Lecture 3: Leadership and Power Flashcards
standard definition of power
power is the capacity for influence and that influence is based on the control of resources valued or desired by others
John C. Turner on power
- Explaining the nature of power is a three-process theory
- Defining power is complicated because it is difficult to differentiate consistently from related constructs of influence, compliance, control, dominance, authority, status, and rank
How do individuals or groups influence and control other people to carry out their wishes, suggestions, or commands?
power through persuasion & control (authority & coercision)
Turner’s work
Proposes “a new theory emphasizing group identity, social organization and ideology rather than dependence as the basis of power. It proposes that power is based on persuasion, authority and coercion. A key point is that the theory changes the way these processes have been understood by reversing the causal sequence of the standard theory. The latter argues that control of resources produces power, power is the basis of influence and that mutual influence leads to the formation of a psychological group. The three-process theory argues that psychological group formation produces influence, that influence is the basis of power and that power leads to the control of resources.”
Northouse’s 5 types of power
- referent power
- expert power
- legitimate power
- reward power
- coercive power
referent power
based on followers’ identification and liking for the leader
expert power
based on followers’ perception of a leader’s competence
legitimate power
associated with status or formal authority
reward power
derived from the capacity to bestow awards
coercive power
derived from the capacity to punish others
Keohane on democracy, leadership, and power
- Leadership and asymmetrical influence – how is this consistent with robust popular decision-making or with sovereignty residing in the people as a whole?
- Representative or liberal democracy: responsibilities for making and implementing decisions delegated to leaders chosen by the people (leaders are held to account)
- Problems in a democracy arise when leaders extend or abuse their power
- Also, concerns when certain groups of people are excluded from leadership in democracies (often because of socioeconomic disparities and inequalities) – why discussions of representation are so pressing
the Canadian archetype
Male, white, middle-class, middle-aged, Christian, Canadian-born, and majority-language-speaking political leaders remain
Indigenous systems of government
In Canada, Indigenous peoples have long had their unique laws and systems of governance
Today is focused on the settler colonial state and how leadership is defined in that context
New France and the franchise
extremely undemocratic (absolute monarchy)
British North America and the franchise
control lay in the hands of the governors appointed by the British Government, and elected assemblies had little power, resulting in the Rebellions of 1837–38 and other efforts for reform, which ultimately led to the colony’s adoption of responsible government
the franchise in the early 19th century
- During the 19th century, only a small group of privileged men and property owners could vote for the elected assemblies (the Constitutional Act of 1791 did not address the issue of gender, but few examples of women voting in Lower Canada and none in Upper Canada, which followed the tradition of English common law in which women did not exercise the franchise)
- Vote severely restricted; women and Indigenous people were almost completely excluded from voting and few minorities were represented in legislatures; initially, Roman Catholics were banned; enslaved people were banned (1834)
the franchise and confederation
inherited the system of responsible government, but elections continued to be rife with corruption and vote buying (until 1874, all voters had to announce their vote publicly)
the franchise in the 1870s
calls to end property requirements in voting (not until 1920 that property requirements were eliminated from federal elections, but in some places continued – PEI continued until 1964)
the Indian Act and the franchise
In 1876, the Indian Act elected chiefs and band councils (only allowed adult males to vote); also declared Indigenous people must become enfranchised to vote in a federal election (must give up Indian status – a tool of assimilation). Not until 1960 that status Indians gained the right to vote; Inuit men and women had the vote in 1950 (but ballot boxes were not in all communities until 1962)
women and the franchise
Women fought for the vote and some women won the vote in municipal elections by 1900, but not until 1916 that women won the first provincial vote in Manitoba (other provinces and territories followed; in Quebec, not until 1940); some women voted in a federal election in 1917 (Wartime Elections Act), and in 1918, a federal law was passed that ensured no one could be denied the right to vote in a federal election due to gender (still denied for other reasons)
voting restrictions into the 20th century
Many voting restrictions after 1918; in BC, Indo–Canadians and Chinese Canadians were denied the vote until 1947, and Japanese Canadians could not vote until 1949; the federal government banned Japanese Canadians until 1949; religious restrictions applied to Mennonites and Doukhobors (Doukhobors were banned federally from 1917-1920 and 1934-1955)
voting restrictions into the 21st century
- Courts ruled that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982) protected everyone’s right to vote, but Canadians with intellectual disabilities were disqualified until 1988; judges until 1974 and prison inmates until 2002.
- Issues of accessibility continue
Reid & Ng on power and leadership
“The mechanism that makes power come to life is communicative: to ensure success leaders must use language to create, justify, depoliticize, and routinize power… [language] is an active co-player in the realization of power.”
selection of representatives
makes a statement about role models and legitimacy
