The Three Categories of Legitimate Authority
The three categories of legitimate authority are traditional authority, legal authority, and charismatic authority, according to philosopher and sociologist Max Weber. Each of these authority exemplifies a specific style of leadership in the society of today. Max Weber expanded on the establishment of each sort of authority and its effectiveness.
Legal Authority
In the realm of legal authority, clearly defined laws were applied to rule on the basis of reason. No one leader shines out as being in charge of the administrative tasks. The masses do not respect any one leader in this form of authority. Obedience to a leader depended on how competent and likable the person in charge was. In the modern states, government, associations and corporations this kind of authority is common. Those in administrative powers get organized in a hierarchy. The office holders, in legal authority, get salaries and in certain circumstances receive a pension. Changes in the hierarchy are present since promotions are common, depending on achievements of the office holder or on decisions made by the superiors to promote them. Weber writes that in a legal-rational authority, different parties may arise implying that there is opposition.
Traditional Authority
Traditional authority is based on a dominant power and bound by traditions such as cultural histories, religious stands, and history of inheritance. There are personal rules set by the dominant power. The leaders in this form of leadership are known as the chief. The authority is passed down mainly through inheritance or power invested by the higher power. In traditional authority, social change is not frequent since those in authority hold that position for a long time. There are no salaries to the one in power, instead of the dominant power reward themselves. Those under the dominant power are considered servants where they have to be patriotic to their leader. This form of authority is of two ways where one, the servants are completely dependent on their leader, and they act as personal servants to the leader. Another form is where the people are not personal servants, and they are independent of their leader. Authority of this kind is common in monarchies and religious governments.
Charismatic Authority
Charismatic authority involves a leader whose vision and mission the people love. The leader is chosen on exceptional personal qualities and not on qualifications or legal standards. Obedience is a matter of trust in the particular leader whom the people love and not the whole administration. Weber is more appreciative towards a charismatic authority, and he discusses it in more details compared to the traditional and legal authority. Weber writes that charismatic leadership can be hard to come around since he believes it has a basis of supernatural or divine powers manifested by an individual. The leader must be ready to unite the people in hardship and differences.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Weber states that the ability to continue with a particular type of authority depends on the power to maintain certain qualities that make the authority unique and ability to set a less inviting environment for opposition. In both traditional and legal authority, the society is said to accept the leaders in authorities. Weber’s analysis of the current society suggests that the current society relies on the legal authority in finding common grounds on which to agree.
