At a psychology learning group I was with this weekend we were discussing authority and how to take it in a way that is appropriate (in whatever context: business leadership, social situations or as a parent / in the family).
We considered three authority positions: "good authority", "authoritarian", and "abdicated authority". It was easy to recognise that we all have a subjective "felt sense" of which postion authority is being taken from - both when subject to and when taking authority. So, for example, we experience the difference between a person holding back from a place of good authority versus not acting because they have abdicated authority. Or being tough in telling others what to do from a place of good authority versus simply as an exercise in power.
But what really differentiates these positions and what drives our subjective intuition about the exercise of authority?
It occurred to me that one way we might look at it is to consider what is really driving the behaviour. When acting with good authority, we are concerned about the needs of others / the situation / the system. When we abdicate authority or become authoritarian, we are really driven by our own needs, eg our need for power, respect or recognition, our lack of confidence or our fear of assertion etc. In other words we act from our small "self" rather than from our bigger "SELF". Clearly sometimes it is not a simple either / or!
It seemed to be a helpful thought and one that allows us more consciously to self-check the leadership positions we are taking and to be more confident in how our leadership will be experienced. Try it out - I'm going to!
