Authority in conflict

We are witnessing authority disintegrating live on our screens. Distant as yet; but who would be complacent to think this could happen on our doorsteps. One can’t help feeling despondency and pity in seeing the images from America and now in the UK depicting the collapse of order, respect and tolerance. Innocents assaulted; gratuitous looting; archetypes of authority pilloried. It would appear that when ‘authority’ loses its legitimacy then chaos leads the counter charge. However, it is still to be seen if bedlam and anarchy will have a disinfecting effect. Critical societal transition points in history are often marked by such terror. Let’s hope calm heads prevail and progress takes place peacefully. Most importantly the sovereign rights of every individual must be reasserted. 

Authority, in all its abstract and practical forms, is a concept that I wrestle with. Perhaps, it’s the rebel in me that has an innate wariness of being controlled and manipulated. Nevertheless, authority is the vital lifeblood for societies and organisations in the legitimate and productive application of power. It is how we gets things done. At the parameters it is the means by which order is achieved and the threat of anarchy curtailed. But it is far more nuanced than that. It is a multi-dimensional force – with momenta directed up and down, side to side and within. It is healthy, when applied through mutual and informed consent; much less so when exercised through coercion and imposition. In my consulting work when I ask clients – “do you have authority”? I tend to hear – an emphasised “yes”. Perhaps reflecting the conscious justification of their job. Afterall, a role without authority should never exist. But what is their authority and what is it intended to achieve? How are disputes over authority resolved? There are no simple answers to these questions within complex organisations.

My experiences of various types of organisation is that authority in its simplest form is assumed to exist within a hierarchy. The chain of command illustrated by the organisation chart is the model, perhaps accompanied by a manual of authority to set out decision limits. Now for those of you familiar with Blacklight, you’ll know that “above waterline of the iceberg” artefacts such as these play only a partial role in understanding features of organisational life. My experience of authority in businesses, below the waterline, is that it has different forms; somewhat like split personalities. Two authority types (although I believe there are other types too) that I frequently come across are ‘managerial’ and ‘commercial’. Managerial authority represents the bureaucracy of an organisation to establish control; create cooperation, efficiency and safety; to unify and make consistent. At its best it brings collaboration and synergy to life; at its worst it suppresses innovation, individuality and creative expression. In contrast, commercial authority represents the trader or dealmaker who is hunting for opportunities to create revenue, brokering agreements and nurturing customer relationships. This form determines the proposition, arbitrates risk/ reward and negotiates the price. It represents the precious top line of a business. Unfortunately, as with ‘managerial’; commercial authority also has its shadow side. This can be identified by the overemphasis on ends over means; status, dominance and achievement over respect and fairness; extrinsic motivation over intrinsic. This can translate to arrogance, greed and a sense of being superior and untouchable in contrast to others in an organisation.  

In many businesses there is reasonable coalition between these two types of authority. For example, a Partner in a management consulting or law firm will have managerial duties and be expected to run client accounts and have a revenue target. If there is a tension between the two aspects of responsibility it is within the individual. Having experienced this dynamic myself I recognise this balance was not easy at times to hold congruent and balanced. In contrast some organisations have a different set up. Here, there is a distinct division between managerial authority and commercial authority. For example, a CEO and functional leaders drive the bureaucratic and administrative side of the business, and traders, underwriters, relationship partners etc deliver the commercial side. And it is here where the split can occur. Which authority hierarchy is dominant? What happens if the two are not reconciled? My experience is that this dynamic can lead to polarisation and destructive tension. ‘Control the beast’ becomes the battle cry of the managerial faction desperate for accountability and control; ‘ditch the baggage and let us get on with making money’ from the commercial side who are equally desperate to avoid their endeavours dissipated by fat back office functions. And the result? Either side can hold the other hostage knowing that the primary task of the business needs both sides to cooperate. For example, one cannot discipline poor behaviour because the director has client relationships that the business cannot afford to lose; or equally reprehensible, when customer empathy and service is sacrificed to the slavish perseverance of bureaucracy. 

So, how do we make sense of this problem, because this type of civil war is destructive for individuals, teams and businesses. An organisation in these circumstances defeats its own purpose. Victory of one authority type over the other would appear to me to create ill feeling and resentment from the defeated side and risk ingrained subversive behaviour. Removal or amputation of one authority risks losing the positive and necessary intent that each type brings. A more interesting proposition is coexistence of authority types where the dynamic tension remains. However, it is tuned to a collective and reinforcing identity and purpose. In an organisational sense this means the reassertion of common values, a unified commitment to what the business stands for and conviction around why it exists. This does not mean that authority types must agree or diminish in importance and independence. What it does mean is that they become subordinate to a bigger idea of what the organisation is there to do, and as a consequence alignment and integration becomes possible.   

I’ll close by reflecting that authority is in conflict. It is not a singular concept but one that is interwoven by its varying types. It can become fractured both in society and within our workplaces. The dark side of these forces can be dangerous and destructive. I sincerely hope these splits may be resolved and some form of whole formed once more.