Chapter 4

Authority, power and leadership

Contributions from group relations training

Anton Obholzer

It is self-evident that clarity in matters of authority, leadership and organizational

structure is essential for the competent functioning of any organization. Yet
confusion abounds. Why should this be so? What are the factors contributing to
the perpetuation of this state? In this chapter we shall look at these core concepts,
their derivation and interrelationships, and the individual and organizational
factors that commonly lead to the appearance and persistence of institutional anti-
task phenomena. The way these concepts are used throughout this book is
grounded in a model of group relations training described at the end of this
chapter.

AUTHORITY
Authority refers to the right to make an ultimate decision, and in an organization it
refers to the right to make decisions which are binding on others.

Authority from ‘above’

Formal authority is a quality that is derived from one’s role in a system and is
exercised on its behalf. For example, the director of a company derives authority
from the board of the company. The board makes the appointment, holds the
director responsible for outcomes, and also has the power to sack him or her. The
board, in turn, is elected by, and thus derives its authority from, the shareholders of
the company. Thus, authority derives from a system of delegation, in this case
from the shareholders to the board, and from the board to the director. Usually
there is a constitution or other formal system which lays down terms of office and
other mechanisms for delegating authority. These are human-made systems,
agreed through common consent. If the system becomes outdated and is no longer
held by common consent, it has to be changed to take the new factors into account.
However, not all systems are so clear-cut in hierarchical terms. For example, in
voluntary organizations there are often a number of ‘stakeholders’—funders,
management committee members, clients, staff, professional groups, referring
40 Anton Obholzer

agencies and so on—which may all, in different ways, claim ownership of the
organization. Some of these will hold different views on where authority
ultimately comes from (or should come from), to whom it is delegated, and to
what extent.

Authority from ‘below’

Members who voluntarily join an organization are, by defination, sanctioning the
system. By the act of joining, they are, at least implicitly, delegating some of their
personal authority to those in authority to those in authority, and so is doing
confirming the system.
Authority dose not, however, derive only from an external structure as outlined
above. It also has internal components which may be explicit and conscious, or
unconscious and therefore not available to be worked with. These internal
components include the nature and extent of the ambivalence affecting the
delegation of those authority delegated to him or her by the authorizing body, but
there may have been no dialogue or consultation with the working membership of
the organization regarding the appointment. In this case, the latter may accept the
concept of management and sanction the authority of the role, but not that of the
person in role. The withholding of authority from below, in the form of not
sanctioning, means that full authority cannot be obtained, and there is an increased
risk of undermining and sabotage.
Of course, ‘full authority’ is a myth. What is needed might be called ‘full-
enough’ authority, to coin a term derived from Winnicott’s (1971) concept of
‘good-enough’ mothering. This would imply a state of authority in which there
would be an ongoing acknowledgement by persons in authority, but also and
equally of the limitations of that authority. An integral part of this state of mind
would be an ongoing monitoring of authority-enhancing and of authority-sapping
processes in the institution.
A head teacher learned that an informal meeting had been called at
school, after school hours, in which the teachers attending planned to
discuss the new curriculum. As this had previously been decided at a
policy meeting chaired by him, he now faced some difficult questions.
Was this to be interpreted as evidence of staff initative, of their taking
their authority to extend the debate, and thus enhancing the head’s aims?
Or was to be interpreted as an undermining of authority and formal
decision-making structures?
The head’s understanding of the meaning of the proposed meeting would
probably determine not only what action he would take, but also its outcome.

Authority from within

Apart form the delegation of authority from above and sanctioning from below,
 Authority, power and leadership 41

there is the vital issue of the authorization or confirmation of authority from within
individuals. This largely depends on the nature of their relationship with the
figures in their inner world (see Chapter 1), in particular past authority figures.
The attitude of such ‘in-the-mind’ authority figures is crucial in affecting how, to
what extent and with what competence external institutional roles are taken up.
For example, an individual might be appointed to a position of authority,
sanctioned from below, yet be unable to exercise authority competently on account
of an undermining of self-in-role by inner world figures. Such ‘barracking’ by
inner world figures is a key element in the process of self-doubt, and, if constant
and evident, is likely to prevent external authorization in the first place.
An accountant who was perceived by both his peers and seniors as very
competent, having gone through all the correct processes, was promoted
to director of finance, a move approved by his colleagues. Once that
promotion had taken place, his work seemed to falter. He had lost his
membership of the office club, and in himself felt he was not really up to
the job, and that his former peers were now making snide comments.
There was no evidence in reality that this was going on. However, snide
remarks were an integral part of his relationship with his father; as a
child, he had been at both the giving and receiving end of this process.
The opposite dynamic also exists, with inner world figures playing into a state of
psychopathological omnipotence, which makes for an inflated picture of the self
as regards being in authority, and is likely to produce authoritarian attitudes and
behaviour.
A doctor, appointed at an early age to a consultant post, became
increasingly pompous, arrogant and hard to bear by staff and patients
alike. His incapacity to listen, to learn from his own or others’
experience, and thus to modify his behaviour, arose from an inner world
constellation in which he was mother’s only child, her adored companion
who could do no wrong. Transferred to outer world behaviour, the
consequences were disastrous.
There is an important difference between the terms authoritative and authoritarian.
Authoritative is a depressive position state of mind (see Chapter 1) in which the
persons managing authority are in touch both with the roots and sanctioning of
their authority, and with their limitations. Authoritarian, by contrast, refers to a
paranoid-schizoid state of mind, manifested by being cut off from roots of
authority and processes of sanction, the whole being fuelled by an omnipotent
inner world process. The difference is between being in touch with oneself and
one’s surroundings, and being out of touch with both, attempting to deal with this
unrecognized shortcoming by increased use of power to achieve one’s ends.
Good-enough authority, at its best, is a state of mind arising from a continuous
mix of authorization from the sponsoring organization or structure, sanctioning
from within the organization, and connection with inner world authority figures.
42 Anton Obholzer

POWER
Power refers to the ability to act upon others or upon organizational structure.
Unlike authority, it is an attribute of persons rather than roles, and it can arise from
both internal and external sources. Externally, power comes from what the
individual controls—such as money, privileges, job references, promotion and the
like—and from the sanctions one can impose on others. It also derives from the
nature of one’s social and political connections: how many individuals of
prominence can be summoned to one’s aid in role. Internally, power comes from
individuals’ knowledge and experience, strength of personality, and their state of
mind regarding their role: how powerful they feel and how they therefore present
themselves to others.
In all these, the perceived power or powerlessness counts more than the actual,
both of which depend on the inner world connectedness mentioned previously.
For example, powerlessness is often a state of mind related to problems with
taking up authority. At times there is an interplay between this state of mind and an
actual lack of external resources that could otherwise be used to bolster power.
However, an individual in a state of demoralization or depression may well have
adequate external resources to effect some change, but feel unable to do so on
account of an undermining state of mind. In this case, power is projected,
perceived as located outside the self, leaving the individual with a sense of
powerlessness. By contrast, someone who attracts projected power is much more
likely to take—and to be allowed to take—a leadership role. The nature of the
projections will affect whether that person is hated and feared, or loved and
admired (Grubb Institute 1991).

Power, authority and language

The terms authority and power are often used interchangeably, leading to
confusion. They are different, although related, and in organizations both are
necessary. Authority without power leads to a weakened, demoralized
management. Power without authority leads to an authoritarian regime. It is the
judicious mix and balance of the two that makes for effective on-task management
in a well-run organization.
The title given to the person in authority in an organization generally gives
some indication of the authority/power ratio. Thus ‘dictator’ makes it clear that the
essential component is power. ‘Director’, ‘manager’ or ‘chairman’ generally
imply a mix of authority and power. By contrast, ‘co-ordinator’, a title often given
to the most senior manager in voluntary sector agencies, suggests that the person
can only take decisions if everyone agrees to them—an unlikely phenomenon—
and that there is very little power and capacity to exert sanctions. The choice of
such a title may well express ambivalence in the organization about the amount of
authority and power it is prepared to give its office-bearer. In addition, the type
and length of appointment can radically affect how the post is perceived in terms
 Authority, power and leadership 43

of power and authority. For example, there is a considerable difference between

being appointed general manager and acting manager, or between being given a
fixed term or permanent contract.
Clarity of structure and of the constitution make it possible to assess whether or
not the system of authorization is functioning, and what steps would need to be
taken to withdraw authorization, should that be decided. This is, of course, not
possible in authoritarian regimes, where the constitution either does not exist or
else is subverted, and rule or management is on the basis of power rather than of
law. Furthermore, there needs to be a match between authority and power, and
responsibility. Responsibility for outcomes involves being answerable or
accountable to someone, either in the organization or else in one’s own mind as
part of an inner world value system. A sense of responsibility without having
adequate authority and power to achieve outcomes often leads to work-related
stress and eventually burn-out.
In assessing the nature and functioning of an organization, whether as a
member or as an outside consultant, the time used in clarifying the nature, source
and routing of authority, the power available, and the names describing various
organizational functions, is time well spent.

LEADERSHIP
Leadership and management are also terms that are often used interchangeably. It
is true that they have a ‘headship’ function in common, but management generally
refers to a form of conduct by those in authority that is intended to keep the
organization functioning and on-task, while leadership also implies looking to the
future, pursuing an ideal or goal. Furthermore, leadership by definition implies
followership, while management does so to a much lesser degree.
The story of Judith and Holophernes in the Apocrypha is an extreme example
of leadership, with consequent risks to the followership. When Judith cut off the
head of Holophernes, the leader of the Assyrians, and displayed it to the Assyrian
army, they behaved as if they had all lost their own heads and were then easily
routed by the Israelites. If the Assyrian army had had less of a leadership cult and
more emphasis on management, Holophernes could have been quickly replaced
and the outcome would have been quite different. Similar difficulties can often be
observed after the departure of a charismatic leader in present-day institutions.
Followers are left in disarray, and at the same time may withhold followership
from the person appointed as a replacement, disabling this person from both
leading and managing.

Leadership, followership and envy

Task performance requires active participation on the part of the followers as well
as of the leader. A passive, accepting, basic assumption state of followership (see
Chapter 3), such as one might find in a demoralized organization, is quite different
44 Anton Obholzer

from a state of mind of exercising one’s own authority to take up the followership
role in relation to the task. The latter implies clarity about the organization’s task,
and about where one’s role fits in with others.
In order to manage oneself in role, the fundamental question is ‘How can I
mobilize my resources and potential to contribute to the task?’ This requires
recognition of where one’s role ends and another person’s begins, the scope and
limits of one’s own authority, and a readiness to sanction that of others. Rivalry,
jealousy and envy often interfere with the process of taking up either a leadership
or a followership role. Staff rivalry is a ubiquitous phenomenon. In a misguided
attempt to avoid fanning rivalry and envy, managers may try to manage from a
position of equality, or, more commonly, pseudo-equality, often presented as
‘democracy’. The term is used as if everyone has equal authority. The hope is
that rivalry, jealousy and envy will thereby be avoided; the reality is the
undermining of the manager’s authority, capacity to hold an overall perspective
and ability to lead.
Although there is a substantial body of work on envy in intra- and
interpersonal relationships, there is little written about its manifestation in
institutions. Yet it is clear that envy in institutional processes is one of the key
destructive phenomena, particularly in relation to figures in authority. Envy
results in a destructive attack on the person in authority, with resultant spoiling of
the work arising under the aegis of that person’s authority. Typically, the envious
attack on the leader is led by the member of staff with the highest naturally
occurring quantum of rivalry and envy. This person is unconsciously set up, by
means of projective identification (see Chapters 1 and 14) to express not only his
or her own destructive envy, but also that of other group members. The dynamic
for the institution is then one in which leader and attacker are pushed into a
deadlocked fight, while the remainder of the staff take on the role of distressed
and helpless onlookers.
In professional settings, the envious attack may take the form of a debate about
‘general principles’, or ‘technical issues’ or ‘technique’, and is presented as if it
were in the pursuit of progress, if not of ultimate truth. It is often only with time that
the envious, attacking, destructive nature of this process is revealed. The beauty of
this particular defensive institutional constellation is that it not only gratifies
unconscious wishes but also attacks the pursuit of the primary task, and this reduces
the amount of pain arising from the work of the organization. Such anti-task
phenomena are often presented as the most progressive, anti-hierarchical, anti-
authoritarian, anti-sexist, anti-ageist, anti-racist way of going about the work of the
organization. At times, these ideological arguments are little more than a
rationalization for the defensive processes associated with envy; at other times they
are serious on-task comments about an organization in urgent need of reform. It is
essential that there be enough thinking space in the organization for these
differentiations to be worked on, and for the resulting understanding to be
implemented.
 Authority, power and leadership 45

On-task leadership
Leadership and management share a boundary-regulating function (see Chapter
4), which requires relating what is inside and what is outside the organization.
Like the two-faced Roman god Janus, the leader must always be looking both
inwards and outwards, a difficult position which carries the risk of being criticized
by people both inside and outside the system for neglecting their interests.
Concentrating solely on one or the other is a more comfortable position but it
undermines the role of the leader, and thus the strength of the institution’s
representation in the outer world.
In addition to the boundary-management function, leadership is directly
related to the pursuit of the aims and of the primary task of the organization. (The
distinction between aim and primary task is discussed on p. 33.) Without the
concept of primary task, whether called that or something else (according to the
language of the organization), it is not possible either to have a marker against
which the direction and functioning of the organization can be monitored, or to
effect the necessary adjustments to this course and functioning. Such monitoring
and adjustment are essential functions of leadership, and the leader’s authority to
carry them out derives ultimately from the primary task. It is only through a
consistent and clear monitoring of the primary task that it is possible to develop
and maintain on-task leadership, to avoid the abuse of power, and to keep at a
relative minimum the occurrence and spread of basic assumption activity in the
organization (see Chapter 3). This also implies that, as the primary task changes,
so leadership and followership roles may need to change. For example, in an
operating team the head surgeon is usually the leader, but if the patient stops
breathing during an operation, the anaesthetist needs to take over the leadership
until the breathing is restored (Turquet 1974).

THE GROUP RELATIONS TRAINING MODEL

Many of the key concepts referred to in this chapter either originate from, or have
been developed and refined through, the experiential study of group and
organizational processes in group relations conferences. Central among these is
the ‘Leicester Conference’, first run by the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations
in conjunction with Leicester University in 1957. Since then, in addition to more
than forty Leicester conferences, there have been numerous other group relations
training events of varying length and design in the United Kingdom, the United
States and many other countries, adapted from the original model and expanding
its application (see Appendix on p. 211). The basic conceptual framework of the
Leicester model corresponds to that described in the three foregoing chapters,
combining open systems theory, Bion’s work on groups, and later developments
from psychoanalysis (Miller 1990a, 1990b). However, the influence of these
conferences on the understanding of groups and organizational behaviour, and on
the practice of organizational consultancy, has less to do with theory than with
learning from the conference experience itself.
46 Anton Obholzer

At the core of all group relations training models is the idea of the individual
participant learning from here-and-now experience. Conferences are designed to
be temporary learning institutions, giving participants the opportunity to learn
from their own experience about group and organizational processes, and their
own part in these. Events are planned to be educational and not therapeutic,
although personal change may well occur as a ‘side effect’. Basic to this work is
Bion’s concept of valency—the innate tendency of individuals to relate to groups
and to respond to group pressures in their own highly specific way (see Chapter 3).
It is important for individuals to know the nature of their own valency, a group and
organizational version of the need to know oneself, in order to be prepared for
both the resultant personal strengths and weaknesses as manifested in group
situations.
Depending on the nature of the design, and the focus of the event, individuals
also have the opportunity to study the nature of intragroup processes in groups of
different sizes, and to participate in intergroup activities to learn about intergroup
processes. In all these events, members can take up a variety of roles and thus learn
about the processes of giving and taking authority, working with tasks and roles,
bidding for and exercising leadership, and so on.
In moving from one event to another (that is, from one grouping to another with
different memberships and tasks), members also have the opportunity to
experience their fellow members in a variety of roles, often behaving quite
differently according to the roles they are engaged in and the group process in
which they are enmeshed. Similarly, they experience the different behaviour of the
conference staff in new roles and settings. Thus they can learn about role and task,
and how these affect behaviour and feelings. The process of crossing boundaries,
as members move from one grouping or event to another, makes available learning
which is applicable to organizational settings and to the management of change
and of multiple roles.
Consultancy from experienced conference staff is usually available to help
members think about what is happening. In most models, there are also times set
aside specifically to give participants the opportunity to review their experiences
of the various conference events, and to work out how to apply their learning to
their ‘back-home’ situation (Rice 1965). The membership of these ‘application’
events is usually made up of participants from different organizations and
professional backgrounds, and often also from different countries and cultures.
This provides opportunities for members to be witnesses to different styles of
perceiving and working at problems, whether from leadership or follower-ship
perspectives.
Central to the learning process is the repeated discovery of the presence of
irrational and unconscious processes that interfere with attempts to manage
oneself, the group, task and roles in a conscious and rational way. Such insights,
when experienced in the pure culture of a training event, make for powerful
learning from experience. The hope is that, as a result of their greater awareness of
unconscious processes and their own part in them, members will return to their
 Authority, power and leadership 47

‘back-home’ work-settings better able to exercise their own authority and to

manage themselves in role (Miller 1990a).

CONCLUSION
Clarity about the sources from which authority is derived is important, not least so
that at a time of crisis further confirmation of authority, possibly with additional
powers, can be sought. Similarly, an awareness of the importance of sanction from
below can lead to more dialogue between managers and the workforce. Finally,
careful monitoring of one’s connectedness with one’s own inner world authority
figures is also important if ‘shooting oneself in the foot’ is to be avoided or kept to
a minimum.
Effective leadership requires not only an authoritative state of mind to monitor
the functioning of the organization against the bench-mark of the primary task. A
leader also needs the power to initiate and implement changes as required by a
change in social or institutional circumstances, or even, in the light of these
factors, to change the primary task of the organization. As part of this process, a
system of accountability needs to exist, as does a mechanism for the delegation of
authority, an in-house network that allows for the flow of both authority and
feedback. By such means, it becomes possible to delegate aspects of the primary
task to individuals or teams within the structure, and to call them to account for the
nature of their functioning in relation to the overall task of the organization.
Part II

Working with people in pain

INTRODUCTION
A major source of stress for staff working in the helping professions is their
constant proximity to people in great pain, whether physical, emotional or both.
This stress may be related to conscious anxieties, for example about a client at
special risk, or about a mistake one has made. Excessive workloads are another
conscious source of stress, leaving staff concerned about the quality of the help
they are offering. But other anxieties are unconscious, kept out of awareness not
only by personal defences but also by collective ones. These anxieties are stirred
up by the nature of the work itself, and the defences to which they give rise can
exacerbate stress rather than alleviate it.
Chapter 5 describes how clients rid themselves of their painful feelings, and
also communicate aspects of their experience which they cannot put into words,
by projecting them into the staff. This can have a profound effect on a staff group.
They too can become distressed and deal with this by projection. The whole
organization can then become caught up in the same state of mind as the clients it
exists to serve. If, on the other hand, the unconscious processes that affect us at an
individual and organizational level can be understood, they can be dealt with in
ways that further rather than hinder development.
Each of the next six chapters focuses on work with a different client group,
and illustrates some of the ways staff relationships and working practices are
structured so as to defend against the anxieties inherent in the task. Each chapter
also develops themes which readers working with other kinds of clients in other
sorts of settings are likely to recognize and find relevant to their own experiences.
By describing both the difficulties for which consultation was requested, and
their actual experiences and thinking while consulting to these institutions, the
authors hope to offer readers new ways of reflecting on their own painful
experiences at work.
Chapter 12 shifts in emphasis from considering how the nature of the work
affects workers, to exploring what individuals bring to the work—their
50 Anton Obholzer and Vega Zagier Roberts

unconscious needs and the unresolved issues from their past which can make them
especially vulnerable to the processes described in the preceding chapters. Why
have we chosen the particular kind of work we do? Thinking about this,
individually and with colleagues, can be an important step towards managing our
anxieties and stress differently.