Management

The true power of the leader is to govern oneself and raise others

Exercising power virtuously means making the organisation smarter than the sum of its parts

Adobestock

4' min read

Translated by AI
Versione italiana

4' min read

Translated by AI
Versione italiana

Before becoming synonymous with authority or dominion over others, the term power indicated something different: the ability to make an action possible, to make something happen. Its ancient root suggests a vision of power closer to the idea of leadership that does not impose, but enables.

This substantial difference begs the question: when do we actually exercise power? The answer might surprise us: whenever we generate an impact on the growth of others or our own. In this perspective, power is not a privilege of a few, but a widespread responsibility. Today, however, the word 'power' often conjures up an opposite image: control, distance, impediment to action and sometimes fear. Yet power, in itself, is neither good nor bad. It is a means. And, like any means, it requires discernment. The real issue is not possessing it, but how one uses it.

Loading...

Power can become a device for prevarication, or a lever that facilitates. In the latter case, it creates spaces for expression, encourages opinions, allows talents to emerge. If we wanted to measure the power of a leader, we should not ask how much he or she controls or inhibits action, but how much he or she enables others to act.

The ancient Greek philosophers maintained that wisdom was necessary for the proper use of power. They called this virtue enkráteia: self-mastery. It was decisive because it prevented one from becoming a slave to emotions and impulses. The Stoics also saw power as an inner exercise: 'Do not trust reputation or position. True power is in your ability to judge what you control'. For contemporary leaders, the lesson is clear: it is power over oneself that distinguishes the free man, today as then.

Hence the need to question three 'modern myths' of power that continue to condition organisations. First myth: power is in the role. The role does not guarantee the ability to influence nor does it ensure authority. Real power dwells where there is recognised competence and trust earned in the field. As a management pill shared in Ferrari reminds us, power arises from relationships: he who connects information and mobilises energy around an idea has power.

Second myth: power and authority coincide. This is not always the case. Authority can be assigned by a few; power must be recognised by many. On the one hand, there are those who have formal authority but move nothing, often content with the recognition attached to their position and block the action of their co-workers; on the other hand, there are those who have no authority but, thanks to their authority, guide the behaviour of a group. Third myth: power is a personal, stable quality. On the contrary: it is not a static property, it has the characteristics of a flux. It migrates towards whoever, at that moment, makes a decisive contribution.

These distortions feed a common paradox: the use of micromanagement. Many interpret it as confirmation of one's role; more often it is an indication of insecurity. Excessive control consumes energy, slows down decisions, reduces mutual trust. And power, when born of mistrust, also ends up weakening those who exercise it. Employees no longer feel involved and do not use their intelligence and energy to solve problems: they turn them over to the boss, leaving them unsolved. Very often, then, these managers exercise power either by preventing action or by demanding formal deference.

Then there is a more subtle risk, which the ancients described lucidly: power tends to generate a magnetic field of silence and consensus. The danger is not opposition, but its absence. In many organisations, flattery disguises itself as collaboration: it gratifies in the immediate, but distorts the perception of reality. Plato called kolakéia this self-interested flattery, capable of strengthening narcissism and weakening judgement. Aristotle considered flatterers 'dangerous servants' because they prevent the leader from correcting himself. Over time, a leader isolated in confirmation struggles to distinguish genuine consensus from complacency. Decisions deteriorate, credibility wanes. That is why the powerful - anyone who wields influence, at any level - should seek not approval, but loyal dissent: voices that do not pander, but help to see.

Finally, a widespread misunderstanding undermines collaboration: the idea that 'the less you share, the more power you have'. Many withhold information because they do not want to invest energy and time to regain a condition of information asymmetry. Withholding may seem like a form of control but, in organisations that have to adapt quickly, it becomes a brake. Co-operation grows when mutual knowledge grows: when it is clear who knows what, whom to address, how to distribute the action. In essence, when power, instead of being withheld, is shared.

In this sense, humility and power are not mutually exclusive. Humility is not renunciation: it is willingness to see, to listen, to learn. It is what prevents power from becoming rigid and transforms it into a service. Virtuously exercising power means, after all, this: making the organisation more intelligent than the sum of its parts. The most credible power is that which we exercise by governing ourselves and making those entrusted to us grow. Those with power have a social responsibility that goes beyond privilege. Only those who prove to govern themselves should lead others.

Full Professor of Business Strategy, University of Bologna and Associate Dean, Bologna Business School

Ceo Ferrari

Copyright reserved ©
Loading...

Brand connect

Loading...

Newsletter

Notizie e approfondimenti sugli avvenimenti politici, economici e finanziari.

Iscriviti