In pre-modern and modern societies, there has been a hierarchy of command that everyone must adhere to. For this system to work, there must be someone in charge or known as an authority. According to Weber, authority is power accepted as legitimate by those who are subject to it. Weber describes three forms of authority in modern societies: traditional, charismatic, and rational-legal. These forms of authority are ideal pure types that are rarely “pure” in real life.

Rational-legal authority is the belief in the legality of standard rule patterns and the right of those elevated to authority under such rules to issue orders. The authority is exercised by legally established impersonal orders and extends to people only by virtue of the positions they hold. The power of government officials is determined by the positions to which they are appointed or elected due to their individual qualifications. As long as individuals hold these positions, they have a certain amount of power, but once they leave office, they lose their rational legal authority.

There are various ways in which rational legal authority could develop. Systems of laws and regulations develop in many societies and there are many different principles of legality that could occur. With the development of a rational-legal system, there is likely to be a political system that is similarly rationalized. Associated with political systems are constitutions, written documents and established positions, regularized modes of representation, periodic elections, and political procedures. These are developed in opposition to earlier systems such as monarchies or other traditional forms, where there is no well-developed set of rules.

As political systems develop rationally, authority takes on a legal form. Those who govern have or appear to have a legitimate legal right to do so. The subordinates within this system accept the legality of the rulers, believing in the right of those who have legitimate rights to exercise power. Those in power then exercise power on the basis of this right to legitimacy.

Rational-legal authority can be challenged by those who are subordinate, but this challenge is unlikely to result in very rapid changes in the nature of the system. According to Weber, such power struggles could be based on ethnicity, nationalism, not classism, and are primarily political struggles.

Weber’s examination of legitimate authority led him to define an ideal-type bureaucracy. An ideal type is a rational and systematically constructed pure type of action that can rarely take place in reality and is used as a measuring tool to determine the similarity between actual and defined social institutions. The ideal type of bureaucracy that Weber developed incorporated hierarchy, impersonality, written rules of conduct, achievement-based promotion, specialized division of labor, and efficiency. Information flows up the chain of command and directives flow down, according to Weber’s model. Impersonal rules explicitly define duties, responsibilities, operating procedures, and rules of conduct.

The individual offices are highly specialized and appointments are made on the basis of qualifications rather than attached status. Working together, these features are designed to further the collective goals of the organization. This ideal-type bureaucracy was intended to promote economic growth and prosperity. Many of his concepts have an echo in today’s political and capitalist systems.

Traditional authority is one in which the legitimacy of the authority figure is based on custom. Legitimacy and power of control are handed down from the past and this power can be exercised in a rather dictatorial manner. This is the type of authority in which the traditional rights of a powerful and dominant individual or group are accepted, or at least not questioned, by subordinate individuals. These may be religious, sacred, or spiritual forms, a well-established and slowly changing culture, or tribal, family, or clan-type structures.

The dominant individual could be a priest, clan leader, householder, or some other patriarchal figure, or the ruling elite could rule. In many cases, traditional authority is supported by myths or connections to the sacred, social artefacts such as a cross or a flag, and by structures and institutions that perpetuate this authority. Historically, traditional authority has been the most common form of government. An example of this is the kings and queens in the English monarchical system, who must belong to certain families in order to obtain their positions.

Traditional authority often dominated pre-modern societies. It is based on the belief in the sanctity of tradition, of the “eternal yesterday.” Due to the change in human motivation, it is often difficult for modern people to conceive of the dominance that tradition had in pre-modern societies.

According to Weber, traditional authority is a means by which inequality is created and preserved. If no one challenges the authority of the traditional leader or group, the leader is likely to continue to dominate. Furthermore, for him, traditional authority blocks the development of rational-legal forms of authority, a point of view that he particularly liked.

Charismatic authority exists when control of others is based on an individual’s personal characteristics, such as extraordinary ethical, heroic, or religious virtuosity. Charismatic leaders are obeyed because people feel a strong emotional bond with them. Hitler, Gandhi, Napoleon, and Julius Caesar were all charismatic leaders. That such powers actually exist is irrelevant; the fact that the followers believe that such powers exist is what is important.

Weber sees charisma as a driving and creative force that arises through traditional authority and established rules. The sole basis of charismatic authority is the recognition or acceptance of the leader’s claims by the followers. Charismatic authority can be revolutionary in nature, challenging traditional and sometimes rational-legal authority. This type of authority could easily degenerate into traditional authority in which power is exercised by those around the charismatic leader.

Charismatic authority is the antithesis of routine activities and represents the desire to break and change the prevailing social order. It is a necessary part of the dialectic between the human need for structure and the equally human need for variation and innovation in society. Charismatic authority is different from rational or traditional authority in that it does not develop from established orders or traditions, but rather from the special trust that the charismatic leader induces in his followers, the peculiar powers that he exhibits, and the unique qualities that he possesses. has. According to Weber, it is difficult for charismatic leaders to maintain their authority because followers must continue to legitimize this authority. There is a need for the charismatic leader to consistently exhibit leadership performance to his followers to reinforce the legitimacy of his authority.

The basis of Weber’s distinction between power and authority is that power is the ability to impose one’s will on another, regardless of the other’s wishes and despite any resistance he may offer. Therefore, power is relational; it requires one person to dominate and the other to submit. This assumes that one person will acquiesce, cooperate, or acquiesce in the domination of the other, and this may not be true in all relationships. The act of giving an order does not presuppose obedience. Weber argues that an individual can exercise power in three ways: through direct physical power, through reward and punishment, and through the influence of opinion. The exercise of power is more likely to be indirect and coercive: a combination of rewards and punishments through the use of argument, debate, and rhetoric.

Authority, by comparison, is a power-enhancing quality, rather than itself a form of power. The word “authority” comes from the verb “authorize”; therefore, the power of an individual must be authorized by the group to be legitimate. An individual is considered an authority because of his technical expertise combined with his ability to communicate effectively with the group. The individual in authority is the principal in the group, controlling certain aspects of what the other members of the group do and say, and perhaps even what and how they think.