The Revolving Door of Power
This week Modern Healthcare released its annual list of the top 100 most powerful people in healthcare. It’s populated with many people who most would agree are quite powerful –Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Bill Gates, and the list goes on. Perhaps more interestingly, however, are the people who topped the 2008 list of healthcare’s power brokers – Steve Case (founder of AOL and Revolution Health), Eric Schmidt (CEO of Google) and Hillary Rodham Clinton – who have dropped off of the list entirely. If they had such enormous power two years ago, why are they seemingly no longer even in the equation?
Webster’s dictionary defines power as “the possession of control or command over others; authority; ascendancy.” Power is fleeting. Exerting power may allow you to achieve your short-term goal, but it has a downside – it gets used up. If your only approach is to exert or impose your will to achieve your ends, there will always be another waiting to take your place.
Influence is another thing entirely. It is the capacity or power of persons to be a compelling force, to produce effects on the actions, behaviors or opinions of others. In short, to influence is to cause long-term, meaningful change.
For better or worse, we now have an outline for change to our healthcare system, but we have yet to see the type of long-term influential leadership needed to sustain and implement meaningful change. There are some new and creative ideas out there; some of which just might work, but unless we can identify consistent, passionate, and effective leadership in healthcare at the highest levels, the door will continue to spin.
Agreed. These listings are about of the same value as 'Houston's Best Doctors' Until they start listin' folks like Ed Bennett, I'm not listenin' ; )
Great points. Agree with both you and DrV. Power is coercive while influence is empowering of others. Power enables you to command people to do what they would rather not, and as soon as you lose it, you have zero impact. It's interesting that when government officials leave office so many try to get into the "influence" business, through lobbying. But ironically what they're really trying to do is influence the people who now have the power they used to have.
Power can have short-term effects but for sustained change you need influence.
I echo the comments already articulated by Bryan and Lee...although I don't see Ed in Houston ;-)
Exerting power granted you by your position in a useless manner, or perhaps worse, simply leaves you with no influence --- and the lust or need for even more power to further command those whose respect you have lost. A *powerful* person who is not respected nor not trusted possesses no influence, but unfortunately, still possesses the power to harm.
On the flip side... people who have earned the respect of colleagues or the public at large can also draw significant power from that allegiance. This person has the ability to lead us towards sustained change and empowerment.
To enact useful, meaningful, and sustained change, you must earn respect and not insist on it... you must have *influence* prior to power and you must learn to use your power wisely and not let it corrupt you...
You are right on the money, Mark. In the coming Wiki World of distributed cognition, power will assume less and less importance and influence will be the key to success. Google's phenomenal rise has not been due to the "power" of its leaders. It will become increasingly difficult to control the actions of others, even in healthcare, and more important to set context and governing principles. The problem is that most corporate officers are still disciples of the Scientific Management school of Taylor. When the shift comes, it will be sudden and massive, as all shifts in Complex Adaptive Systems are.