“INFLUENCE, POWER, AND LEADERSHIP STYLES”

“Influence, Power, and Leadership Styles”

“Influence, Power, and Leadership Styles”

The first thing one encounters when trying to understand the power is a difficulty in arriving at a concise definition, as there are many and varied definitions and perspectives that seek to explore and explain the concept, as different as Mullins (2002) and Handy (1993) Writers from the management perspective, and Foucault (1969, 1980) from a poststructuralist perspective, offer contrasting and incompatible theories. For Clegg and Hardy (1999), this gluts of prospects as no surprise: Depending on who is discussing what they are studying and why they are studying, the voices are often looking at different phenomena, or at least seeing the same phenomenon through different lenses.

When going out to understand the power, therefore, considered it prudent to follow (2002) by Martin advisory given this, the objective of this work became the development of greater understanding of the concept of power through the exploration of energy from a modernist, Marxist and post-modern. Space allows only exploration (1959) French and Raven vision of power as an example of the modernist perspective, Lukes (1974) view of power as an example of the Marxist perspective, and finally Foucault (1969, 1980) working in power as an example of post-modern perspective. Modernist views of leadership and power

Leadership is a relationship of power between leaders and followers (Northhouse, 2001) and a process that involves the use of power to influence other behaviors to meet the objectives of the organization (Handy, 1993). From this perspective, power is seen as a useful resource is "legitimate" when leaders of its use, and "illegitimate" if a leader is not used (Clegg and Hardy, 1999). This is why Shackleton (1995) says it is "impossible to talk about leadership without also discussing the question of power and influence." This ...