The eminent sociologist Max Weber devised a useful way to understand how authority figures get and keep power. He described three different categories: rational-legal authority, traditional authority, and charismatic authority.
I’ll be focusing on charismatic authority, but knowing all three of these categories will help you understand how different people exercise leadership. Thinking about how people act, and how, and under whose authority, plays a big part in putting the pieces of social psychology together.
Just to briefly review the other two, rational-legal authority is the type that arises in a bureaucratic and well-defined legal system; it’s a kind of rule made possible by following rules. This is kind of like the “nation of laws, not men” phrase often used regarding U.S. history.
Traditional authority derives from the customs or traditions in place, meaning that, for example, the current generation of a longtime noble family of elites is considered part of the leadership simply because that’s how it’s been in the past. It doesn’t have to be more hierarchical, but it may seem like it to us in the present in the West where it seems traditions are not held in much esteem. In this type of authority, the past is the biggest source of inspiration.
Most uncommon is charismatic authority, which comes from a fervent devotion to a particular person. This can happen in any political or social movement, but it’s most often true of religious groups; someone will have a singular truth or the touch of the divine, and thus will be uniquely capable of arousing a deep loyalty in followers.
Since this kind of authority does not come from a legal basis or stem from a tradition, it’s often based on emotion. Followers believe intensely and emotionally in the leader, and consider it hugely important to do what the leader says. You could say there’s room for a fair amount of groupthink here, since things like challenging the leader and offering dissenting perspectives are discouraged.
You might sense that charismatic authority is kind of hard to perpetuate--how long can someone keep a movement going strong when it’s entirely based around their own personal charisma? That’s one way this gets interesting, and that's the question that's occupying me this week.
Eventually, a charismatic-led movement has to come to grips with the fundamental fact of how organizations work. Either it starts to rest on routinized leadership, habit, rules that are laid out, and other fairly standard ways of pursuing its goals, or it will flame out and simply be a historical marker--like a musician with only one song to play. No organization based on one singular solitary figure lasts very long.
It’s inevitable in any organization or with any cause that routines must be made and norms created. Politics, in particular, gives us many examples of charismatic authority. It might be the best place to see example of this outside of religions.
A singular figure will come along, raise up an army of supporters, make some noise, seek some result, and then...that’s the question. What comes next?
The interesting thing about charismatic authority is what is ignited by its spark. Where does the energy go? What does the group turn to as time goes on? Are new organizations created, or does an existing one absorb a new group? Do things really change?
I’m thinking about current examples of charismatic authority in the world and how these will eventually have to mature or disappear, but I suppose we’ll just have to wait and see.
Imagine the kind of authority a leader can wield from a position like this one.
