Air University Review, May-June 1982

Authority

The assassination attempts on President Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul II and the slaying of Anwar Sadat cause us to think about the role of authority in modern life. Looking about us, we see examples of traditional authority crumbling, from the near anarchy of the sixties to the guerrilla movement of the Third World. No organization, not even the military, seems exempt from an erosion of authority; on difficult days, leaders wonder about the future, and some must recall John Stuart Mill’s warning that "obedience is the first lesson of civilization.’’

What is authority? Does it still have force today? Authority may be defined as the power to enforce obedience or influence action, opinion, or belief. Even superficial study of the subject makes clear two expressions of authority. In one, a person gains authority by legal right, such as that held by the governor of a state, or the president of a university, or the commander of a military unit. This sometimes is called de jure authority, as contrasted with de facto authority, that which an individual earns by his presence, fitness, excellence, character, or charisma: Lech Walesa of Poland is a current example.

Most traditional leaders have de jure authority awarded by the state or an organization chartered by the state. But the best of these leaders augment that with de facto authority as well. Dynamic commanders such as Alexander and Caesar clearly did so with impressive natural talent reminiscent of Homer. The de facto leader has a following dependent either on his success or on his faith in himself and his ability to convey that confidence to others.

The Authority of the State

The Greeks believed that authority came from the gods (as in the case of Homer) or God (in the case of Plato) and that others must submit to the designated ruler or be punished. Sophocles summed up that conviction when Creon said ". . . whomsoever the city may appoint, that man must be obeyed." ¹

In Judaism, from the earliest time, men believed that authority came from God. It was God who chose Moses to lead the children of Israel back to the promised land, and it was God who gave Moses the Ten Commandments. God directed Samuel to visit with the sons of Jesse and select David as the King of Israel.²

In the New Testament, we find Jesus acting on God’s authority.³ Paul, in his letter to the Romans, noted that authority came from God to those who govern and that citizens should be subject to their rulers.⁴ This thought evolved into a Christian concept that earthly authorities were commissioned by God to rule, leading to a justification for the divine right of kings.

The Protestant revolution, preaching the equal priesthood of all believers, shattered this concept beyond repair. God might be talking to the king, but for a variety of reasons the king might be hard of hearing. Society needed a new doctrine to defend the authority of the state. It came in the idea of a social compact.

The Greeks talked about a contract between the individual and the government. Socrates would not flee to avoid death because he felt obligated to accept punishment where previously he had enjoyed benefits.⁵ In a more recent setting, three philosophers held similar views of a contract where man gave up his position in the state of nature to secure for himself certain advantages as he joined other people to form a government.

English philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) found the state of nature really a state of war between individuals, the worst possible existence. Any government would be better than this state of nature to Hobbes, who lived through the hardship of dramatic political changes. Hobbes concluded that man abandoned the state of nature to form a covenant with others like himself who wanted to ensure the laws of nature (namely, justice, modesty, mercy, the fulfillment of the Golden Rule), putting aside the normal passions of partiality, pride, and revenge. In making this covenant, individuals submitted their wills to one will, either expressed by a man or an assembly that became the sovereign. Doing so, they created the Leviathan, the "mortal god to which we owe, under the immortal God, our peace and defence." Once made, this covenant could not be broken; the sovereign would become absolute as ruler and judge.⁶

John Locke (1632-1704), another English philosopher with somewhat different political experiences, found the state of nature one of freedom. Locke believed that since God created all men and since all men were servants of God to do his business, then each man should be restrained from invading the rights of others. The law of nature put in each man’s hands the power of punishing transgressors of the law because a transgressor lives by a different rule from that of reason that God gives to mankind. Man in nature is uncertain, and men give up that uncertainty to form governments that will preserve the individual’s property and provide that which nature could not offer, a known and unbiased judge. This government must be supreme, but it may not take away life, liberty, or property.⁷

The baton then passed to a brilliant French writer, born in Switzerland and impressed with the democracy of a city-state. Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) saw men giving up the freedom of nature to form an association that would protect the individual and his goods. For the union to be perfect, the individual must surrender completely, putting himself under the supreme direction of the common will. This contract brings people together to form a sovereign. Since the people decide, they never can do so in a way that is contrary to their will. If anyone refuses to obey the common will, he can be forced to do so: this is being forced to be free. Each person must give the sovereign that part of his goods, powers, and liberty that it is important for the community to control, but it is up to the sovereign to make a judgment of how much each individual must relinquish.⁸ Thus, Rousseau became the father of the French Revolution and later of the absolute state.

The thread of development for the modern state divides here, with Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel and Karl Marx leading in one direction. Another thread leads through English liberalism, where John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) noted that the most conspicuous feature in the history of Greece, Rome, and England was the struggle between authority and liberty. First liberty meant protection against the tyranny of rulers, ensured by setting constitutional checks on the ruler’s power. But later, people realized that better rulers would be those who served at the will of the people and thus temporarily. This concept produced a clamor for rulers identified with the interest and will of the people. Yet the democracy thus established also had dangers hidden in the tyranny of prevailing opinion and feeling, an attempt by the majority to stamp out dissent.⁹

Many of these ideas impressed our Founding Fathers, working before Mill. Alexander Hamilton understood government to be a social contract, but he feared the tyranny of the majority, as did other Federalists. Thomas Jefferson, more impressed with the will of the people, changed Locke’s natural rights in the Declaration of Independence to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." To protect the individual against the tyranny of the majority, the Founding Fathers relied on the separation of executive, legislative, and judicial powers, each acting under the terms of a constitution that included guarantees of individual rights.

Some of these ideas seem strangely modern. Throughout history, as Mill observed, authority and liberty have clashed. The question was how they could be balanced without sacrificing one to the other.

Opposition to Authority

Challenges to authority are as old as thoughts about it. One recalls in mythology how men, usually without success, struggled against the gods. The haunting theme of Antigone is that the state cannot be supreme over a person’s higher calling. Plato argued for temperance and wisdom in rulers.¹⁰ Aristotle called for rule by the virtuous and for moderation by princes, inferring that it was wrong to rule without justice.¹¹ Augustine defended the absolute necessity for justice in governance. In fact, without justice, a kingdom is but a great robbery.¹² Implicit in these thoughts is the right of rebellion against injustice.

Even Hobbes, who defended absolute and undivided supreme authority, believed that some natural rights could not be relinquished: a man could not be expected to give up his life since he entered into the compact to protect it. When the sovereign cannot protect him, the individual no longer is bound to his contract.¹³ Locke argued that the state is formed to protect life, liberty, and property. When it cannot or does not do so, then the contract is broken, and people, the ultimate judge, are justified in forming a new government.¹⁴ Thus Locke defended the Glorious Revolution in England in 1688 and became one of the philosophers of the American Revolution.

In American society, we have accepted the proposition that a person’s highest loyalty in the extreme case need not be to the state and its laws. People have the right to criticize the government, hence the freedom of the press and the right of assembly. It was his belief in the necessity to defend a higher moral ground that caused Henry Thoreau to refuse to pay his taxes and thereby to spend a night in the Concord jail. His protest, expressed so well in his essay on "Civil Disobedience," was against what he termed an unjust war with Mexico. A fundamental difference of opinion caused the Civil War that nearly tore apart our nation. America has experienced considerable protest against nearly every war in our history, even during World War II although it was expressed quietly.

In the 1960s, young people took violent exception to our nation’s policies. Martin Luther King wrote his stirring "Letter from a Birmingham Jail," the keystone declaration of the movement for equal rights and opportunity. Conscientious objection, a solid part of our national tradition, meets the individual’s requirement to put the dictates of one’s faith above those of the state. Thus some undermining of authority is inherent in the American political tradition.

Preserving Authority

The earliest writers recognized that authority depended on the sanctions that the ruler or state could impose. Aeschylus echoed for others the idea, "Who is virtuous except he fear?"¹⁵ Sophocles attributes to Menelaus the idea that license to insult the state or act against it soon will cause it to fail.¹⁶ Aristotle noted that without force the king could not administer his kingdom.¹⁷ Plutarch, writing on Cleomenes, noted that reverence for the leader depends on fear. The Old Testament writers took it for granted that those who disobeyed God would be punished.

The social compact philosophers realized that after man left his state of nature to associate with a government, he abandoned his power to resist; thereafter, he had to submit himself to the sovereign or be punished. Hamilton stated the case forthrightly in The Federalist: "laws must have sanctions." Later he added, "The hope of impunity is a strong incitement to sedition…."¹⁸

But in our day, the traditional sanctions (e.g., death, imprisonment, fines, bodily punishment) either no longer exist or have lost much of their force because of sparing use. Some erosion of sanctions has come through neglect. In the quest for a reasonable balance between authority and freedom, our society has swung far in the direction of freedom, usually under the assumption that authority ultimately was not threatened. Now many people wonder if that is the case.

If any kind of social compact exists today, it is different from that imagined by those who described a man’s transition away from a state of nature. It is a compact into which individuals are born and almost daily to which they give assent. Thus governments gain authority in a free society so long as they operate within the limits established by the people. Thereby leaders have the authority to command.

But compliance does not always follow; in fact, most of the commands given by authorities in modern society are disregarded or disobeyed. Have we reached a crisis? Is it possible for us to organize our society to ensure the order on which we have built our complicated civilization? Can we salvage de jure authority as an active force in our society?

Tolstoy on Leadership

Before pursuing that argument, let us consider novelist Leo Tolstoy’s thoughts on the subject. After he had completed his monumental work, War and Peace, Tolstoy asked himself why millions of soldiers had followed Napoleon into Russia. He noted that people believe events are caused by commands, but they are aware of only the events that follow the commands that are carried out, and they forget the multitude of commands that are not honored. Tolstoy concluded that those who submit to orders are the cause of events that happen. In other words, it is the act of submission that gives the force to authority.¹⁹

Chester Barnard took this same point and expanded it to a definition: authority is the character of a communication in a formal organization that causes one to accept it and to take appropriate action. Thus acceptance of an order is confirmation of authority.²⁰ One may have the justification to issue an order, but only assent gives power to the interchange.

Barnard believed that a person can and will accept a communication as authoritative when he understands it, when he believes it is consistent with the purpose of the organization as he understands them, when the order is compatible with his own interests, and when he can comply.²¹ Thus a leader should not undermine his effectiveness by giving orders that are not understandable or might be considered disloyal, or by asking his subordinates to do things they cannot possibly accomplish. But in the area of personal interest, it is evident that some orders may find a ready audience, others clearly a hostile audience, and many, perhaps most, will fall in a neutral zone, subject to influence. The function of the organization, particularly the informal organization, is to apply pressure to shift a person’s neutrality into acceptance.²²

How is one influenced to accept or reject a command? The answer to this question begins with the traditional sanctions, but it is much longer. A definitive list of the pros and cons would depend on the command and the nature of the individual to whom it is given. But certainly important in swaying those uncommitted are the natural talents of leadership that enhance de facto authority.

Let us take an example of the President giving a command to the Chief of Staff of the Air Force. Only in the most unusual combination of circumstances would the Chief of Staff fail to comply with the President’s wishes. Why? Because there is a strong tradition that military leaders follow orders of the Commander in Chief, that our government is one of civilian control, and that there are laws controlling this situation. Of course, there would be other powerful factors involved. A chief of staff who refused to obey such an order would almost surely be remembered unfavorably in history. He would lose professional friends, he would become the object of scorn for the remainder of his life, his wife would lose friends and associations, his life-style would suffer. Obviously, the list goes on.

Now let us shift our concern to a young man in the ghetto, apprehended by a policeman in the act of stealing. He is one of 20 doing the same, in the heat of a riot. The policeman orders these youths to drop the stolen goods and disperse. The youth knows the policeman cannot catch all 20 boys going different directions, and he realizes that the policeman does not recognize him. So he runs away with the watches in his pocket. Why? He does not view the act as wrong. The youth does not honor a tradition of obeying the policeman if he can get away with refusal. His friends all do the same; in fact his successful theft will enhance his reputation among his associates. His parents will never know. None of the adult authority-figures in his life will know. What will he do before the judge? There is little chance he will ever see a judge.

In a third case, the nation asks young men to register for selective service. For one young man, a feeling of neutrality at the outset may be replaced by guilt associated with patriotism if he does not register, conflicting with a desire to help prevent war by refusing. His parents, his love of history, his desire to obey the law, his fear of punishment if he does not—all may reinforce his patriotism. But a television special, a close associate who has decided to profess conscientious objection, and a draft counselor may augment his pacifism. Ultimately he must submit to one set of pressures or the other.

The social contract in some form may continue to explain how governments gain authority to act. It is from government that other institutions derive their authority, be it the armed forces created by law or corporations chartered by a state and under laws that are both state and federal. But increasingly, in modern society, the authority to give orders is separated from the means to enforce obedience.

The long history of mankind at last has come to the day when the individual is unique and to a remarkable degree free. He holds in his will the power to uphold authority or negate it. In a sense, every command or order or law sets up a new opportunity for a contract where the person given direction complies because, after weighing the implications (consciously or not), he decides that it is best for him that he does so. As sanctions diminish, it becomes easier for him to refuse. As traditions fade, he is under less pressure to uphold them. As publicity undermines our leaders by revealing their every weakness or mistake or foible, de facto authority becomes much more difficult to maintain.

As the process of authority changes in contemporary perception, so does the basis for cooperation in modern society. A person may work with enthusiasm if he fears he will lose his job, or his raise, or his promotion. How can we wrest equal enthusiasm from citizens or employees without using fear as a sanction?

It grows increasingly apparent that people are more inclined to cooperate when they are accepted as individuals. People no longer want to be considered impersonally, merely as resources, commodities, or assets. This awareness of self is putting the authoritarian style of management in a free society into the dustbin of history, simply because the society no longer will support an authoritarian leader without sufficient reinforcement. Thus the leader today must appeal to individuals rather than masses or even groups, somehow conveying the understanding that the leader really cares for the concerns of the individual.

In a working situation, care can be expressed by enlisting and considering seriously the suggestions of employees to improve productivity or quality or conditions of the work place or to reduce accidents. Thus we witness the growing acceptance of quality circles, participative management, and management by consensus. These techniques work well in some places and fail in others, possibly because of improper introduction and support. Many of these techniques of modern management are not new, having been used effectively, if partially, by leaders throughout history.²³

Similar cooperation can be attained in institutions outside of business. The techniques to promote it are nearly the same. Every good leader with a bright staff has used participative management for centuries. Gaining a consensus, where that is possible, has always been good management where the organization does not have to pay too great a price for delay or the implications of the decision. The final consensus on unification of the armed services, made in 1947 prior to passage of the National Security Act, is a case in point. The same techniques are justified where there are honest differences on weapon systems, budget allocations, organization, or human problems. The concept of participative management is not confined to operations at the highest echelons. It can be most effective in the operating unit. Some of the best commanders of all time have used it.

But is there anything else to do? Certainly there is. Our institutions must be strengthened so that they command new respect. We must think again of patriotism, of the rewards of a life of service. We must revere those who courageously have gone before us. Military organizations must be led by officers who are proud of the military traditions, who depend on discipline, who give reasonable orders and expect that subordinates carry them out, who apply sanctions appropriate to offenses soon after the process of justice has determined guilt.

Authority still is a force in our lives. It takes new skills and dedication to give it force.

1. Sophocles, Antigone.

2. Exodus 3-4; Exodus 34:28 and Deuteronomy 4:13; 1 Samuel 16.

3. Matthew 28:18, Mark 2:10, and John 5:30 and 12:49 are examples.

4. Romans 13:1.

5. Plato, Crito,

6. Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, Part I, Chapters 10, 14-18. Leviathan, in Hebrew mythology, was the aquatic dragon of chaos, overthrown by God and symbolic of the final triumph of God over his enemies and his final sovereignty.

7. John Locke, "A Letter Concerning Toleration" and Concerning Civil Government, Second Essay, Chapters 1, 2, 4, 6-9, 12-19.

8. Jean Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract, Books I and 2.

9. John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, Chapter I.

10. Plato, Laws, Book 4.

11. Aristotle, Politics, Book 1.

12. Augustine, City of God, Book 2, Chapter 21; Book 4, Chapter 4.

13. Hobbes, Leviathan, Chapter 14.

14. Locke, Chapter 18.

15. Aeschylus, Eumenides.

16. Sophocles, Ajax.

17. Aristotle, Politics, Book 3.

18. The Federalist, Numbers 15 and 27.

19. Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace, Second Epilogue, Chapters 5-7.

20. Chester Barnard, The Functions of the Executive (1938), p. 163.

21. Ibid., pp. 165-66.

22. Ibid., pp. 167-70.

23. For earlier awareness of the problem, see Elton Mayo, The Social Problems of an Industrial Civilization (1945), particularly pp. 68-86, and F. J. Roothlisberger and William J. Dickson, Management and the Worker (1939). Helpful in describing an industrial approach to modern cooperation is William Ouchi, Theory Z: How American Business Can Meet the Japanese Challenge (1981); Charles G. Burck, "Working Smarter," a series in Fortune, especially June 15, 1981, pp. 68-73, and July 27, 1981, pp. 62-69; and Robert R. Blake and Jane S. Mouton, "Increasing Productivity through Behavioral Science," Personnel, May-June 1981.

Dr. Curtis W. Tarr (Ph.D., Stanford University) is Vice-President of Management and Development for Deere & Company, Moline, Illinois. He spent five years in the federal government as Assistant Secretary of the Air Force, Manpower and Reserve Affairs; Director, Selective Service System; Under Secretary of State for Security Assistance, and Acting Deputy Under Secretary of State for Management. Before going to Washington, he was President of Lawrence University, Appleton, Wisconson. Dr. Tarr is author of By the Numbers: The Reform of the Selective Service System, 1970-1972 and numerous articles in professional journals, including the Review.

The conclusions and opinions expressed in this document are those of the author cultivated in the freedom of expression, academic environment of Air University. They do not reflect the official position of the U.S. Government, Department of Defense, the United States Air Force or the Air University.

Air & Space Power Home Page | Feedback? Email the Editor