after reading these articles I need hafter reading these articles I need help answering some questions: Section 1: -Why is the issue of power and leadership important and critical based on the articles you have reviewed? Section 2: - What are the major themes/perspectives around leadership and power found in all 4 articles? Section 3: - What are the unique challenges and benefits of power and leadership advanced in the articles? Section 4: - What are your responses/opinions to the findings, results, or actionable outcomes of the articles? For example... Agree/disagree? What resonated most for you? Surprised by something? Anything missing for you? Section 5: - How will you advance conversations and strategies connected to the use of power by leaders in your own organization based on the insights and learning you gained from the articles?elp answering some questions: Section 1: -Why is the issue of power and leadership important and critical based on the articles you have reviewed? Section 2: - What are the major themes/perspectives around leadership and power found in all 4 articles? Section 3: - What are the unique challenges and benefits of power and leadership advanced in the articles? Section 4: - What are your

The desire to achieve is a major source of strength in business, both for individual man- agers and for the organizations they lead. It generates passion and energy, which fuel growth and help companies sustain perfor- mance over the long term. And the achieve- ment drive is on the rise. We've spent 35 years assessing executive motivation, and we've seen a steady increase during the past decade in the number of managers for whom achieve- ment is the primary motive. Businesses have beneted from this trend: Productivity has risen, and innovation, as measured by the nu mber of patents issued per year, has soared. In the short term, through sheer drive and determination, overachieving leaders may be very successful, but there's a dark side to the achievement motive. By relentlessly focusing on tasks and goalsrevenue or sales targets, sayan executive or company can, over time, damage performance. Overachievers tend to command and coerce, rather than coach and collaborate, thus stiing subordinates. They take frequent shortcuts and forget to commu- nicate crucial information, and they may be oblivious to the concenrs of others. Their teams' performance begins to suffer, and they risk missing the very goals that initially trig- gered the ac hievementoriented behavior. Too intense a focus on achievement can de- molish trust and Lurdennine morale, measur- ably reducing workplace productivity and eroding condence in management, both in- side and outside the corporation. While prots and innovation have risen during the past de- cade, public trust in big business has slid. In our executive coaching practice, we've seen very talented leaders crash and burn as they put ever more pressure on their employees and themselves to produce. At the extreme are leaders like Enron's Jef- frey Skilling, a classic overachiever by most accounts, driven by results regardless of how they were achieved. He pitted manager against manager and once even praised an ex- ecutive who went behind his back to create a service he had forbidden her to develop. For every Skilling, there are dozens of overachiev- \fThe Right Leadership Style. . .Creates a Strong Work Climate Each of the six leadership styles we've identied is appropriate to certain sit uations and settings; none is appropri ate to all. The most effective leaders know how to use the right style for the circumstances. Directive. This style entails com mand-and-control behavior that at times becomes coercive. When execu tives use this approach, they tell per} ple what to do, when to do it, and what will happen ifthey fail. It is appropri ate in crises and when poor perform ers must be "nanaged, but it eventually stifles creativity and initiative. It is fa vored by high achievers under stress. Visionary. This style is authoritative, but rather than simply telling people what to do, he leader gains employees' support by clearly expressing their chal lenges and responsibilities in the context ofthe organ'zation's overall direction and strategy. This makes goals clear, in creases emp oyee commitment, and en ergizes a team. It is commonly used by people with a high personalizedpower drive under owstress situations and people with a high socializedpower drive when stress is high. Afliative. Leaders with this style emphasize the employee and his or her emotional needs over thejob. They thority, such as within highly matrixed organizations. It is favored under high stress conditions by leaders with high afliation drives. Pacesetting. This style involves leading by example and personal hero ics. Executives using this style typically have high standards and make sure those standards are met, even if they have to do the work themselves which they frequently do. It can be ef fective in the short term, but it can de moralize employees over the long haul. It is a typical goto style for high achievers, at least u nder relatively low stress conditions. Coaching. This style involves the ex ecutive in longterm professional de velopment and mentoring ofemploy ees. It's a powerful but underused approach that should be part of any leader's regular repertoire. Leaders who score high on the socialized power motive prefer it under low stress conditions. We've also identied six factors that contribute to performance by affecting the workplace climatehow it feels to work in a particular area for a particu lar manager. A lead er's behavior heavily inuences the degree to which each ofthese factors is present and is a Standards represents the degree to which people perceive that the com pany emphasizes excellencethat the bar is set ata high but attainable mark, and managers hold people account able for doing their best. When stan dards are strong, employees are con dent they can meet the company's challenges. Rewards is a reection of whether people feel they are given regular, ob jective feedback and are rewarded ac cordingly. While compensation and formal recognition are important, the main component is feedback that is im mediate, specic, and directly linked to performance. Clarity refers to whether people know what is expected ofthem and un derstand how their efforts relate to or ganizational goals. In study after study, this dimension ofclimate has been shown to have the strongest link to productivity. Without clarity, the other elements ofclimate often suffer. Lead ers who create high clarity often rely heavily on the visionary, participative, and coaching styles. Team commitment is the extent to which people are proud to belong to a team or organization and believe that everyone is working toward the same ment, and coached their people. They were also more collaborative, building consensus among those they led. Recognizing Your Motives The good news about achievers is that when given a goal, they pull out all the stops to reach iteven if the goal is to manage their achievement drive. For an overachiever seek- ing to broaden his or her range, the rst step is to become aware of how motives inuence leadership style. Karin Mayhew, the Health Net executive, is a pacesetting manager by nature. She didn't understand the value of inuencing others (rather than doing everything herself) until, as an internal consultant for a telecommunica- tions rm, she was asked to facilitate discus- sions between management and labor. For once, she had to be invisible. Forced to bite her tongue, she perceived that she could step out of the role of content expert and help other people understand the big picture and see how the pieces might t together. Often, it takes a nudge from someone to get the transformation moving. Consider Rooney Anand, CEO of Greene King, one of the UK's most successful brewing and pub companies. As a young marketing manager in an organiza- tion that put a premium on results, Anand found himself becoming increasingly aggres- sive and demanding. He saw the need to change when a fellow manager said to him, \"I've met your type before. Normally they're not very nice people. But you're actually a great bloke when you're not working. So what is your problem?\" Family and friends may also let you know; our motives, after all, don't shut down when we leave work. If you're seeking to assess yourself as a man- ager, there are calibrated tools for measuring the three leadership motives, but you can get a good sense of which drive is dominant in you sim- ply by examining the activities you like and why. \f1. III: IUWCJ. U]. l'UIIUWCLh 'Why do people follow at all? In ordinary circumstances they have functional needs for meaning, group identity and cohesion, order, and the ability to get work accomplished. Leaders ll these needs by a combination of fear, payment, and attractionhard and soft power. In some circumstances, people have extraordinary personality needs and develop a culture of permissiveness that transfers enormous hard and soft power to a leader. In 1978 in Guyana, Jimjones persuaded more than 900 followers to commit mass suicide rather than face the disso- lution of his cult, the People's Temple.\" In 1945, as Soviet troops closed in on I-Iitler's bunker in Berlin, joseph Goebbels and his wife killed their children rather than have them face a world without their Fuhrer. In times of social crisis, such as war or economic depression, tem- porarily overwhelmed followers may hand over power to leaders that they later nd difcult to retrieve. I-Iitler came to power by elections in Germany in 1933, and then used coercion to consolidate his power. But he also used the soft power of attraction, constructing narratives that turned jews into scapegoats, gloried the past, and promised a thousand-year Reich as a vision of the future. Followers also helped to create Hitler. As Albert Speer put it, \"Of course Goebbels and Hitler know how to penetrate through to the instincts of their audience; but in a deeper sense they derived their whole existence from the audience. Certainly the masses roared to the beat set by Hitler and Goebbels' baton; yet they were not the true conductors. The mob determined the theme.\"16 One can think of Hitler's followers in terms of concentric circles, The power of leaders depends upon the followers' objectives that are embedded in their culture. For example, George Washington was an exemplary leader who is often credited with establishing the Ameri- can republic by refusing a monarchical role. Followers lavished adula- tion upon him and he was revered as a demigod. His image was everywhere. In exalting Washington, the new Americans exalted their cause, and Washington became the symbol of the nation. He had great soft power, but that power was limited not only by the institutions of Congress and courts, but also by a political Culture that was hostile to the exercise of authority. \"Washington's great prestige did not provide the foundation for him to become a more dominant political gure because of the ambivalent attitudes Americans had (and have) toward political leaders. The very fact that he was so highly esteemed also made Washington the object of enormous suspicion.\"28 Having fought themselves free of one King George, Washington's followers were determined not to allow another. If leaders of a dominant culture are able to prevent people from having or covertly expressing grievances by completely shaping their worldviews and preferences, then followers have little power.\" How- ever, such extreme degrees of control are rare. Totalitarian govern- ments have often tried to make subordinates accept their role in the existing order of things through a combination of hard coercive power and an ideological version of soft power, but with only partial success. Even in Stalin's Russia, Hitler's Germany, and Nlao's China, it proved difcult to completely overcome all followers\" covert forms of resis- tance, and in most instances, the power relationship between leaders and followers is far from so one-sided. The .Mixture of Hard and Soft Power A century ago, in asking why people follow or obey, Nlax 'Weber identi- fied three ideal types of authority or legitimated p0wer.30 Two depend on position and one on person. Under traditional authority, a person follows another because the latter is chief or king or emperor by right of some traditional process such as heredity. Under rational/legal authority, a person follows because the other is president, or director, or chair and has been properly elected or appointed based on rationally agreed criteria. Under charismatic authority, a person follows another because the latter embodies a gift of grace or exceptional magnetism. 1n the rst two instances, followers obey because of the power of the posiIion, in the last case because of the power of the person. The distinction between informal personal power and power that grows out of a formal position is not exactly the same as the distinction between hard and soft p0wer.31 Some leaders without formal authority, such as gang leaders, may effectively use coercion as well as charisma. And some military ofcers have the soft power of charisma as well as the hard powers conveyed by their position. Nloreover, certain formal positions such as pope or president extract obedience from followers who are attracted by the legilimacy of the institution even if the incum- bent has very little personal appeal. But generally, those without formal authority tend to rely more on soft power, whereas those in formal positions are better placed to mix hard and soft power resources. Social movements tend to be volatile and complex formations devoted to causes such as civil rights, women's libera1ion, or environmental issues, and they rarely have clear and stable structures. Hierarchies are at or nonexistent. With few material incen1ives under their control, leaders Political Skills Political skills are crucial for effective leadership, but they are more complex than first appears. Politics can take a variety of forms. Intimi- dation, manipulation, and negotiation are related to hard power, but politics also includes inspiration, brokerage of new benecial arrange- ments, and developing networks of trust typical of soft power. Politics can involve success in achieving goals not just for oneself and a narrow group of followers, but also building political capital for bargaining with wider circles of followers. 'When Roderick Kramer calls \"political intelligence\" the ability to size up the weaknesses, insecurities, likes, and dislikes of others so that you can turn them into your instruments, he is referring narrowly to the Machiavellian political skills that are crucial for hard power threats and inducements. Kramer's \"great intimidators\" employ a variety of tactics to bully and intimidate others in order to get what they want. Abusive language or an aloof attitude can throw others off balance. A calculated loss of temper can be useful at times. Robert McNamara shared intimacies with superiors but never subordinates. Both he and Margaret Thatcher intimidated others by appearing to know it alleven when they did not. Kramer describes former CEO Carly Fiorina of HP and Disney's Michael Eisner as skillful \"silent intimidators.\"K Lyndon Johnson, on the other hand, would physically get up front and personal, draping an arm around shorter men, and seizing others by their lapels and argue while pressing his face close to theirs.W He would also offer visitors a seat in a low, soft chair while he loomed over them in a tall rocking chair with a high seat. Robert Mugabe uses the silent treatment, \"refus- ing, for example, to say a word in one-on-one meetings, to the deep Conclusion The moral of the story, of course, is not that hard or soft power is better, or that an inspirational or a transactional style is the answer, but that it is important to understand how to combine these power resources and leadership styles in different contexts. A strategy is a plan that relates ends and means, goals and tactics, and such plans must vary with differ- ent contexts.89 Strategic resourcefulness can sometimes compensate for lack of resources, and explain why David can defeat Goliath, or some organizations and social movements succeed where better-endowed ones fail. That suggests that we need more research on contextual intel- ligence, or the ability to understand context so that hard and soft power can be successfully combined into a smart power strategy.90 Separating power and leadership is impossible in research, as in life. More must be done to understand the different conditions under which leaders com- bine hard and soft power resources into strategies of smart power. your objectives) changes. A tough boss who controls your behavior at work cannot tell you how to raise your daughter (although others out- side your family, such as a doctor, can do so.) The domain of your boss's power in this case is limited to work. Power always depends on the context of the relationship.F Sometimes people dene power as the possession of resources that can inuence outcomes. A person or group is powerful if it is large, stable, wealthy, and so forth. This approach makes power appear con- crete and measurable, but it is mistaken because it confuses the results of a power relationship with the means to that end. Some analysts call this the \"vehicle fallacy\" or the \"concrete fallacy.\" It treats power as something concrete that you can drop on your foot or on a city. But such concrete vehicles as bombs and bullets may (or may not} produce the outcomes you want. People dening power as synonymous with the resources that produce it sometimes encounter the paradox that those best endowed with power resources do not always get the behav- ioral outcomes they want. After all, the United States lost the Vietnam War to a weaker and more determined opponent, and the richest poli- ticians do not always win the elections. A player holding the highest cards can still lose the game. Soft Power Police ower nancial ower and the abili to hire and re are exam- P a P , ples of tangible \"hard\" power that can be used to get others to change their osition. Hard ower rests on inducements \"carrots\" and threats P P (\"sticks\"). But sometimes one can get the outcomes one wants by set- (\"sticks\"). But sometimes one can get the outcomes one wants by set- ting the agenda and attracting others without threat or payment. This is soft powergetting the outcomes one wants by attracting others rather than manipulating their material incentives. It co-opts people rather than coerces then-1.8 Soft power rests on the ability to shape the preferences of others to want what you want. At the personal level, we all know the power of attraction and seduction. Power in a relationship or a marriage does not necessarily reside with the larger partner. Smart executives know that leadership is not just a matter of issuing commands, but also involves leading by example and attracting others to do what you want. It is difcult to run a large organization by commands alone unless you can get others to buy in to your values. Community-based police work relies on making the police friendly and attractive enough that a community wants to help them achieve their shared objectives. Military theories of counterinsurgency stress the importance of winning the hearts and minds of the population, not merely killing the enemy. Similarly, as Gramsci pointed out nearly a century ago, political leaders have long understood the power that comes from setting the agenda and determining the framework of a debate. While leaders in authoritarian countries can use coercion and issue commands, politicians in democracies must rely more on a combination of inducement and attraction. Soft power is a staple of daily democratic politics. Even in the military, attraction and commit ment play an important role. As former Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki put it, \"You can certainly command without that sense of commitment, but you cannot lead without it. And without leadership, command is a hollow experience, a vacuum often lled with mistrust and arrogance.\"9 Of course, in many realworld situations, peoples' motives are mixed. Moreover, the distinction between hard and soft power is one of degree, both in the nature of the behavior and in the tangibility of the resources. Both are aspects of the ability to achieve one's purposes by affecting the behavior of others. Command powerthe ability to change what others docan rest on coercion or inducement. Co- optive powerthe ability to shape what others wantcan rest on the attractiveness of one's values or the ability to set the agenda of political choices. In real-world situations, hard and soft power are often com- bined, sometimes with a soft layer of attraction overlaid upon underly ing relationships that rest on coercion or payment.\" A lobbyist may nrst try to persuade a Legislator, out tne ioooyist may also mane a Legal and well-timed campaign contribution. A government may try to per suade young people to forgo drugs with an advertisement campaign featuring attractive celebrities, but if this soft power fails, the hard power of law enforcement remains. The ability to establish preferences tends to follow from often intangible assets such as an attractive personality, culture, values, and moral authority. If I can get you to want to do what I want, then I do not have to force you to do what you do not want. lfa leader represents values that others want to follow, it will cost less to lead. Soft power allows the leader to save on carrots and sticks. \"or example, loyal Cath- olics may follow the pope's teaching on capital punishment not because of a threat of excommunication, but out of respect for his moral author ity. Some radical Nluslims are attracted to support Osama bin Laden's actions not because of payments or threats, but because they believe in the legitimacy of his objectives. Even after bin Laden's organization was disrupted by the American military presence in Afghanistan, many terrorist groups around the world organized themselves in his image. Soft power is not merely the same as inuence, though it is one source of inuence. After all, inuence can also rest on the hard power of threats or payments. The word inuence is used in various ways. I treat it as synonymous with behavioral power, which is consistent with the dictionary denition. Nor is soft power just persuasion or the ability to move people by argument, though that is an important part of it. It is also the ability to entice and attract. Attraction often leads to acquiescence. In behavioral terms, soft power is attractive power. In terms of resources, soft power resources are the assetstangible and intangiblethat produce such attraction. People's decisions in the marketplace of ideas are often shaped by an intangible attraction that persuades them to go along with others' purposes without any explicit exchange of tangible threats or rewards taking place. Soft power uses a different currency (not force, not money) to engender cooperation. It can rest on a sense of attraction, love, or duty in a relationship, and appeal to values about the justness of contributing to those shared values and purposes.1| Soft power can provide what fundraisers call \"the power of the ask.\" Someone calls and asks you to make a donation. gometimes you say yes because it is a good cause or in an exchange offavors, but some- times simply because of the moral authority of the person asking. In a nonprot organization, the leader may ask you to undertake a taski and nonpront organizatlon, tne ieaoer may 35K you to undertake a task, ano you say yes not because they can threaten or pay you, but simply because of who they are. An index of their power is the frequency, size, and range of requests they can successfully make of you. In institutions with at hierarchies, such as universities and nonprot organizations, soft power is often the major asset available to a leader.\" Once that soft power has eroded, little else is left. People just say no. Even in the American presidency, as Richard N eustadt argued, power is mostly the ability to persuade others that they want to do in their own interests what you want them to do.I3 As Dwight Eisenhower put the case for soft power, leadership is an ability \"to get people to work together, not only because you tell them to do so and enforce your orders but because EADERSHIP AND power are changing, but political scientists; are not always clear about the relationship between the two.1A few decades ago, political scientists such as Robert C. Tucker contrasted a power approach with a leadership approach.2 In his classic Leadership, James MacGregor Burns famously introduced a normative dimension that distinguished leaders from power wielders. More recently, Barbara Kellerman has argued for a positivist denition and written about bad leadership.3 Moreover, many political scientists in recent years have left the eld of leadership studies to psychologists and organizational behavior theorists whose research usually occurs within the narrow boundaries of the laboratory or the organization rather than a wider context of power behaviors. If one thinks of power as including both the hard power of coer- cion and the soft power of attraction, leadership and power are inextri- cably intertwined. Leadership involves power, though not all power relationships are instances of leadership. Bombing an enemy into submission is quite different from persuading others to follow. At the same time, as I argue below, it is difcult to think ofa leader without soft power. However, some contemporary theories that dene leader- ship as synonymous with the soft power of attraction and persuasion miss the hard dimension of power. In practice, effective leadership requires a mixture of soft and hard power skills that I call smart power. The proportions differ with contexts. A business executive has more access to e ar power 0 iring an ring; a university presi ent or a democratic politician has to rely more on the soft power of attraction and persuasion. I introduced the concept of soft power into the dis- course of international politics two decades ago, but it is equally impor- tant to the topic of leadership. I dene leaders as those who help a group create and achieve shared goals. Some try to impose their own goals while others derive them more from the group, but leaders mobi- lize people to reach those objectives. Leadership is a social relationship with three key componentsleaders, followers, and the contexts in which they interact. One cannot lead without power. Dening Power Power is ubiquitous in human relations. 'We use the word every day, and seldom enter a room or join a group without sensing its power relations. Nonetheless, as James March and others have pointed out, power is hard to measure.'r But that is also true oflove, and we do not doubt its reality simply because you cannot say you love someone 1.7 times more than someone else. Like love (and leadership), power is a relationship whose strength and domain will vary with different con- texts. Those with more power in a relationship are better placed to make and resist change. In Power: A Radira! Heron Steven Lukes even denes power in terms of the ability to make and resist change, and empirical studies have shown that the more powerful are less likely to take on the perspectives of others.5 The dictionary tells us that power is the ability to affect the behav- ior of others to get the outcomes one wants. One can do that in three main ways. You can coerce them with threats; you can induce them main ways. You can coerce them with tl'ireats; you can induce them with payments; or you can attract or co-opt them. Some people think of power narrowly in terms of command and coercion. They imagine it consists solely of commanding others to do what they would otherwise not do.\" You say \"jump\" and they jump. This appears to he a simple test of power, but it is not so straightfor- ward. Suppose, like my granddaughters, they already wanted to jump? When we view power in terms of the changed behavior of others, we have rst to know their preferences. What would have happened with- out the command? A cruel dictator can lock up or execute a dissident, but that may not prove his power if the dissenter was really seeking martyrdom. And the power may evaporate when the context (including