides of the contract recognize their responsibilities to the other.
Burns refers to Max Weber for support in describing what is meant by power. Burns identifies it as a relationship between motive and resource. He describes leadership as separate from but also important to power. The key to understanding the difference between those with power (but not necessarily leaders) and those who are leaders is that leaders arouse the motive of the follower (Burns, 1978).
Critical Evaluation
Northouse discusses leadership from a variety of different theories, essentially showing how the concept of leadership has evolved in the 20th century from trait theory on down to servant leadership theory. In studies by Kouzes and Posner, it is suggested that leaders who are most influential are those who empower rather than overpower their followers....
This correlates essentially with what Burns says about leadership: leaders arouse the
motivation. When leaders step out of the way and allow space for followers to develop themselves, to cultivate their own skills, they are seen as the best type of leaders. Followers appreciate it when they are given consideration. According to Kouzes and Posner, the best leaders accept feedback and are willing to receive
criticism because they want to know how they are doing; they recognize that it is not all just about them as leaders but rather about how well they are...…excuses for it—but it was still a
betrayal. He had used them to gain power. He had roused their motive only to turn around and abandon it.
A manager must never do that to followers in a
business organization. He wants their support and their buy-in. He wants them to be motivated to reach for the vision and mission that he presents to them. If he comes across as inauthentic or as a betrayer of the vision and mission, why should they support him? They will rebel or morale will dwindle and the
performance of the
workplace will diminish. At the end of the day, understanding that the leader is there to serve the vision, mission and follower insofar as the follower is committed to serving the first two—this is what can help a manager in business achieve the ends he seeks to achieve. Without that kind of vision and sense of relationship between the leader and the led, the pursuit of power ends up being the only thing notable. But as Burns shows, the pursuit of power is hardly worth it or efficacious; leadership is what is needed, as leadership is what followers respond to most fervently and with the most committal.
References
Burns,…
