Who is the authority? Do you need such a person in your life?

Types of Authority

The main types of authority include the following:

1. Official. It is determined by the official position of the person and the position he occupies.
2. Moral. Depends on personal qualities.
3. Professional. Its basis is the competence of a specialist in his field of activity.
4. Collective. It can rather be attributed to army and military service.
5. Individual. Depends on the individual who is its carrier.
6. True. Based on the high moral qualities of the one who gains this type of authority. Actions in accordance with moral standards are the main criterion for such a person.

Social psychology about leader and authority

Special studies and life itself clearly show that the presence in actually functioning groups of unequal positions of their members is the rule rather than the exception. This fact has not been disputed by anyone for a long time. The situation is much more complicated with the identification and meaningful description of the true foundations of leadership and authority.

You can do a simple experiment. Ask several people to identify reasons for a student's leadership position in the classroom. As a result, we are unlikely to encounter a unanimous opinion.

“He’s just a born leader—stronger than anyone, desperate, straight up crazy.”

“He always knows better than anyone what the class really needs.” Just follow him - he is bigger than all of them put together, “like everyone else.”

- It’s not about him. The situation just happened this way. They recently went on a hike, and he, it turns out, is an avid tourist - he made an impression. But this, you'll see, won't last long. They have seven Fridays a week.

So, there are three points of view and, accordingly, three reasons that determine leadership and relationships of authority in the group. Which of our interlocutors is right? Let's try to understand this by sequentially analyzing each of the three positions expressed.

1. Leadership and authority are a function of individual psychological characteristics

. It may come as a surprise to those who hold this view of the nature of leadership and authority that their approach to understanding these phenomena is consistent with the position of some professional psychologists. True, the assessment of leadership solely as a consequence of individual psychological characteristics became widespread only at the initial stage of studying this issue and primarily in bourgeois psychological science.

This position is most consistently reflected in the theory of “leadership traits.” It was based on the assertion that leadership is based on the innate and even inherited advantages of some people over others. In line with this concept, a large number of experimental studies were carried out, the result of which was the identification of personal properties and qualities that supposedly determine leadership. The studies were conducted both in laboratory and in real-life groups, among adults, adolescents and children, in conditions of activity that varied in structure, content and goals. Naturally, the number of supposedly special traits of “born leaders” that were identified grew, naturally giving rise to confusion and contradictions.

If we turn to the history of the study of such a phenomenon of intragroup life as authority, we can state that in general it repeats the history of the study of a related, but not identical phenomenon - leadership.

Traditionally, the goal of scientists working on the issue of authority has been to optimize relationships in the system “manager - executors”, “boss - subordinates”. It is clear that at this stage the main object of research became the leader himself. The study of the actual relations of authority in a group in such conditions was further complicated by the fact that the authority of a leader in the eyes of subordinates, as a rule, is combined and, at first glance, inextricably linked with his powers of authority.

Thus, for quite a long time, the view of authority as a kind of function of certain personal properties and qualities of a leader became dominant. This approach to considering authority can be regarded as the result, in fact, of a direct expansion of the theory of “leadership traits” to this area of ​​psychological science.

Already at the end of the 20s, serious doubts were expressed about the legitimacy of the approach to the phenomenon of leadership as a function of a certain set of innate individual psychological traits sent down to one or another chosen one as grace (“charisma”). In 1940, the American psychologist K. Baird and in 1948 his colleague R. Stogdill conducted a comparative analysis of the sets of qualities and properties that were allegedly necessary for a leader, identified by specific researchers. As a result, the striking discrepancy between the compared lists was clearly demonstrated. According to K. Baird, more than 60% of traits were mentioned only once, and qualities mentioned three times were less than 5%. Various lists included such mutually exclusive characteristics as inflexibility and the ability to compromise, friendliness and toughness, eloquence and taciturnity. Thus, the fundamental postulate of the “trait theory” was refuted. His fallacy was confirmed by further study of the issue.

A fair criticism of the main provisions of the theory of “leadership traits” was carried out by I. P. Volkov and Yu. N. Emelyanov. R.L. Krichevsky, A.S. Morozov and other Soviet psychologists, who repeatedly pointed out its biologizing and elitist nature.

At the same time, we must not forget that numerous experimental studies conducted from the standpoint of the “trait theory” made it possible to accumulate rich factual material. It would be unwise to ignore it. A meaningful analysis of these data has already been partially undertaken by Soviet psychologists from the standpoint of the psychological theory of the collective*. Formulating the principles of this analysis, Academician of the Academy of Pedagogical Sciences of the USSR A.V. Petrovsky rightly points out that any attempts to assess the importance of the presence or absence of certain individual psychological characteristics for a leader and authority figure without taking into account the substantive characteristics of those specific groups of which they are members , outside the context of their social environment, are initially doomed to failure.

* (See: Psychological theory of the collective / Ed. A. V. Petrovsky. - M., 1979.

)

Let's take, for example, possible situations in the teaching and educational team of a school.

If we try to compile a list of personal qualities that provide a teacher with successful leadership of a highly developed group* of students, the researcher will encounter serious difficulties. No matter how extensive the list of positive personality traits is, it cannot be regarded as exhaustive. If the teacher managed to organize truly collective activities of students, if the relationship between them is characterized by the desire and ability to insure each other, mutual assistance, if each student is ready to take on the entire burden of responsibility for a common cause, then the successful achievement of basic educational goals is within the power of teachers who have the most diverse sets of individual psychological characteristics. Under these conditions, the insufficient development of some personal qualities of the teacher is compensated by his other characteristics. For example, compliance, even a certain “softness” of teachers working with classes of a high level of development, does not turn out to be a disorganizing beginning if, along with these traits, the teacher is characterized by high responsibility for the common cause. In the same way, excessive demands, if accompanied by the teacher’s fairness, as a rule, do not complicate his interaction with schoolchildren.

* (A group of a high level of development (team) is a group whose relationships among members are determined primarily by the content and goals of a joint activity that is socially valuable and at the same time personally significant for everyone.

)

At first glance, it may seem that when a teacher relies only on his role superiority, the state of affairs is as favorable as in the situation that characterizes relationships in a teaching and educational team of a high level of development. In fact, this is far from the case. In this case, the individual psychological characteristics of the teacher as a whole are not of decisive importance, since it is not they, but his powers of power that are the basis for maintaining his leading position in the system of interpersonal relations. The predominant orientation of some schoolchildren not on the personality of the teacher, but only on his role as a leader, naturally gives rise to a formal approach to learning, devoid of any creativity, built on the formula “what is ordered.” In such classes, both an indecisive teacher prone to compromise and a teacher who deliberately suppresses the initiative of his students can feel equally comfortable. The teacher in this case should have understood the illusory nature of such well-being. The reasons for his outwardly favorable position have nothing to do with the schoolchildren’s recognition of his high personal qualities and professional skills.

In those classes where the relationships between schoolchildren are not adequately mediated by joint activities, where everyone is focused primarily on their individual tasks, a relatively small set of personal qualities of the teacher can be identified, allowing him to ensure a generally conflict-free nature of the existence of the educational group. Basically, the activity of such a teacher, like his students, is aimed at solving the problems of their individual activities, the effectiveness of which, in his understanding, is not related to the success of group work. Thus, such a teacher actually acts as a leader only if a conflict arises in the class. At the same time, the determining motive for his efforts to resolve intra-group conflicts is not the desire to optimally organize students’ joint activities, but the desire to maintain an atmosphere of at least apparent well-being in the classroom.

Some teachers see their main task as ensuring that the school administration has no complaints about their class, as they say. The basic and immutable rule is to “not wash dirty linen in public” at all costs. The real state of affairs in such student groups, as a rule, has nothing in common with the picture of well-being that is created through the efforts of their class teachers. And here a fairly narrow set of personal characteristics and stylistic characteristics of the teacher can be identified, corresponding to the solution of those tasks that he regards as paramount.

So, the “trait theory” can be considered relatively true only for groups of a low level of development. As for attempts to compile an exhaustive list of individual psychological characteristics that ensure leadership and authority in genuine teams, including educational ones, they are more than futile.

So, maybe the presence or absence of certain personal properties and qualities in a person does not in any way affect his ability to occupy a leading position in the group, to gain an authoritative position in it? Of course this is not true! Fundamental objections are raised only by the interpretation of these qualities as defining

the emergence, development and implementation of leadership and relationships of authority.

2. Leadership and authority are a function of the group.

This view is based on the idea of ​​the leader and authority figure as those who, to a greater extent than all other members of the group, meet its expectations and most consistently adhere to the norms and values ​​​​accepted in it. It would seem that what could cause objections here? At first glance, everything seems to be in its place. But this is only at first glance.

If you take a closer look, it becomes clear that this approach is not satisfactory either in theoretical or in applied terms. First, a few words about its theoretical imperfections. Within the framework of this theory, the group is viewed as something isolated from society - as if it has no connections with it, as if the processes occurring in it are in no way dependent on the social environment. In addition, the statement that leadership is inherent in the entire troupe as a whole initially denies the activity of the leader, his ability to significantly influence the life of the community. But the point is not only in the theoretical flaws of this position, but also in the fact that, remaining true to it, we will not be able to explain many real phenomena of intra-group life.

For example, numerous psychological studies have shown that in a genuine team, the positions of its members regarding objects that are significant for the group (be they people, phenomena, norms) generally coincide. If we adhere to the logic of the theory of “leadership as a function of the group,” then the question of who most strictly adheres to generally accepted assessments and opinions is simply unnecessary. Of course, the leader! But, oddly enough, the facts suggest the opposite.

In one psychological study, subjects, members of the same group, were asked to list the personal qualities that, in their opinion, their group mate should have. Based on all the collected lists, the experimenter compiled a list of personal characteristics that were most often found in individual responses. Then each subject had to present this list as a ranked series, that is, order it, assigning each personality characteristic a certain place depending on its relative importance. It turned out that the majority of group members gave the first places to the same qualities. So, during the experiment, the group demonstrated a high degree of value-orientation unity. The leader’s answers looked all the more unexpected against this background. It’s not that he opposed the group’s position in everything—the personality traits it valued received high ranks on his list. But the discrepancy was quite obvious. In the first place in his experimental form were the personal characteristics mentioned by the majority in the “second echelon”. Such a discrepancy could be interpreted differently if there had not been another series of experiments. It was carried out several months later and was an exact repetition of the procedure just described. Some discrepancy between the assessments of the leader and followers was recorded this time as well, but the experimenter’s attention was attracted by an important detail. The answers of the majority of group members generally coincided with the position expressed by the leader during the previous survey. Those qualities that not so long ago they considered as secondary were now rated most highly. It would seem that nothing now prevents the complete unity of the opinions of the leader and followers - his position is accepted by the group. But at the same time, his own point of view also underwent noticeable changes. The qualities that had previously been given the leading role in the leader's responses and which were now similarly assessed by his comrades, receded into the background; their place was taken by characteristics that were not yet perceived by the group as paramount.

These results clearly echo repeated evidence that points to the existence of “idiosyncratic credit” that every leader has to some degree. The group, as it were, gives him permission, to a greater extent than an ordinary member, to deviate from the norms accepted in it - in the event that such a position of the leader does not cause damage to the community and does not make it difficult to complete group-wide tasks. Such reasonable freedom of action, in fact, allows the leader to successfully carry out his functions, influence the life of the group, and promote its development. In a team, in many ways, it is he who constantly provides the “zone of proximal development,” the presence of which allows one to avoid stagnation, opens up prospects, and creates conditions for moving forward.

The described patterns come into direct contradiction with the basic provisions of the theory of “leadership as a function of the group”, which, along with a whole range of other arguments, allows us to come to the conclusion that it is untenable.

3. Leadership and authority are a function of the situation.

Representatives of this point of view rely in their reasoning on well-known facts, directly drawn from everyday life and illustrating the inappropriateness of considering leadership and authority as a function of personal characteristics or group functions. They come to the conclusion that these phenomena are the product primarily of a situation, or rather, of numerous situations alternating and replacing each other. What arguments can confirm the validity of such a conclusion?

Firstly, the same person can perform leadership functions and have high authority in one group and be in the role of a follower in another. As confirmation, we can cite the data obtained by the Soviet researcher I. S. Polonsky. Comparing the position of older schoolchildren in the class and in the so-called yard companies, he recorded an interesting pattern: the higher the status of a teenager in an informal group, the lower he is in the class team.

Secondly, a person who occupies a leadership position in a group and has authority in it can lose such a favorable position without leaving the group and still remaining a member of it. This happens especially often in children's, especially teenage, groups, where the balance of power sometimes changes instantly. Moreover, in the overwhelming majority of cases, the former leader, if it were his will, would not remain in the group that refused to trust him, but this is not always possible. If in a friendly company a change of leader often leads to the departure of the former “soul of the team” from the group, the one to whom they go with their personal worries and joys, from whom they expect participation and friendly support? These functions can be performed by another team member.

So, each of us is able to easily illustrate the points made, even based only on our own experience. What is not proof of the vitality, and therefore the validity, of the “situational theory”? But let’s not rush to conclusions - at least until we clarify what meaning its basic concept, “situation,” has for the authors of “situational theory.”

Let's try to take the most consistent position. Let us alternately exclude from the analysis the individual psychological traits of the leader and the authority figure, the features of the process of their nomination by the group, the nature of the relationship between the leader and followers, the authority figure and those in whose eyes he has authority. What determines the situation in this case? Exclusively external influences and circumstances in relation to the group. The activity of the group as a whole and its members individually, including the leader, is not considered as any significant factor. Fully sharing the opinion of the famous Swiss psychologist J. Piaget that the leader here is impersonal and turned into a kind of “weather vane”, subject to any gust of wind, we add: within the framework of this approach, a similar fate is destined for the entire group as a whole. Like a ship without control, it obeys any whim of the raging social elements, and no one is able not only to determine and adjust the course, but even to approximately predict the outcome of the journey.

Agree, it is difficult to imagine a more bleak picture. If everything were really like this, there would be something to be despondent about.

So, we have consistently analyzed the three points of view on the reasons determining leadership and authority, which were expressed by our fictitious interlocutors at the beginning of the book. Apparently, none of them withstood any serious criticism.

Perhaps the very formulation of the question from the position of “ either - or”

“: Are leadership and authority a function of either individual psychological characteristics,
or
a group,
or
a situation?

The answer to this question is given by the history of the development of the problems of leadership and authority in psychological science. This is the conclusion that Soviet psychologist R.L. Krichevsky comes to: “...Since the 60s, American socio-psychological literature has revealed quite clear trends towards combining previously disparate aspects of the study of leadership into a holistic approach”*. What is its integrity? First of all, the “either-or” position has given way to a fundamentally different “ and-and”

“:
properties
of the individual, properties of the group, and properties of the situation.
This approach in foreign social psychology is known as the “ synthetic theory of leadership
.” Its major advantage over trait theory, group leadership theory, and situation theory is the comprehensive, holistic nature of the study of leadership and authority.

* (Krichevsky R. L. Modern trends in the study of leadership in American social psychology // Questions of psychology. - 1977. - No. 6. - P. 119.

)

The majority of modern psychological research carried out in our country meets this condition. But if we compare the theoretical positions of Soviet authors and their Western, primarily American, colleagues, we will notice fundamental differences. The Soviet social psychologist G. M. Andreeva defines in this way what is qualitatively new that has been introduced into the analysis of leadership by domestic scientists: “... The entire phenomenon of leadership in small groups is considered in the context of joint group activity, that is, not just “situations” are put at the forefront. , but specific tasks of group activity in which certain group members can demonstrate their ability to organize a group to solve these problems"*.

* (Andreeva G. M. Social psychology. - M., 1980.- P. 281.

)

Let us give an example that will show how significant this amendment is.

Back in the 50s, the American psychologist R. Bales expressed the idea that at least two leaders coexist in any group. Moreover, each of them performs its own functions and is a leader in a special area of ​​intra-group life. One - emotional - is mainly engaged in establishing relationships among group members and is responsible for maintaining a favorable socio-psychological climate in it. The efforts of the other, business, or, as he is also called, instrumental, leader are aimed exclusively at solving a group-wide problem and coordinating the actions of group members to achieve this goal.

It is clear that, as a rule, a favorable relationship develops between the emotional leader and the group. That's why he is an emotional leader. What is the relationship between a business leader and followers? This is how the American psychologist F. Fiedler evaluates them, who proposed a “probabilistic model of leader effectiveness,” which has become widespread in the West. According to F. Fiedler, in almost any group, a clear discrepancy between the goals of the majority of its members and the task-oriented leader inevitably manifests itself. Therefore, a business leader has to expend significant effort not only directly on achieving a group goal, but also on overcoming the resistance of the group itself.

Let's think about whether this is really so. Apparently, the pattern noted by the American psychologist is sufficiently true for groups of a low level of development, the relationships in which are characterized by pronounced individualistic aspirations and a low degree of cohesion among their members. As for a genuine team, there is no reason to believe that here the confrontation between the group and the business leader is a natural phenomenon. Quite the opposite.

Let's take the highly advanced class as an example. In this case, the joint activity of the teacher, acting as a business leader, and students naturally acquires the features of essentially equal cooperation. The teacher, in the process of performing his professional and pedagogical functions, does not encounter resistance from the student group. Moreover, the successful achievement by a teacher of basic educational goals becomes possible only if he relies on the entire class team.

So, the activity approach to the problem of leadership and authority

allows us to most fully reveal the content side of these phenomena.
It is most consistently implemented within the framework of the psychological theory of the collective
; Some of its provisions have already been briefly stated by us in this chapter. It is from these positions that further analysis will be undertaken, first of all, of the main object of our interest - the process of formation and implementation of relations of authority in the teaching staff of the school.

unidentshop.ru/rashodnye-materialy/dezinfekciya - logs for monitoring the operation of sterilizers https://trash4bet.com download the betcity website. Betcity listen and download.

False authority

If there is a true authority, then there must be an imaginary one. Or false. An authoritative person is one who strives to gain true authority. Because the false one looks funny and pathetic. The wearer does not have a feeling of satisfaction from this status.

What are the main types of false authority?

1. The authority of suppression. It consists of a manager’s attempt to “crush” his subordinates psychologically.
2. The authority of distance. It is expressed in the need to always know and control everything, not allowing anyone to relax even from a distance. At the same time, a person prefers to stay aloof from everyone, being something inaccessible and mysterious to people.
3. The authority of swagger. A person with this subtype of false authority usually does not care about others. He does not delve into other people's needs and requests, showing with all his appearance how insignificant those around him are. And he is the only significant figure.
4. The authority of pedantry. There are a lot of incomprehensible conventions, non-compliance with which will result in punishment. Instilling petty traditions.
5. The authority of kindness. This type of authority can be classified as pseudo-democratic. The person who owns it is a kind of “shirt guy”. This pseudo-authority is based on connivance and reduced demands.

The meaning of the word authority

authority
(German Autoritat, from Latin auctoritas - power, influence), in a broad sense - the generally recognized informal influence of a person or organization in various spheres of public life (for example, education, science), based on knowledge, moral virtues, experience (A. parents, doctors, etc.); in a narrower sense, one of the forms of exercising power. They often talk about the A. of a law, a rule, a social norm, which means recognition of their necessity by the majority of people to whom they apply. A. is expressed in the ability of a person or group of persons (carriers of A.) to direct, without resorting to coercion, the actions or thoughts of another person (or people). The existence of A. is associated with the limited ability of a person to rationally assess many of the problems that arise before him, which is associated with the complexity of reality itself. Hence the need to take on faith the statements of the bearers of A. In this case, the ability of the bearer of A. is assumed, in principle, to justify their claims. In production, political and other spheres of public life, the activities of individuals are largely determined by special bodies and officials who make decisions and control their implementation. This right, recognized by subordinates, is autonomy, which thus differs from other forms of exercise of power, for example, from arbitrariness. The forms in which power is embodied and the scope of its action depend on the historical stages of development of society, ideological ideas that determine the sources and criteria of the legitimacy of power. In the tradition coming from the English philosopher Hobbes (1588 - 1679) and other utilitarians, the problem of justice appeared in the form of a dilemma between “freedom” and “authority,” and the latter was understood only as the authority of the supreme power, “sovereign authority.” Hobbes saw in the 'sovereign A.' the only means of saving society from anarchy, from the 'war of all against all'. Anarchists, on the contrary, opposed A. to the complete freedom of the individual from society, the autonomy of the individual. The German sociologist M. Weber (1864-1920) proposed a typology of power, according to which power can be based either on rational guidelines—a formally defined system of rules concerning the methods of acquiring power and the boundaries of its use; or on traditions, when the legitimacy of the order follows from the idea of ​​it as sacred and unchangeable; or on the so-called 'charisma', when A. is associated with personal commitment to a leader, endowed in the eyes of his followers with exceptional qualities of wisdom, heroism, and holiness. This kind of A., according to Weber, is inherent in prophets, preachers and political leaders. Tradition and charisma dominated pre-bourgeois societies. Rational A. is established with the formation of bourgeois society, although other types do not disappear. A. F. Engels, analyzing the problem of A., called the views of anarchists and anti-authoritarians “anti-social” and believed that “it is absurd... to portray the principle of authority as absolutely bad, and the principle of autonomy - absolutely good' ('On Authority', see K. Marx and F. Engels, Works, 2nd ed., vol. 18, p. 304). Engels substantiated the necessity of A. for any social structure. '...A certain authority, no matter how it is created, and on the other hand a certain subordination, regardless of any social organization, are obligatory for us under the material conditions in which the production and circulation of products takes place' (ibid.) . Engels noted that industry, transport, and any organization are unthinkable without A., the dominant will, represented either by one person or a certain body. At the same time, F. Engels emphasized that the action of A. should be limited only to those areas of social life for which it is necessary (see ibid.). At the same time, Marx and Engels resolutely opposed “excessive faith” and “superstitious admiration” for A., ​​against the cult of personality (see K. Marx and F. Engels, ibid., vol. 37, p. 384, etc. 34, p. 241). V.I. Lenin noted the need for discipline during labor (see Poln. sobr. soch., 5th ed., vol. 36, p. 203). Rejecting the imaginary revolutionism that opposes all sorts of anarchy, and the official axioms of bourgeois science and police politics, Lenin wrote that the working class needs authoritative leaders. The leadership of such leaders, Lenin emphasized, should be based on great knowledge and experience, a broad political and scientific outlook (see ibid., vol. 14, p. 226). Lit.: F. Engels, [Letter] to Lafargue, December 30 . 1871, Marx K., Engels F., Works, 2nd ed. vol. 33, p. 309; his, [Letter] to Theodore Cuno dated January 24. 1872, ibid., p. 329; Lenin V.I., On the authority of a leader. Sat., M., 1963; Weber M., Gesammelte Au-fsatze zur Social- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte, Tubingen, 1924; Strohal R., Autoritat, ihr Wesen und ihre Funktion im Leben der Gemeinschaft, Freiburg - W., 1955; Friedrich S. J. [ed.], Authority, Oxf.,

1958. L. A. Sedov.

Great Soviet Encyclopedia, TSB

How to develop a skill?

We often think that an authoritative person is one who has been given this skill from above. He didn't do anything for it, he was just born that way. Not at all. Authorities are not born, they are made.

The formation of this skill requires constant work on oneself and a revision of one’s previous position in life. You have to get rid of old habits, get out of your own comfort zone and say goodbye to people who are dragging you down.

In general, as in any other work, when working on yourself, you cannot be lazy and sit still, postponing the start of a new life until tomorrow.

So, where does skill formation begin? The first stage is goal setting. You need to firmly decide what your ultimate goal is, what you want.

A simple example. The man decided to lose weight and switch to proper nutrition. But his family doesn’t understand him, they make fun of him about this and constantly suggest that he eat a sandwich with butter and cheese rather than suffer through nonsense. It’s hard for a person psychologically; giving up what you’re used to is always stressful. And it is clear that at the first stage support is required. But here she is not, rather the opposite.

What to do in this situation? Move away from your usual surroundings and find like-minded people. For example, register on a healthy eating forum or a selected diet. You can go to the gym and make friends.

Principles of influence: Authority

The principle of influence - authority is one of the most powerful principles. Thus, a person may have absolutely no leadership skills, but other people will follow him and subconsciously obey him if he is perceived by these people as an authoritative person. This article will reveal to you the secret of the “authority” principle of influence.

Imagine that someone calls your house, you open the door and see two men in police uniforms in front of you. They ask you to let them into the house to discuss a kidnapping that recently occurred in your area. You will probably be interested in helping the investigation, so you let them into the house and begin the discussion. Five minutes later, one of the employees notices a necklace on your desk and says that the necklace matches the victim's stolen necklace. Shocked by this turn of events, you begin to justify yourself, trying to explain where you got this necklace and how long you have had it. The police officers agree with you and calmly listen to your arguments, however, they ask you to lend them this necklace in order to check the authenticity of your words. They tell you that they will only hold this necklace for one week.

What will you do in this situation? Perhaps you can give away this necklace? In such a situation, it is unlikely that anyone will be able to refuse employees’ requests. "Well, so what?" - you say - “How does this fact relate to the principles of influence?” Well, that's a fair question. Imagine if you were asked for a necklace by complete strangers in civilian clothes who have absolutely nothing to do with the police. Will you satisfy the requests of strangers? Whatever the case. You don't want to become a victim of scammers.

The principle of influence “authority” says that a person endowed with power and authority can easily influence ordinary people. If your doctor gives you recommendations, you will most likely follow them strictly. If an ordinary person gives you such advice, you will probably ignore it. Whose advice about car repairs would you rather listen to, the advice of an experienced mechanic or an ordinary driver? Of course, you will find the advice of an experienced mechanic more valuable.

“Is it really necessary to become a doctor, a boss or a policeman in order to influence a person?” - you ask. Not necessary. Stephen Covey, in his book The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, says, “Most people think that leadership is an attitude, and therefore do not see themselves as leaders.” You must know that you can influence other people without any designated position of power. A powerful boss influences you because he has "title," but you don't need to be assigned a position of power to have power. You can use symbols of power to increase your authority and power of persuasion.

Symbols of power.

Most people fall for scammers because they use symbols of power. There are three typical groups of power symbols: title, clothing, and perceived wealth. The title can be such titles as “doctor”, “officer”, “lawyer”, “surgeon”, “trainer”, “consultant”, any title indicating a high status in society. Clothing is an equally strong symbol of power; for example, a person in a business suit appears to us as a serious, busy person, most likely in possession of power, while a person in a tracksuit does not create the appearance of an authoritative person. Finally, perceived wealth is determined by symbols such as a car, house, jewelry, business, and any other elements that indicate a person's wealth.

You must have seen more than once in the news or in films where criminals use police uniforms to mislead the victim. If the police are knocking on your door, you will most likely do the right thing by asking them for proof that they are, in fact, police officers. You will ask them to show their identification, and on top of that, call the department to make sure that they are not “wolves in sheep’s clothing.” But more often than not, people trust the uniform alone, since clothing has a huge number of powers. As Mark Twain once poignantly remarked: “Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no power over society."

Management of symbols of power.

Many people manipulate symbols of power, consciously or not. You can do this completely consciously. First, let's sort out the clothes. First of all, your clothes should correspond to what you want to “say” to society. If you want to appear rich, a well-fitted suit can do it. If you want to appear attractive, you need to buy stylish clothes. If you're going for a loose, relaxed look, casual clothing is fine, perhaps a simple shirt, shorts, or even sandals.

Let's look at managing such symbols as the title. Depending on what qualifications you have, you can find the appropriate job for yourself, and often use the title of the position you occupy. If you don't have the qualifications to get a job, choose another career path. You can get the following statuses: “advisor”, “practitioner” or “trainer”, and you can also stand out among your friends as an excellent programmer, artist, problem solver. Once you become famous among your friends, you will soon become famous in wider circles of people.

Last but not least, a powerful symbol of power is perceived wealth. Clothing can say a lot about your wealth - you just need to dress well. However, the richest people tend not to dress better than others. They don't see the need for this. You don't have to dress in the most expensive clothes, but you should care about style. However, in some cases, you should be careful in how you use the perceived wealth symbol. If your perceived wealth is excessive, people may think that you are compensating for shortcomings in other areas of your life, which can backfire.

Follow the leader.

What happens when you see a successful leader in any area of ​​life? You are following the leader. A person has influence more than once or because of temperament. A leader can influence people on a continuous basis. By continuing to follow the leader, you begin to “copy” his behavior on a subconscious level. Also, you can partially adopt his personality traits, applying them to your own personality, which will ultimately lead to the development of your leadership skills.

But you should be more conscious in your following of the leader. Usually, we “blindly” adopt a leader’s behavior based on his past successes. Thus, followers are rarely able to think critically about the actions of the leader because the leader has proven himself to be excellent in the past. And let us remember the words of Albert Einstein: “Thoughtless respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” You, in turn, can use the tendency to follow the leader to your advantage. Thus, by taking a position of influence, you will encounter less resistance from the majority of your followers.

Size and status.

In the animal kingdom, size is often a way of measuring status. It's enough to watch animals, just watch a program about animals. Each animal tries to stand out with its coloring, loud voice, strength of sounds produced, and perceived size. In the human world, our behavior is often similar to that of animals, only in a less pronounced form. Size in our world often determines status. Tall people and people with well-built muscles often have higher status in our society. And, obviously, there's not much you can do about your height, but you can hit the gym regularly to tone up and increase your muscle mass.

Interestingly, people with high status are often perceived as “big” in size. If you increase your status, people begin to perceive you as more than you really are. And this relationship between status and size can be successfully used to influence other people. To develop your ability to influence, you can use not only gaining muscle mass or increasing height, but also nonverbal communication. It will be enough to behave “as if.” When entering premises, behave as if you are a powerful person. First, look into the eyes. Secondly, take up more space. Spread your legs, straighten up, be relaxed, of course, this advice is more suitable for men than for women. Lastly, make sure your posture is confident.

Remember that all principles of influence respect the rule of “free will.”
You don’t suppress a person’s will, he makes the decision himself - or it seems so to him on a subconscious level, but that’s a completely different story - in the end, he can always change the situation if he wants to. By using the tips above, you will increase your level of influence over other people. Use confident body language along with the three symbols of power to increase your authority and influence. Articles on the principles of influence:
1. Six principles of influence 2. Principles of influence: commitment. 3. Principles of Influence: Reciprocity 4. Principles of Influence: Scarcity 5. Principles of Influence: Authority 6. Principles of Influence: Liking 7. Principle of Influence: Social Proof

Second stage

Over time, achieving your goal becomes a habit. A person calmly gets up in the morning to go for a run, and can refuse a sandwich without a twinge of conscience. He doesn't care what people think about him. A man goes towards his goal. It is quite possible that loved ones, seeing how persistently a person goes towards his goal, will begin to reach out for him. This is how authority is born.

Instead of gatherings over evening dinner, the whole family goes for a walk. Weekends are spent not in front of the TV, but on skis/skates/bicycles, depending on the time of year. Friends notice the changes and begin to join this family. A team of like-minded people is being formed.

Authority and what influences its creation

AUTHORITY: how to create an impression and influence

Lately, I have been increasingly approached with questions about how to make the right impression and how to create authority at work.

My personal experience as a leader, coach and practical psychologist led me to several simple conclusions about authority.

1. Authority is the art of influencing.

2. Formation of authority is a process in which you can never put an end to it.

3. Authority is always based on a person’s attitude to his business, to his profession.

4. The formation of authority is influenced by the individual mission and personal values.

1. Authority is the art of influencing.

Authority is one of the ingredients in a complex cocktail of charisma, a person’s personal qualities, his professionalism, authority, abilities, skills and knowledge, which allows him to influence the opinions or behavior of other people.

When teaching leadership skills to managers, I often repeat that authority and charisma are closely related to trust and the ability to create it.

In various situations, we choose people who have authority in their field, this is a key factor.

“The best doctor in the city” is about authority. And also about the trust that the reputation of a particular person creates.

“The best music teacher for violin class” is also about authority. And also about the choice we will make when choosing which class to send our children to study.

It can be said that authority is closely related to the competence and professional level of a person. After all, when we love what we do, when we are constantly developing in our profession, it is then that we become PROFESSIONALS with a capital P and this creates a certain reputation.

We choose those we trust. This is why authority is so closely related to trust. Sometimes the ability to inspire trust is called personal charisma.

Surely, you have met people who immediately and forever aroused your complete unconditional trust; you were ready to follow their recommendations, take their opinion on faith as the only correct one.

This is precisely the close “authority-trust” connection that I wrote about above.

It is generally accepted that such an ability is a unique feature of a particular person. Actually, not quite like that. In addition to incomprehensible natural characteristics, charismatic people use very specific skills that can be learned. And these same skills can be used to create the right impression and build authority.

WHAT AND HOW WE SAY Does the person give the impression of being a professional in his field, does he speak the “same language” with those around him, does the person know how to adapt to different audiences, etc. – specific speech techniques help build authority and make the right impression.

Your communication style and dialogue skills can tell you a lot. What matters is both WHAT we say (words, phrases, dialogue structure) and HOW we say (intonation, as well as facial expressions and gestures during face-to-face communication).

When you need to give the impression of a person who is authoritative in his field (professional, expert), it is important to speak confidently, convincingly, master the details, and understand the nuances of the topic being discussed.

But it’s equally important to demonstrate your expertise correctly. After all, sometimes it happens that a person is really a pro in his field, but his speech does not give the impression of a professional. It sounds in such a way that it makes interlocutors doubt everything that is said, even if these are very correct ideas.

1. The position of professionalism in dialogue can be maintained with the help of “I-statements. Agree, two phrases evoke completely different impressions:

1. I recommend that you choose this option, because it will give you the opportunity... As a professional, I am sure that...

2. You can try this option, it is chosen most often...

In the first example, the person is competent enough to recommend something on his own behalf and “on behalf of his experience and knowledge.” This conveys the impression of confidence, professionalism and inspires trust. This is the authority of an expert.

In the second example, the offer to try is not a recommendation from a specialist, it is just an everyday dialogue, an enumeration of options. The speaker has no influence on the opinion or behavior of his interlocutor.

2. The position of responsibility for decisions in the dialogue is demonstrated through direct statements in the first person.

1. I have decided to deprive you of your bonus for systematic lateness.

2. In our Company it is customary to deprive bonuses for being late.

The first example is a person demonstrating that he has sufficient authority to make decisions. This is the authority of power. In the second example, it is obvious that there is nothing to talk about with this person, he does not make decisions.

Examples of phrases demonstrating responsibility : I have made a decision, I am ready to take responsibility for this decision, I guarantee, I am confident that as a result...

3. Confident argumentation in dialogue can be expressed through opportunity phrases and I-statements, through a clear constructive highlighting of advantages and opportunities for interlocutors, through competent handling of objections.

Options for comparison phrases:

1. I believe that it is necessary to highlight additional. financing for this project, because This will allow us to reduce the cost of production of the main product in the future...

2. It seems to me that it would be nice to finance this project; it is not very difficult to implement and the idea is beautiful.

The first example demonstrates the professionalism and confidence of the speaker through the I-statement and shows the benefits of implementation.

The second example shows the speaker's uncertainty and does not focus on what business problem will be solved.

Opportunity phrases : it will allow, it will enable, in terms of benefits, the benefit of this proposal is that... it will lead to the successful implementation of...

I have given only a few speech techniques that show how the perception of listeners can change depending on how a person constructs a dialogue. Of course, such examples can be given not only for the leadership profession, but for any profession.

WHAT WE LOOK LIKE

Context is always important. To inspire confidence, it is important to dress and present an image that is appropriate for the specific situation.

The ability to inspire confidence and make the right impression is closely related to the ability to look right.

Usually, for each profession there is a certain stereotype of what a successful professional in this field looks like. For example, we will more easily perceive a woman with a strict hairstyle, glasses, and dressed in a business style as an excellent teacher, while a man in a shirt and tie will be easily perceived as a leader.

In addition to generally accepted stereotypes, there are certain traditions that are characteristic of a particular profession or a particular company.

It is important to consider WHAT A PROFESSIONAL SHOULD LOOK FOR those people whom it is important for you to impress.

After all, in fact, it is not clothes and hairstyle that determine the level of knowledge and skills. You just can't make a first impression twice...

WHAT WE BELIEVE

People tend to follow leaders whose values ​​they understand and whose values ​​they share.

Simon Sinek, in his book on the phenomenon of leadership “Start with Why,” writes that what the leader believes in is decisive. When we share certain beliefs and principles, we are ready to follow them. And such a person, by definition, inspires more trust. After all, he is “the same as me.”

In any profession, as in life, each person realizes some “INDIVIDUALIZED MISSION”. It is precisely this that contains the key questions about values.

I suggest you practice right now. After all, everyone can ask themselves three questions of a leader.

1. WHY? – Why, why did I choose this particular profession for myself? What value am I creating for myself in this job/profession? What value do I create for others in this profession/in this business/in this position?

2. HOW? – How do I create value for myself and other people?

3. What? – What exactly am I doing?

Please note that the question of what exactly you are doing is the last one. It is a consequence of previous answers. People will trust you if they share your values ​​and principles, regardless of what exactly you do, what position you are in or what profession you are in.

2. Formation of authority is a process in which you can never put an end to it. Authority begins to form from the very first day of work, no matter what position you are in.

First, each of us improves in our field - becomes an expert. And this deep professionalism becomes the first factor of authority.

Knowledge and level of competence definitely influence a person’s authority. Each of us in the most important areas wants to deal with a professional. Whether we are talking about buying a car, a bank loan, a tourist trip, insurance, buying an apartment, consulting a lawyer - we try to choose the most authoritative person, a professional.

We can say that this is the AUTHORITY OF RESPECT that a person creates for himself through the development of expertise and special knowledge and skills in his professional field.

When building a career, there is always a transition from one position to another. We can say that every new position or new place of work is a point of growth, because they require both new skills and “new” authority.

That is why it cannot be said that authority can be created once and for a lifetime. This is an ongoing process throughout your professional career.

Life is plastic and fluid. Changes happen constantly. We change jobs, positions, our environment changes, new tasks appear. It is self-development - and who we become as a result - that guarantees our success in the future. After all, all our experience, skills and knowledge always remain with us.

3. Authority is always based on a person’s attitude to his business, to his profession.

It doesn’t matter what a person does, what matters is how he approaches his work. Maybe this is just a way to earn money, or maybe it’s a way to express yourself, show off your talents and abilities. When a person takes his profession seriously and with soul, when he strives to be the best in his business and enjoys the process, the people around him always see and feel it. And this serious attitude towards the profession is “transferred” - others begin to take the person himself just as seriously. It’s not for nothing that they say that there are authoritative janitors, and there are worthless managers...

The best results are achieved only through love, inspiration and passion for what you do. There's a great quote about this. “You can’t tell anyone to try. No one could have ordered Beethoven to write the Ninth Symphony - he wanted to create it. In the same way, leaders “do not do”, but organize opportunities...” (J. Irwin Miller)

4. The formation of authority is influenced by the individual mission and personal values.

The attitude towards one’s work and one’s profession closely resonates with an individual’s mission. If work is a point of growth, self-development and self-expression for you, then it will certainly create value in your life.

By answering simple questions - why do I need this job, what does it teach me, what values ​​do I create - this is how we give meaning to what we do. This allows you not only to see new facets in your usual activities, but also to better notice your victories and successes, and be proud of your achievements. An individual mission is also a process; it develops with us. One way or another, we express our attitude to the matter through words and actions. People around us perceive our words and actions. This is how an impression is formed and this is how authority is formed - step by step, throughout our entire life.

Our personal choice is to learn to do this consciously and always create exactly the impression that is important to us and create the authority that will help us better express ourselves through our profession.

The authority of the leader

What does it mean to be an authoritative person in society? And in what society? At least in your own team. It's no secret that managers are usually not liked. But why? Because they themselves give the reason, most often this is exactly the case.

How to earn and maintain the authority of a manager in working relationships?

1. Be polite to your subordinates, but maintain distance in relationships. An eternally dissatisfied boss who allows himself to raise his voice over every little thing will not become an authority for people. Subordinates will remain silent, but internal “sabotage” will not be long in coming.
2. Don't let them sit on your neck. In other words, maintain distance in the boss-subordinate relationship.
3. An authoritative person is one who understands his activities. The boss must know the job inside and out. Because the subordinate will be able to approach him with peace of mind if a problem arises, knowing that they will help, advise and will not yell at him. It is pleasant to go to such a leader, it is pleasant to listen to him and carry out given instructions.
4. There are rules for everyone. And no one violates them. That is, if the organization prohibits going out to smoke and is fined for it, the manager does not stand on the porch with a cigarette. Rules are rules.
5. Eliminate the pendulum effect. Today the boss wants the work to be done according to one algorithm, and two days later he radically changes the system. It is unlikely that subordinates will respect a person who has seven Fridays a week.
6. A leader has obligations to his subordinates. And they need to be fulfilled. You shouldn't take on an impossible mission.

What it is

Social psychology has its own explanation of the term authority, what it is and how to obtain such status. In everyday understanding, this word means a person or organization that has a great influence on society. Unlike tyranny, recognition is obtained through non-violent means. It is given for intellectual achievements or moral qualities.

Definition in psychology

In social psychology, the term authority is explained a little differently; this concept affects the social sphere. It means a special form of influence on a group of people.

Important! Fans uncritically accept information from their idol and unconditionally believe him.

The main method of management is belief. People voluntarily recognize the power of an authority and agree to follow him. Not every individual knows how to use authority. Such influence is formed due to special personal qualities and abilities to organize general activities.

The concept of personal authority

This term refers to special personal development that reaches a high level. Such a person commands respect from many people. Often this type of power is based on charisma, i.e. unconscious attraction.

A person with personal authority has special energy, passion, and the ability to speak emotionally and inspiringly. He has good looks, good rhetorical skills, and is confident.

Personal authority is a synthesis of innate and acquired qualities. Every leader who wants to become successful should acquire a similar form of influence.

Instrument of power

Many people strive to take a leadership position, but it is not easy to do. It is possible to obtain the position of chief by force, but this will not give complete satisfaction from having power.

Authority in society means a lot and provides great opportunities.

The peculiarity of authority is that people themselves choose whom to follow and whom to believe. They do not need to be forced or forced. An individual with this form of influence knows how to persuade, and there is no doubt about the correctness of his decisions.

In social psychology, it is believed that authority is based on trust, respect, and democracy. This is what is useful for recognizing yourself as a leader. All other methods will not give long-term results.

In pedagogy, authority is also important, since the obedience of students depends on it. Modern children will not respect a teacher just because of the age difference. Therefore, an adult will have to find ways to win the favor of schoolchildren.

Authoritative qualities

As mentioned above, authority is the assessment of a person by his environment or society. What are the arguments of an authoritative person? What should he have?

1. Knowledge. People are respected for their knowledge and ability to understand a particular industry “from hair to toe.”
2. Wisdom. A sage will be able to give important advice and look at the situation from the right angle.
3. Responsiveness. The ability to come to the rescue, combined with the two points stated above, being there at the right time is the key to getting people to respect and reach out to you.
4. Kindness. You can be smart and wise, but use these skills as if the people around you are insignificant worms. Will such a sage and clever man be respected?
5. Volitional qualities. We have come to where we started. Working on yourself and achieving your goals is an example for others.

How to gain authority

How to gain authority in a team:

• identify an informal leader, try to make a positive impression on him and other people;
• be tactful, demonstrate professionalism and the best human qualities;
• show interest in other people, demonstrate your dignity through deeds;
• Communicate as much as possible in an informal setting.

Don't try to play and please, be yourself. This is the only way you can not only earn authority, but also maintain it. By pretending, sooner or later you will get tired and want to be yourself, but it is not a fact that others will be happy about it. It may deprive you of recognition.

To earn personal authority, you need to work on the elements on which it depends:

• social position and status (you must be an example of a successful life);
• a strong character;
• self-demandingness and exactingness;
• self-discipline;
• self-confidence;
• rich professional and life experience (erudition, developed horizons, large stock of knowledge and skills);
• uniqueness and individuality.

An authoritative person must have the following qualities:

• sincerity,
• honesty,
• communication skills
• openness,
• positive,
• naturalness,
• responsiveness,
• hard work.

How to gain authority among people (more details):

1. Assess the usefulness of your personal and professional qualities to other people. Conduct a written reflection. Assess how well you have developed the qualities necessary to win recognition.
2. Determine what you are missing. Make a plan to develop these qualities. Think about what tools you have, what resources you lack, and where you can get them.
3. Learn to communicate with people, develop communication skills. This is necessary both for self-presentation, manifestation of one’s qualities, and for building relationships.
4. Become a valuable member of society. Think about what socially significant business or activity you can do. Remember that you must be guided by the interests of the group and put your desires into the background. The more people need you, the higher your importance.

Learn to respect and appreciate other people, listen to them, and be forgiving. Do not shift your duties and responsibilities onto someone else's shoulders. Be active and cheerful, then you will definitely achieve authority in your circles.

World authorities

According to 2020 data, the richest and most influential person in the world is Jeff Bezos. He is the founder of the online retailer Amazon.

The second place in this “hit parade” is occupied by the world-famous Bill Gates.

The third place goes to investor Warren Buffett.

The fourth place in the list of the most authoritative people in the world is occupied by Amancio Ortega, the founder of the Zara brand.

And rounding out the fab five is Mark Zuckerberg, the creator of the most popular social network Facebook.