What are Weber’s three main types of authority
and associated types of organizations?
The scientific study of leadership originated in the work of Max Weber, a German theorist sometimes referred to as one of the fathers of sociology (Heilbrunn, 1994). Weber, most well known for his explanation of the dynamics of bureaucracy, defined the three main types of authority as charismatic, traditional, and legal-rational (Cheney et. Al., 2004). LaVerne Thomas, author of Sociology: the Study of Human Relationships defines traditional authority:
Traditional authority is power that is legitimated by long-standing custom. In other words, people accept the exercise of power as legitimate because is has been considered legitimate in the past. The claim to traditional authority usually is based on birthright, since it is passed down from generation to generation (331).
The authors of Organizational Communication in an Age of Globalization suggest that charismatic authority, however, is defined as the following:
Weber’s notion of charismatic authority was based on the personal characteristics and power of an individual or a small group—in the same sense that we now use the term charisma…Authority is exercised in a highly personal way (29).
The final term, rational-legal authority, is defined by Wikipedia encyclopedia:
Rational-legal authority (also known as rational authority, legal authority, rational domination, legal domination) is a form of leadership in which the authority of an organization or a ruling regime is largely tied to legal rationality, legal legitimacy and bureaucracy. The majority of the modern states of the twentieth century are rational-legal authorities, according to those who use this form of classification.
Thomas specifies that:
Rational-legal authority is power that is legitimated by formal rules and regulations…Power rests not in the individual but in the office or position the individual holds. Thus the authority to govern is lost when an individual leaves or is removed from office (331).
However, understanding the three types of authority does not necessarily mean understanding their implications in an organizational environment. One must first be able to apply the concepts in general. For example, Thomas (1995) suggests:
Finally, rational-legal authority can be best exemplified by the president of the United States, because he had the right to govern only while in office (1995).
Using these examples as a foundation, it is not difficult to identify these different types of authority representing organizations in our world today. For example, a father that inherited the authority over the family business from his father would be an example of traditional authority. However, a leader in a church or religious organization would be a good example of a charismatic authority figure because of the highly personal nature of the authority. And, any individual voted into a position of authority could be considered rational-legal authority.
The following links provide more insight toward the three types of authority as defined by Weber, further reading on his life and other theories he coined. In addition, they aid in the application of these types of authorities to organizations and organizational communication as a whole.
http://www.faculty.rsu.edu/~felwell/Theorists/Weber/Whome.htm
http://www.wisc.edu/uwcc/info/case.html
http://www2.pfeiffer.edu/~lridener/DSS/Weber/WEBERW5.HTML
Works Cited
Cheney, G., Christensen, L., Zorn, T., Ganesh, S. (2004). Organizational communication in an age of globalization: Issues, reflections, practices. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
Heilbrunn, J. (1994). Can leadership be studied?. Wilson Quarterly, 18, 65-73.
Spybey, T. (1984). Frames of meaning: the Rationality in organizational cultures. Acta Sociologica, 27, 311-322.
Thomas, W. (1995). Sociology: the Study of human relationships. Austin, TX: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Wikipedia (Online Encyclopedia). Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_domination
Retrieved February 4, 2005