Power and Leadership:

Are They Simply Horses of a Different Color?

Presented to
Perry Barton
MGMT2215-Team Project

By
Emily Cormier

Date
February 9, 2015

6-1

How I define or perceive leadership and power most likely differs from the manner in
which my classmates define and perceive them. The word power conjures images of David
versus Goliath. With David being the weak pitted against the mighty strength of Goliath. From a
modern perspective, it is like squaring off Mike Tyson at the peak of his prowess against Steve
Urkel (the nerdy character in the sitcom Family Matters). Both vessels on one end strapped with
testosterone and on the other end a greater depth of estrogen. In comparison, when it in comes to
leadership, thoughts of great American political leaders like George Washington and Abraham
Lincoln come to mind. Viewed through 20th century lenses, images of Franklin D. Roosevelt and
Winston Churchill emerge. Closer still, visionaries like the late Steve Jobs truly exuded
leadership. While these men existed at different junctures in our history, they all possessed
characteristics that made them great leaders.
For those of us that possess only superficial knowledge of the dynamics of power and
leadership, they appear to be simply horses of a different color. You cant have one without the
other right? Placed under greater scrutiny it becomes apparent that such notions could not be
further from the truth. While both qualities are sometimes embedded in things, they are distinct
concepts. Each possess as set of assumptions and core characteristics. It is the purpose of this
paper to bring to light those contrasts. Such distinctions are not clarified in the normal academic
approaches of theoretical or conceptual analysis for such endeavors are readily available. It is
argued that great leaders and not so great leaders illustrate the fact that leadership and power are
not one-in-the-same. They can co-exist in leaders, but should not be mistaken for horses of a
different color.
In this project, the uses of comparisons are the order of the day. What better way to bring
such complex concepts to greater understanding than through application. Once the concepts are
brought to a semblance of understanding, it is important for us to observe how they stack up. In
achieving this aim it is necessary to draw upon such comparisons as Winston Churchill and
Joseph Stalin, Steve Jobs and Bill Gates, the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics (USSR), and lastly, Israel and the Arab world.
Having raised the point that power and leadership arent simply horses of a different
color, what exactly are they? Could it be said that power is like the stubborn mule and leadership
the seductive white horse? In some respects, such are comparison ring true, but its not always so
evident. Take Adolph Hitler for example. He was quite an eloquent speaker. He presented
Germans a vision of the world that radically transformed many minds to follow him down a
destructive path. For those who were not so easily seduced, he offered an iron fist and
confinement. As one can observe in the case of Hitler, leaders possess the ability to sell a vision
despite how distorted it may be compared to better judgment. On the other hand, power in the
form of pain and fear gave rise to a form of sick child-like obedience.
Let us begin with leadership. In its basic term, according to Vocabulary.com, leadership is
simply the power to lead.1 After researching and reading published works on leadership, we learn
that leadership extends well beyond the power to lead. What if the leaders possess no power at
all? Our history is filled with accounts of great leaders that possessed no power. For example, it
is well documented that under Mahatma Gandhis leadership, India ultimately broke free of
British rule. Gandhi did not possess the power of force to push the Brits out. Above all else, he
had a vision, patience, and resolve.

6-2

Gandhi had it! Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ had it! That complex leadership thing
can be defined many ways. In Leadership: Enhancing the lessons of experience, Curphy,
Hughes and Ginnett lists the following definitions of leadership2:

The process by which an agent induces subordinates to behave in a desired manner.

An interpersonal relation in which other comply because they desire to, not because they
have to.
The process of influencing an organized group toward accomplishing a set of goals.
Actions that focus resources to create desired opportunities.
Creating the conditions for a team to be effective.
Getting results through others (the ends of leadership), and the ability to build cohesive,
goal-oriented team members (the means of leadership).
A complex mode of social problem solving.

Leadership is defined many different ways, but there are a set of underlying fixtures
common in great leadership. It is the ability to influence others not by might or threat of force
but by influence stemming from inspiration, vision, building, and a focus on the needs of the
group or community in pursuit of goals. Leadership is not about possessing power for power
sake or garnering it to browbeat underlings into obedience.
Unlike leadership, power conjures a host of negative images and connotations. Power for
power sake is very dangerous. Power has been used throughout history by those that sought to
control or manipulate others. In its most sinister form, subjugation and death were the result.
Saddam Hussein knew it all too well. He used his power to dominate the Shiite majority and
subdue the Kurds in Iraq. Napoleon Bonaparte lusted for power and often boasted of its great
use. As Rob Wengrzyn points out, Napoleons management was by power only, and if you
argued or called into question his perspective, you were not going to be around for very long.3
Wengrzyn defines power as the ability to do something in a specific way you want it done by any
means necessary.
Wengrzyns view of power is of the darker and cynical classification. While we certainly
can agree that power has a dark side, it is not all bad. In fact, without some semblance of power
how do leaders get things done? Not all leaders possess the charisma or vision necessary to
inspire others to pursue goals that are greater than their self-interests. One of the undeniable
facts of life is that people who lack power exert very little influence on others.4 Power in the
right hands can have a positive impact and lead to amazing results. Bill Gates used his power to
not only force others to buy into his vision of computer centered world with Microsoft at its core,
but to work smarter. Well come back to Bill later.
Before were pulled into a conceptual back and forth discussion on the profound
differences and similarities of leadership and power, it is more fruitful to see how the two play
out in practice. Before diving into a comparative form of analysis, it is worth noting that I chose
these leaders not because the polar opposites on the leadership and power continuum. In fact,
these leaders, as with most great and not so great leaders, possess characteristics that support
elements of both leadership and power. Having said this, the nuisances are such that they support
our thesis.

6-3

Throughout world history, many have picked up the mantle of leadership and used power
for ill purposes; while others have sought to use power and influence to vanquish those that
chose such courses. To appreciate the application of leadership and power to the following
illustrations, it is helpful to approach it as a journey in time. We begin this journey in the summer
of 1940. The global economy was in the midst of the greatest economic mess in history. Adolph
Hitler and his allies embarked upon an unprecedented campaign of aggression.
In the midst of this backdrop, two of the most unlikely allies would rise up to take on this
challenge. These unlikely allies and future foes were Joseph Stalin of Russia and Winston
Churchill of Great Britain. These two leaders could not have been different in their aims and
approach to leadership and power. We start with Stalin. He oversaw one of the bloodiest
massacres in Russias history. The Russian purges, and gulags to follow, sent millions to their
death. Stalin believed in absolute power and domination. He was not one to tolerate opposition
or dissension. If you were perceived as a threat, you war killed or exiled. Stalin was a dictator.
Like all dictators, power and fear are weapons they wield without prejudice.
Unlike Stalin, Churchill was a true leader and possessed leadership qualities. He did not
pursue power as a means in itself but used his influence to rally the nation. Leaders lead by
mobilizing people around a compelling vision of the future, by inspiring them to follow in their
footsteps.6 While Churchill embarked upon a campaign of western solidarity, Stalin pursued his
goal of concurring countries and placing them under Russias control. Here are two leaders with
different goals and approaches to leadership and power sitting in the same room.
As it was alluded to earlier, the line is sometimes blurred when it comes to painting
leaders with the leadership and power brush. If leadership is partly defined by the idea of have a
vision, could it not be argued that Stalin had a vision for his people. Whether are not we disagree
with his vision, it was one that many bought into despite elements of fear. Stalin championed
communism and sought to use any means to force other countries to adopt Soviet-style political
arrangements. These arrangements were part of his goal of establish a Soviet area of influence. Is
it not the case that leaders set goals for subordinates and control the resources necessary to obtain
those goals? It almost sounds like Stalin possessed elements of leadership.
With regards to power and the influence the stems from it, Churchill was pretty much
given the power (war-time powers) to make decisions necessary for the survival of his people.
The power he possessed was bestowed upon him by a democratic mandate. This meant he would
eventually cede power to a successor. If power is the ability to get things done by any means,
could it be argued the Churchill wielded power and used his power to get others to fight on in the
face of overwhelming odds. War-time leaders are able to garner power that they would otherwise
not possess in times of peace. Churchill had that window of power. He chose to use it as a force
for good.
As we journey closer to the 21st Century, we are able to apply the leadership/power model
to other leaders. If you never had the privilege to watch the Pirates of Silicon Valley, you should.
It would provide a glimpse into the world of two of the most brilliant men of our time. The men
in question are Bill Gates and the late Steve Jobs. For the sake of argument, we are not going to
discuss the merits or accuracy of the movie. Sure, any attempt to provide and account of the lives
of others may be somewhat skewed in one manner or another.

6-4

Both Bill and Steve set the stage for a new generation of technologies. Both raced to
make the computer and computer software a household name. When we observe those early
days, is it safe to say Bill (while a visionary as well) was more of the powerbroker and Jobs more
of a leader and a visionary? It is the view of this author that the answer is yes. This is not to
suggest that both men did not possess vision, influence, and elements of power. What sets them
apart is the extent to which they relied on leadership or power to accomplish their goals. As we
peer through the window, we must not lose sight of the fact that degrees of leadership and power
exist.
In the movie, Bills early days are best described as socially insecure and not the qualities
leaders are made of. The then nerdy computer geek would change over time. He proved to be
cunning and calculating. He sought power and control. He used fear and intimidation to get his
way. Not fear in the physical sense, but fear of shouting tantrum-like scolding manner. To remain
in Bills good favor, one should not offer him failure or excuses for failure. Such behavior is met
with swift and unflinching scorn.
Steve was the ultimate visionary. Hippies are definite dreamers, especially when they are
high on marijuana. Jobs was very creative and possessed a greater imagination than Gates. You
worked hours for him not for fear that he would chew your head off. His influence stemmed
from his leadership. He inspired you to achieve greatness. He possessed an aura about him that
stated the sky is the limit. He believed in loyalty above all else and a determination to win.
Both Gates and Jobs developed leadership acumen. The difference is that Gates
leadership rested on power and Jobs on influence. Jobs convinced you to follow him in pursuit of
greatness. Gates could hardly gain such loyalty. In fact he pushed away some of his closest allies
and attempted to sideline co-founder Paul Allen. In the end, Jobs would build company value the
likes of no company in the history of man.
When most of us think of power and leadership, our focus quickly turn to a particular
figure. Along with individuals, leadership and power set organizations and other entities apart. In
the game of leadership and power, countries are pitted against each other. Countries throughout
history used leadership and power to pursue their self-interest or the interests of their allies.
Remember what we noted about Russia earlier, in pursuit of its goal of a Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics, it used the power of force instead of the power of ideas. France under
Napoleon sought European domination by unleashing its war machine in an act of power and
aggression. The German Reich under Hitlers lust for power is another good example.
For the next comparison, we rise above these regional players to place two mighty power
centers under scrutiny. At the peak of its power, the sun never set on the British Empire. When
the sun finally flamed out on Great Britain, two major powers were left standing. The United
States and the USSR, with their competing worldviews and political and economic systems,
engaged in a decades long competition for allies and influence. What makes this comparison so
interesting is the clear-cut application of the leadership/power model.
Before delving into the comparison, it is worth revisiting the leadership/power
differences. We hinted earlier to the fact that leadership and power are not horses of a different
color. Leaders may or may not possess power. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. did not possess the
power to alter the course of the nation, yet he was on the right side of history. In some case,

6-5

leaders are simply figureheads and do not hold any sway over events or make the tough
decisions. For example, fortune 500 companies have board members and shareholders that are
not leaders but through the power of their vote can alter the companys direction to some degree.
In many cases, the leader has overwhelming power and control. The late Libyan President
Muammar Gaddafi ruled his nation from a position of strength. He answered to no one and
ended up on the wrong side of a gun. Gaddafi illustrates the point that one could possess power
but lack leadership acumen. One of the strengths of leadership is to rule not necessarily by raw
power but by influencing or swaying others with ideas, example, or argument. When Gaddafi
attempted to demonstrate leadership through the African Union, he utterly failed. African Union
leaders were well aware of his mode of leadership operation. He lead with the sword and such
would be his undoing. As our next comparison will demonstrate, leadership stems not from
power alone but from the power of values and ideas.
On this leg of our journey, World War II is long past and a wall separates western and
eastern Germany. In the West, the United States carries the mantle of capitalism and freedom. In
the East, the USSR totes the strong arm of communism and control. While America continues to
sell democracy, capitalism, and freedom as a way of life, Russia and its soviet brethren, are
invading and forcing their ideas on others by means of force or the threat of force. The global
chess game is set for the long haul.
With the West and East on the march, both are locked in a leadership/power dynamic. If
leadership is closely identified as getting others to do what you wish by example or influence and
power is getting others to do what you wish by any means, which side of the coin describes
America? Is U.S. and its allies the head (leadership) or tale (power) in this drama? This author
argues that the U.S. is the head and the USSR the tale. Why?
History tells us that no country is perfect and America is not exception to this. But, the
world had to make a decision to be lead or follow. America offered the world a clear vision.
Leadership supports a vision and a choice. The choice was to live in a world where dissention
was not met with death, confinement or exile. Part of that vision was the idea that political
leaders should be chosen not appointed and should cede power when the choice had changed.
Economically, people should have the right to work, invest, and consume as they desired. Private
property and land should not be taken by force without fair compensation.
In the USSR power was the order of the day. Stalin and subsequent Russian leaders were
short on leading by example or influence. If you were not convinced that they knew what was
best for society, you may expire prematurely. In their system, political leaders were chosen by
the appointed few. If a political leader was perceived as a challenge to the power structure he
would be put to death or exiled to a most unpleasant life. Economically, you pretty much worked
and consumed what was on offer. Well, if you were part of the chosen few, you were able to
import luxuries from the west. People were property of the state and part of a larger community.
It is no wonder the state had to put up walls to keep people in.
When you set the two systems next to each other it becomes clear how they fit our
leadership/power model. As a force of leadership, America sought to influence others with the
power of its ideals and values. America pushed for a democratic peace and an economic model
that would bring economies closer together. At the peak of the East-West divide, American

6-6

leaders were well aware that they could not force their values on the world. Instead, the opted to
lead and offered the world a grand bargain to join economic growth and freedom over fear and
tyranny. Power for power sake was not Americas strength and certainly not how they won the
great debate of our time. The USSR shunned leadership when it lacked the ability to influence
and seduce others.
Fear in the form of brute power was its true ally. They rarely hasten to call upon her when
faced with rejection and feeble opposition. It is with great confidence that the Russian power
block propped up the power component of our argument. They displayed their power by threats
of invasion or propaganda. They chose not to lead by example. In fact, if they were in a position
to do so, they made an example of countries unprotected by American interests.
Journeying from the large to the small, we shift focus to the Middle East region where
Israel has and continues to be placed at odds with its Arab neighbors. We are not interested
debating the rights and wrongs of Middle East conflicts or the Judaism and Islamic divide. More
so, we are not to discuss the merits of Israels existence and behavior or the plight of those
countries that oppose it. We are only interested in how leadership and power is distinguished by
way of illustration. To achieve our aim is it necessary to visit a bit of the background involved
and create a foundation for discussion. It is also helpful to focus on a particular Arab country
(Syria) to make for a good comparison. Once this is achieved we can then apply the
leadership/power concepts.
From its very inception (1948), Israel has been a source of Arab conflict and tension.
With Israel in the region, several wars and uprisings occurred. Most of Muslims in the region, in
particular the Palestinians, see Israel as a land thief and occupying power. To say nothing of the
religious divide, Israel is a democracy amongst a host of undemocratic foes. Its rich history in the
region further places it at odds with the region.
Syria, currently in the midst of internal conflict, has fought several conflicts with Israel.
The two countries are sworn enemies. Unlike Israel, Syria, according the CIA World Factbook, is
a republic under authoritarian rule6. Syrian leader, Bashar al-Assad, rules the country with a
heavy hand and silences dissension and opposition. Like his father, he rules no by the support of
his people but by appointment and power.
Placing these countries side by side, one quickly succumbs to the view that in this case,
Israel is the better example of leadership and Syria power. If we set leaders and personalities
aside, Israel is a source of fundamental freedoms of ideals in the region. Syria plays the regional
power game and is not a source influence or persuasion. Syria values above all else obedience
and force. Ideas that run counter to the power structure are met with overwhelming force. There
are great limits to the freedom to choose a path not sanction by the regime in power. Fear and
power play to the strength of the regime.
The Syrian leader navigates the whims of his country in the manner in which he was
taught. His father crushed opposition and silence dissension during his reign. President Assad
and the ruling Syrian leadership possess no vision for the country. The people of Syria are
rejecting power in hopes of a new vision for the nation. As fellow deposed dictators Saddam
Hussein and Qadafi learned the hard way, power and the use of force begets power and the use of
counter force.

6-7

Unlike Syrians, the Jews choose to allow influence and persuasion to reign. Leaders are
elected and are forced to govern in the form of a coalition. Leaders are removed from power
when the lose elections. The will of the people hold sway of elected officials. The choice to leave
or stay and thrive in the Jewish nation is up to the individual. The Israelis support the power of
public opinion over the power of the gun. At least, as it pertains to the internal affairs of the
Jewish nation.
As it is been demonstrated in this work, leadership and power are not horses of a different
color. The concepts share a relationship but are not one in the same. Comparative analysis and
greater scrutiny of several global icons has demonstrated that people or countries for that matter
can possess leadership qualities and be devoid of power. On the flip side, there are numerous
examples when power brokers are not in a position of leadership or at least lean toward the
leadership camp. Churchill displayed leadership while Stalin lusted for power. America served as
a beacon of freedom and example and the USSR sought conquest and domination. Israel shines
as a light of democratic leadership in the heart of a sea of dictatorships. Syria may very well end
up removing power and take up the mantle of leadership.

Works Cited

6-8

Leadership Defined." Vocabulary.com. N.P., 2015. Web. 6 Feb. 2015.

<http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/leadership>.
Hughes, Richard L., Robert C. Ginnett, and Gordon J. Curphy. Chapter One. "Leadership:
Enhancing the Lessons of Experience." 7th Ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin, 2012. 4.
Print.
Wengrzyn, Rob. "Differences Between Power, Leadership, Authority & Influence." Study.com.
N.P., n.d. Web. 07 Feb. 2015. <http://education-portal.com/academy/lesson/differencesbetween-power-leadership-authority-influence.html>.
Bacon, Terry R. The Elements Of Power: Lessons On Leadership And Influence. New York:
AMACOM American Management Association, 2011. EBook Collection (EBSCOhost).
Web. 7 Feb. 2015.
Bacon, Terry R. "Power and Influence." Power and Influence Blog. N.P., 28 Feb. 2012. Web. 08
Feb. 2015. <http://www.theelementsofpower.com/index.cfm/power-and-influenceblog/influence-and-leadership/>.
"The Country of Syria." Central Intelligence Agency. Central Intelligence Agency, 2015. Web. 03
Feb. 2015. <https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sy.html>.