I recently read an article by Omkar Phatak titled “Legitimate Power in Leadership” In this article Mr. Phatak discusses legitimate power as a form of power. It seems that his handling of the concept represents a common mistake in thought around power and its legitimacy. Let me first give an overview of what Omkar says and then I will say why I feel it is mistaken.
The article starts by defining power as “the ability to influence the world around you.” This is a fair enough general understanding of what power is. It seems his mistake is in his understanding of what legitimate power involves.
According to Omkar, legitimate power is a feature of the organisational structure of institutions. Individuals possess legitimate power then merely on the basis of occupying a position within an institution. Legitimate power is handed over to individuals when they occupy a position which has power attached to it. The higher the position one occupies the more legitimate power one possesses.
The mistake made by this understanding of power is that it leaves out a crucial variable in determining the legitimacy of power. This variable is the intent of the leader who possesses the power.
We can illustrate this with the help of an example. Suppose we have a general of an army. We must agree that this general possesses a high degree of power in virtue of his position within the organisational structure of the military outfit. The question though is this: Does he possess legitimate power?
Contrary to Omkar’s views, the question is not simply settled in virtue of the position the general occupies. Suppose this general is a very harsh man. Suppose he is a tyrant and court marshals anyone who displeases him. Suppose due to his 
tryrannical ways the army is a dishevelled crew of disgruntled and depressed misanthropes who reek havoc in the country-side. It would seem that in such a case it would be a mistake to say that the general has legitimate power. Even though he occupies the relevant position, he doesn’t have legitimate power.
Why not? It seems that this is because the manner in which he is using his power is destructive to his subordinates. He does not have a benevolent intent towards his subordinates so the power he exercises over them is illegitimate. Put differently, he does not possess legitimate power because he is exercising his power incorrectly. This suggests then that power is not made legitimate by being attached to a position in an organization. Power is made legitimate only when it is exercised for the good of the subordinate.
Omkar’s mistake is a common one. The mistake is simply this: Legitimacy with regard to power is not a feature of the organizational structure of our institutions. Occupying a position within an organized institution can give one power but it cannot give one legitimate power. Legitimate power is not achieved by occupying a positions, as if it would be so easy. Legitimate power is achieved by cultivating a genuine concern for the subordinate. The legitimacy of power is a feature of the benevolent intent of the leader. At Schuitema we prefer to call the power attached to a position in an institution “control” and reserve the word “power” for legitimate power.
So remember, what is attached to an institutional position is not legitimate power, it is in fact control. Control is not legitimate power because, unlike control, legitimate power is a feature of the benevolent intent of the leader.