Article"Leadership, power and organizational mobilization"Francoise Venezia Contreras Torresa,* and Guido Angello Castro RíosAssociate Professor, School of Administration, Universidad del Rosario, Bogotá, ColombiaResearcher, Universidad del Rosario, Bogotá, ColombiaSUMMARYThe objective of this study is to analyze the processes of leadership and power, as phenomena that arise wheninside organizations from the interactions that occur between the people (agents) thatmake up. The organization is understood as a dynamic system in a permanent process of change.that is mobilized, by virtue of the dynamic relationship that occurs between leaders and collaborators. Since I knowIt is a theoretical study, the analysis is done through a bibliographical review. As a conclusion itcan affirm that leadership and power mobilize the organization and can lead it to imbalancesproductive, which favor the development of organizations and their durability.QUESTIONS:Article entitled "Leadership, power and organizational mobilization"How do the authors of the article define the term power and what is its relevance to the leader?Explain the concept of leader as facilitator, according to the article.What do the authors of the article mean when they talk about the organization as a social phenomenon? asymmetry, the imbalance and inequity in all relationships mediated by power, a phenomenon that occurs even in highly collaborative and functional groups. For their part, Arredondo &Maldonado (2010) propose that it is the collaborator who endows the leader with a liberating force that in turn gives him the potential to achieve new goals, thus, for these authors,power conceived in a traditional must be uprooted from the organization, as soon as it becomes unnecessary. Differences among group members with respect to power can influence thedevelopment of processes in various ways. The participant who holds the power in the group provokes in its members different reactions from those produced by those who have lesspower; In this sense, the behavior of individuals is inevitably influenced by the relative amount of power they possess, and the group's power structure determines to a certain extent itsbehaviors and results (Shaw, 2004). The behavior of the subjects with greater power will be influenced by the feedback they receive from the rest of the group, which will result in themfeeling more powerful -perceiving a greater capacity for influence- or, on the contrary, they will become alienated or subordinate to others. the desires and particular interests of thegroup. It is assumed that understanding the power of the leader implies taking into account the characteristics of the followers/collaborators (García, 2009), since these depend on therelationship they establish with the leader. The foregoing involves other aspects, such the context in which such relationships take place, that is, the culture and organizational identityand the situational factors directly associated with the leadership practices exercised in the organization. In this sense, collaborators can be alienated, conformist, passive or pragmatic,among others, depending not only on the characteristics of the individual, but also on the form of interaction that is established between the members of the organization and in relationto the power structures.. For example, a highly controlling, rigid, inflexible, and authoritarian manager will foster the rise of passive, conformist, and low-commitment followers-peoplewho are likely to just work from existing methods and have no interest in innovating. On the other hand, a more open and flexible organization, where the leader manages to establish areferent power centered on trust, will favor the emergence of new leaders where, as Nye (2010) suggests, both can assume an interchangeable role in different situations., making itpossible for new goals and initiatives to originate among the followers/collaborators. In both cases, the power of the followers exists, because even when the followers do not takeinitiatives, they have the potential capacity to restrain the leaders (Nye, 2010). The difference lies in the type of power; In the first case, the dynamics that arise can inhibit the evolution ofthe system, while in the second case, the mobilization of the system towards the so-called productive imbalance would be favored. 4. Power of the leader and evolution of theorganization Now, what types of power should the leader exercise and what leadership characteristics favor the mobilization of the organization? What conditions manage to lead thesystem to the so-called productive imbalances? As previously stated, the mobilization of the system is promoted by the organization's leadership and leaders, given their ability toinfluence. This mobilization can lead the organization to 3 stages: 1) evolution; 2) deterioration, or 3) death. Each of them, with the same probabilities of emerging in the system from thedecisions and behaviors made by the leaders (formal and informal) and which, through interaction, affect the behavior of the followers/collaborators, configuring a specific organizationalculture (fig. 3). In this sense, it is important to point out that this mobilization of the organization implies different forms of power, some that derive from a small group that legitimatelydetermines the direction of change through strategies with or without the participation of the other members (managers), and others in a non-legitimized manner, unclear but with anevident effect (followers/collaborators); The interaction between these powers will in turn produce changes in the structural and functional areas of the organization. In both cases, themore power a person has, the greater the probability that they will use it (Shaw, 2004), which will also depend on access to the constitutive factors of the organization, which would, inturn, demarcate a behavior of determined leadership. These various forms of power that are perceived in the organization can come from different sources. Huxham & Beech (2008)propose that interorganizational power comes from 3 macro levels and one micro level, all of them easily identifiable in the system (fig. 4). At macro levels, power may arise from the needto sustain within the system the imbalances that grant greater power to certain agents, which may be sustained by restricted access to certain types of information, as well as knowledgeand skills that they are the exclusive domain of a few, which includes the management of resources such as money. Another of the macro levels refers to the importance of maintainingimbalances, in this case there are factors related to strategic decision-making, usually at the central level, as well as the concentration of actions such as the application of sanctions andthe perception of uniqueness. or exclusivity among those who hold power. Finally, the third macro level is based on the position held by the actor within the system and is closely relatedto the legitimized power of which some details have already been made previously. On the other hand, the micro level that serves as a source of power within organizations is based onday-to-day relationships, that is, inherent to the process of building informal social relationships that occur between the different actors that constitute the system. Then, the mobilizationof the organization, based on the leadership and power exercised by the different members of the organization, will make sense at the moment in which the decisions taken establish thedirection and dynamics of the organization, but at the same time of the acceptance or rejection by the majority of followers/collaborators. The foregoing highlights the need foracceptance by the different agents of the system, since otherwise mistrust in relationships and setbacks in the achievement of organizational goals may be caused. .5. Final commentsThroughout the document it has been pointed out that power, as an inherent factor in the exercise of leadership, is a vital element to achieve the mobilization of the organization towardscertain adaptive stages, which implies that it is capable of influencing the achievement of organizational goals through the promotion of diversity and the satisfaction of individual andcollective expectations that arise in the system. In fact, leadership is a relational process rather than an exercise centered on the leader as a subject, in which leadership emerges from theinteraction between the agents of the system. Likewise, when leadership is observed from the leader or leaders-individuals with the greatest power of influence- it is understood thatpower does not make the leader, but without power there is no leadership, therefore, studying this concept is fundamental to understanding leadership. In this sense, reference is madenot only to the deliberate influence of the leaders to bring the organization to an adaptive state, but also includes the effect, sometimes diffuse, of the exercise of power over theorganization, which inevitably mobilizes the system, sometimes, to stages not foreseen by the leaders, producing changes that occur spontaneously from the interaction between agentswithin the organization, or from this in relation to the environment and the situational factors that condition it. The study of leadership and power involves understanding the influencefollowers/followers have on the leader and on leadership processes. Since it is a relational phenomenon, the characteristics of the followers will largely obey the characteristics of theinteractions that occur at the different levels of the organization and these, in turn, respond to the contingencies of the internal and external environment of the organization.organization. If these relationships are mediated by trust, there will be better use of diversity, greater flexibility, and a greater probability that the change brought about by the exercise ofpower will be oriented towards productive imbalance, driving the evolution of the system. On the contrary, when the effect of power is sustained by distrust, the exercise of leadership isblurred, command, instruction, rigidity, and homogeneity are strengthened, leading the organization to stagnation, to unproductive imbalance, that is, to the deterioration and/or death,as expressed by Pascale et al. (2002). Leadership and power are not isolated phenomena, both come together to mobilize the organization in an act of reciprocal influence betweenleaders and collaborators, the challenge is to determine to what degree said influence is relevant in both ways so that the purposes of the organization are not distorted and a process ofpermanent deterioration of the system begins, causing the general behavior of the agents to become aggressive, individualistic and even imposing, which would lead to the inevitabledeterioration of the levels of personal satisfaction and well-being that the individuals seek to achieve by being part of an organization. This way of viewing power and influence as sourcesof organizational wealth in which learning, and innovation are fostered is currently especially relevant if the permanent and unpredictable changes of the modern world are taken intoaccount. Leaders, then, must recognize individuality, promote diversity and distribute power, so that the organization moves towards states of productive imbalance that favors theorganization's adaptation. The foregoing implies rethinking the figure of the leader who knows and decides the best path and hopes to be followed by others to become a systemenhancer whose influence allows his self-organization and that new forms emerge from him, which will implicitly have the effect of his influence of him., but not exclusively. Thus, leadersmust enhance the capabilities of people through the recognition of their skills, their needs, motivations, interests and everything that makes them unique. Having this will allow thechances of survival of the organization to be potentiated, which is essential for companies today. Traditionally, the issue of power and influence in organizations has been addressed in a linear and direct way between leaders and followers, which in the best of cases is recognized asbidirectional. This approach responds to the concept of organization whose structure and operation is pre-established by the leader, and it is he who determines and plans the changesrequired to achieve the desired stability. On the other hand, if organizations are recognized as complex systems and whose changes can be largely determined by the interaction between theagents that make it up, the influence of leadership as a process becomes especially important. In this sense, the relationship between leaders and collaborators is intricate, non-linear, and itseffects, to a large extent, indeterminate, since the changes that arise can be spontaneous and unpredictable. This conception of change as a dynamic process demands a reconsideration of theclassic positions in which it is assumed that organizations operate within a stable environment (Trujillo & Guzmán, 2008). From the traditional approach, the so-called influence tactics aredirected towards followers to promote desired behaviors in them and the expected organizational change, which emphasizes the leader as a subject. On the contrary, from the understandingof organizations as complex systems, leadership is prioritized as a process that emerges from the system itself from the interactions of power and influence that occur within it to adapt (farfrom equilibrium) to changing conditions, ambient conditions. In this way, the leader becomes a facilitator that allows and favors the mobilization of the organization, that is, that it self-organizes, and that new, more adaptive forms emerge from it. From this last perspective, the document addresses the phenomena of leadership, power, and organizational mobilization,through a theoretical and conceptual review. Initially, these concepts are discussed in relation to organizational change and the variables involved; Subsequently, the role of collaborators isconsidered as a source of power that makes this mobilization possible. Finally, we reflect on the potential power of the leader to promote productive imbalances through his ability toinfluence, an aspect that would allow the organization not only to adapt, but also to evolve. 2. Organizational change and power The concept of organization has changed; The mechanisticvision has been widely surpassed to give way to a more comprehensive understanding, in which it is assumed that organizations are highly complex systems, with a set of sharedexpectations (Etkin, 2003) where the human factor takes on special relevance. This concept goes beyond the traditional common objectives that are supposed to serve as a glue to achieve thematerialization of the organization itself. From this perspective, the leader as the sole subject of influence is becoming blurred and the leadership that emerges from social relationships andinteractions begins to be recognized, whose power of influence becomes evident as soon as it manages to promote or inhibit the mobilization of the organization. In this order of ideas.leadership is conceived as a social and relational phenomenon resulting from the interaction between people, whose purposes should be oriented towards: 1) facilitating the interpretation ofthe collective visions and expectations of the agents that directly and indirectly participate in the organizations; 2) promote the adaptation of the system to its environment through themobilization of power among its members: 3) promote personal diversity through the recognition of particular abilities, and 4) generate, through communication, favorable contexts forcreativity and innovation, where the most important virtue is trust (fig. 1). Seen in this way, the concept of power becomes especially relevant in the study of leadership, a concept thatgoes beyond the hierarchical position, to be understood as the result of internal and external interactions of the organization, understood as a system. . The study of power from thisperspective can be ambiguous in its conceptualization, but not weak in its effect, which can become more forceful and influential than the legitimized power itself. Like leadership, theconcept of power can be circumscribed to a variety of arguments, and there is no doubt that although it is a universal phenomenon, its conceptualization is elusive and complex (Crozier &Friedberg, 1980). This way of assuming the study of power is not new; Talking about the organization as a social phenomenon inevitably implies referring to the relationships that arisefrom the interactions that take place within it. In the 1980s, it was already argued that power, whether in the social sphere in general or organizational in particular, is subject to a series ofconditions that include, among others, transaction processes between various interests and expectations which does not exclude a certain degree of coincidence between them- and anexercise of influence, by those who hold power, to impose themselves on private interests (Mendieta & Núñez, 1976). Then, as Stein (2005) states, it is clear that power also comes fromthe so-called followers, who can even exert more influence than the leaders themselves. In accordance with the above, Crozier & Friedberg (1980) stated that power has a relationalcharacter, insofar as it acts on the other and this implies interacting with the other, but they clarify that power is introduced into said interaction only when 2 or more Agents of theorganization depend on each other to achieve a common goal, which can make their personal expectations potentially modifiable. In this sense, power is inextricably linked to negotiation,as it implies an exchange relationship between 2 or more people. For his part, Pfeffer (2000), based on the studies carried out by Bertrand Russell in 1938, formulates the existence of 3key elements in the construction and definition of the concept of power in the organization. The first of them is the influence of some agents over others, the second refers to the fact thatpower does not refer only to unidirectional relationships between superiors and subordinates, but also to the interaction between peers, and finally, the third element considers that suchinfluence is usually conscious and deliberate. In any case, the various conceptions of social power have in common the notion that it implies, at least, the ability of a person to controlanother, or influence them in some way (Shaw, 2004). This is how the so-called styles of leadership and the managerial practices derived from it would inexorably involve an exercise ofpower, that is, influence between individuals. It is enough to carefully observe the multiple definitions of leadership that exist, to find that all of them include, explicitly or implicitly, theconcept of influence. In this order of ideas, power, understood as influence, could acquire different nuances depending on the very attributions that leaders make regarding theorganization and the people that make it up. McGregor (1994) pointed this out since the sixties from his well-known theory X and Y, which was based on the attributions of the leaderswith respect to the workers. The first, theory X, would demarcate a highly regulated, controlled, inflexible and rigid style, characterized by the exercise of coercive power, since at the basethere is a marked distrust in others, in their abilities, attitudes and behavior in general. On the other hand, there is theory Y, in which a flexible and participative style predominates assoon as one trusts others, in their abilities, skills and commitment. The basis of leadership from this theory would be based on trust in others, and its power would be more orientedtowards knowledge and interpersonal relationships (expert power and referent power, respectively), which the leader manages to establish with his collaborators. In the first case (X)diversity is restricted, even deliberately, on the contrary, in the second case (Y) it is strengthened and fostered, contributing not only to the evolution of the organization as a system, butalso to well-being and quality of life of the people who make it up, an aspect that was taken up by Ouchi & Jaege (1978) in their so-called Z theory, which is centered on people, theirculture and individuality. These authors emphasize the importance of interpersonal relationships and participation to achieve effective leadership. However, if it is affirmed that theorganization is made up of diverse and even divergent interests and expectations, power can become an element of cohesion or domination (Murillo, 2009); in the latter case, it wouldimply the imposition of certain interests and expectations that may come not only from the formal leader and the structure that supports him and legitimizes him as such, but also fromthe so-called informal leaders (in terms of influence), as part of the of a complex system that does not follow a pre-established order. It should be noted that this type of leader alsoemerges from the system itself and can become important promoters of change, insofar as they exert considerable influence over the system. The fact that these changes favor or not theadaptation of the organization will depend to a large extent on the leadership processes that arise within the system as a product of the interaction. Affirming that power arises from theinteractions and relationships that occur between the agents that make up the organization, in turn from how they accept a role of followers/collaborators and grant power to the leader,coincides with the proposal of Pfeffer (2000), in which he affirms that power does not come exclusively from the position or hierarchy, but also from the trust that arises in this frameworkof interactions that occur in the organization. 3. An indisputable source of power: followers-collaborators Based on the above, it is the role of the leader to allow the system to self-organize to adapt to changes in the context, which requires that he promote a continuous dialogue between the agents that make up the system through through its potential forinfluence rather than control. In this order of ideas, the leader becomes a facilitator of change, assuming that this can occur even independently of his direction (Bonney, 2003). Thisprocess will be effective in these terms only if the leader fully knows the organization and manages to establish bonds of trust from the followers towards them, which will allow a greaterand better activation of the organizational processes and will favor the adaptation of the system in the face of unexpected changes to which companies will have to face. It should benoted that when talking about adaptation, no reference is made to the permanent and immovable stability of the organization, which, as Pascale, Millemann & Gioja (2002) state, isusually a precursor of death. On the contrary, what should be sought is the movement away from stability and close to imbalance, since it is there where emerging processes of change aregestated (Lichtenstein & Plowman, 2009), fundamental in a highly complex environment, such as the one that permanently assist organizations. This imbalance must inescapably be basedon trust, because when it deteriorates, what Heifetz, Grashow & Linsky (2009) call an unproductive imbalance is triggered. It is here where leadership and the management practices ofthose who exercise it play a predominant role in the evolution of the system, which consists, as Heifetz et al. (2009), in orchestrating the inevitable; which refers to the conflict, chaos andconfusion that change generates in conditions of uncertainty, so that in this way the transformation that it produces in the organization is productive and not destructive. From thisperspective, leadership is called upon to provoke productive imbalances in the system, mediated by trust (fig. 2). When leadership mobilizes the organization towards an unproductiveimbalance, it is not only reducing the adaptive capacity of the system and what this entails, but also to a possible desertion of its followers/collaborators by not finding an echo in theirinterests and expectations. This, consequently, increases the risk of failure of the organization, since the loss of its members not only forces the one who holds power to look for new ones,but also generates a loss of experience and knowledge in the system that is not necessarily They will be replaced promptly and accurately. However, taking the organization to a dynamicadaptive stage implies that the power of the collaborators, who in fact have it, influences the common purposes, and that these, in turn, mobilize the work teams. The unit of analysis ofthis power will be the relationship that they manage to establish not only among the team members, but also among the teams, forming a complex network that would involve the entiresystem. The job of the manager in this case is to lead the diversity of powers that exist within the groups and between them, assuming, as Huxham & Beech (2008) put it, their natural

Question

Article&#34;Leadership, power and organizational mobilization&#34;Francoise Venezia Contreras Torresa,* and Guido Angello Castro RíosAssociate Professor, School of Administration, Universidad del Rosario, Bogotá, ColombiaResearcher, Universidad del Rosario, Bogotá, ColombiaSUMMARYThe objective of this study is to analyze the processes of leadership and power, as phenomena that arise wheninside organizations from the interactions that occur between the people (agents) thatmake up. The organization is understood as a dynamic system in a permanent process of change.that is mobilized, by virtue of the dynamic relationship that occurs between leaders and collaborators. Since I knowIt is a theoretical study, the analysis is done through a bibliographical review. As a conclusion itcan affirm that leadership and power mobilize the organization and can lead it to imbalancesproductive, which favor the development of organizations and their durability.QUESTIONS:Article entitled &#34;Leadership, power and organizational mobilization&#34;How do the authors of the article define the term power and what is its relevance to the leader?Explain the concept of leader as facilitator, according to the article.What do the authors of the article mean when they talk about the organization as a social phenomenon? asymmetry, the imbalance and inequity in all relationships mediated by power, a phenomenon that occurs even in highly collaborative and functional groups. For their part, Arredondo &Maldonado (2010) propose that it is the collaborator who endows the leader with a liberating force that in turn gives him the potential to achieve new goals, thus, for these authors,power conceived in a traditional must be uprooted from the organization, as soon as it becomes unnecessary. Differences among group members with respect to power can influence thedevelopment of processes in various ways. The participant who holds the power in the group provokes in its members different reactions from those produced by those who have lesspower; In this sense, the behavior of individuals is inevitably influenced by the relative amount of power they possess, and the group's power structure determines to a certain extent itsbehaviors and results (Shaw, 2004). The behavior of the subjects with greater power will be influenced by the feedback they receive from the rest of the group, which will result in themfeeling more powerful -perceiving a greater capacity for influence- or, on the contrary, they will become alienated or subordinate to others. the desires and particular interests of thegroup. It is assumed that understanding the power of the leader implies taking into account the characteristics of the followers/collaborators (García, 2009), since these depend on therelationship they establish with the leader. The foregoing involves other aspects, such the context in which such relationships take place, that is, the culture and organizational identityand the situational factors directly associated with the leadership practices exercised in the organization. In this sense, collaborators can be alienated, conformist, passive or pragmatic,among others, depending not only on the characteristics of the individual, but also on the form of interaction that is established between the members of the organization and in relationto the power structures.. For example, a highly controlling, rigid, inflexible, and authoritarian manager will foster the rise of passive, conformist, and low-commitment followers-peoplewho are likely to just work from existing methods and have no interest in innovating. On the other hand, a more open and flexible organization, where the leader manages to establish areferent power centered on trust, will favor the emergence of new leaders where, as Nye (2010) suggests, both can assume an interchangeable role in different situations., making itpossible for new goals and initiatives to originate among the followers/collaborators. In both cases, the power of the followers exists, because even when the followers do not takeinitiatives, they have the potential capacity to restrain the leaders (Nye, 2010). The difference lies in the type of power; In the first case, the dynamics that arise can inhibit the evolution ofthe system, while in the second case, the mobilization of the system towards the so-called productive imbalance would be favored. 4. Power of the leader and evolution of theorganization Now, what types of power should the leader exercise and what leadership characteristics favor the mobilization of the organization? What conditions manage to lead thesystem to the so-called productive imbalances? As previously stated, the mobilization of the system is promoted by the organization's leadership and leaders, given their ability toinfluence. This mobilization can lead the organization to 3 stages: 1) evolution; 2) deterioration, or 3) death. Each of them, with the same probabilities of emerging in the system from thedecisions and behaviors made by the leaders (formal and informal) and which, through interaction, affect the behavior of the followers/collaborators, configuring a specific organizationalculture (fig. 3). In this sense, it is important to point out that this mobilization of the organization implies different forms of power, some that derive from a small group that legitimatelydetermines the direction of change through strategies with or without the participation of the other members (managers), and others in a non-legitimized manner, unclear but with anevident effect (followers/collaborators); The interaction between these powers will in turn produce changes in the structural and functional areas of the organization. In both cases, themore power a person has, the greater the probability that they will use it (Shaw, 2004), which will also depend on access to the constitutive factors of the organization, which would, inturn, demarcate a behavior of determined leadership. These various forms of power that are perceived in the organization can come from different sources. Huxham & Beech (2008)propose that interorganizational power comes from 3 macro levels and one micro level, all of them easily identifiable in the system (fig. 4). At macro levels, power may arise from the needto sustain within the system the imbalances that grant greater power to certain agents, which may be sustained by restricted access to certain types of information, as well as knowledgeand skills that they are the exclusive domain of a few, which includes the management of resources such as money. Another of the macro levels refers to the importance of maintainingimbalances, in this case there are factors related to strategic decision-making, usually at the central level, as well as the concentration of actions such as the application of sanctions andthe perception of uniqueness. or exclusivity among those who hold power. Finally, the third macro level is based on the position held by the actor within the system and is closely relatedto the legitimized power of which some details have already been made previously. On the other hand, the micro level that serves as a source of power within organizations is based onday-to-day relationships, that is, inherent to the process of building informal social relationships that occur between the different actors that constitute the system. Then, the mobilizationof the organization, based on the leadership and power exercised by the different members of the organization, will make sense at the moment in which the decisions taken establish thedirection and dynamics of the organization, but at the same time of the acceptance or rejection by the majority of followers/collaborators. The foregoing highlights the need foracceptance by the different agents of the system, since otherwise mistrust in relationships and setbacks in the achievement of organizational goals may be caused. .5. Final commentsThroughout the document it has been pointed out that power, as an inherent factor in the exercise of leadership, is a vital element to achieve the mobilization of the organization towardscertain adaptive stages, which implies that it is capable of influencing the achievement of organizational goals through the promotion of diversity and the satisfaction of individual andcollective expectations that arise in the system. In fact, leadership is a relational process rather than an exercise centered on the leader as a subject, in which leadership emerges from theinteraction between the agents of the system. Likewise, when leadership is observed from the leader or leaders-individuals with the greatest power of influence- it is understood thatpower does not make the leader, but without power there is no leadership, therefore, studying this concept is fundamental to understanding leadership. In this sense, reference is madenot only to the deliberate influence of the leaders to bring the organization to an adaptive state, but also includes the effect, sometimes diffuse, of the exercise of power over theorganization, which inevitably mobilizes the system, sometimes, to stages not foreseen by the leaders, producing changes that occur spontaneously from the interaction between agentswithin the organization, or from this in relation to the environment and the situational factors that condition it. The study of leadership and power involves understanding the influencefollowers/followers have on the leader and on leadership processes. Since it is a relational phenomenon, the characteristics of the followers will largely obey the characteristics of theinteractions that occur at the different levels of the organization and these, in turn, respond to the contingencies of the internal and external environment of the organization.organization. If these relationships are mediated by trust, there will be better use of diversity, greater flexibility, and a greater probability that the change brought about by the exercise ofpower will be oriented towards productive imbalance, driving the evolution of the system. On the contrary, when the effect of power is sustained by distrust, the exercise of leadership isblurred, command, instruction, rigidity, and homogeneity are strengthened, leading the organization to stagnation, to unproductive imbalance, that is, to the deterioration and/or death,as expressed by Pascale et al. (2002). Leadership and power are not isolated phenomena, both come together to mobilize the organization in an act of reciprocal influence betweenleaders and collaborators, the challenge is to determine to what degree said influence is relevant in both ways so that the purposes of the organization are not distorted and a process ofpermanent deterioration of the system begins, causing the general behavior of the agents to become aggressive, individualistic and even imposing, which would lead to the inevitabledeterioration of the levels of personal satisfaction and well-being that the individuals seek to achieve by being part of an organization. This way of viewing power and influence as sourcesof organizational wealth in which learning, and innovation are fostered is currently especially relevant if the permanent and unpredictable changes of the modern world are taken intoaccount. Leaders, then, must recognize individuality, promote diversity and distribute power, so that the organization moves towards states of productive imbalance that favors theorganization's adaptation. The foregoing implies rethinking the figure of the leader who knows and decides the best path and hopes to be followed by others to become a systemenhancer whose influence allows his self-organization and that new forms emerge from him, which will implicitly have the effect of his influence of him., but not exclusively. Thus, leadersmust enhance the capabilities of people through the recognition of their skills, their needs, motivations, interests and everything that makes them unique. Having this will allow thechances of survival of the organization to be potentiated, which is essential for companies today. Traditionally, the issue of power and influence in organizations has been addressed in a linear and direct way between leaders and followers, which in the best of cases is recognized asbidirectional. This approach responds to the concept of organization whose structure and operation is pre-established by the leader, and it is he who determines and plans the changesrequired to achieve the desired stability. On the other hand, if organizations are recognized as complex systems and whose changes can be largely determined by the interaction between theagents that make it up, the influence of leadership as a process becomes especially important. In this sense, the relationship between leaders and collaborators is intricate, non-linear, and itseffects, to a large extent, indeterminate, since the changes that arise can be spontaneous and unpredictable. This conception of change as a dynamic process demands a reconsideration of theclassic positions in which it is assumed that organizations operate within a stable environment (Trujillo & Guzmán, 2008). From the traditional approach, the so-called influence tactics aredirected towards followers to promote desired behaviors in them and the expected organizational change, which emphasizes the leader as a subject. On the contrary, from the understandingof organizations as complex systems, leadership is prioritized as a process that emerges from the system itself from the interactions of power and influence that occur within it to adapt (farfrom equilibrium) to changing conditions, ambient conditions. In this way, the leader becomes a facilitator that allows and favors the mobilization of the organization, that is, that it self-organizes, and that new, more adaptive forms emerge from it. From this last perspective, the document addresses the phenomena of leadership, power, and organizational mobilization,through a theoretical and conceptual review. Initially, these concepts are discussed in relation to organizational change and the variables involved; Subsequently, the role of collaborators isconsidered as a source of power that makes this mobilization possible. Finally, we reflect on the potential power of the leader to promote productive imbalances through his ability toinfluence, an aspect that would allow the organization not only to adapt, but also to evolve. 2. Organizational change and power The concept of organization has changed; The mechanisticvision has been widely surpassed to give way to a more comprehensive understanding, in which it is assumed that organizations are highly complex systems, with a set of sharedexpectations (Etkin, 2003) where the human factor takes on special relevance. This concept goes beyond the traditional common objectives that are supposed to serve as a glue to achieve thematerialization of the organization itself. From this perspective, the leader as the sole subject of influence is becoming blurred and the leadership that emerges from social relationships andinteractions begins to be recognized, whose power of influence becomes evident as soon as it manages to promote or inhibit the mobilization of the organization. In this order of ideas.leadership is conceived as a social and relational phenomenon resulting from the interaction between people, whose purposes should be oriented towards: 1) facilitating the interpretation ofthe collective visions and expectations of the agents that directly and indirectly participate in the organizations; 2) promote the adaptation of the system to its environment through themobilization of power among its members: 3) promote personal diversity through the recognition of particular abilities, and 4) generate, through communication, favorable contexts forcreativity and innovation, where the most important virtue is trust (fig. 1). Seen in this way, the concept of power becomes especially relevant in the study of leadership, a concept thatgoes beyond the hierarchical position, to be understood as the result of internal and external interactions of the organization, understood as a system. . The study of power from thisperspective can be ambiguous in its conceptualization, but not weak in its effect, which can become more forceful and influential than the legitimized power itself. Like leadership, theconcept of power can be circumscribed to a variety of arguments, and there is no doubt that although it is a universal phenomenon, its conceptualization is elusive and complex (Crozier &Friedberg, 1980). This way of assuming the study of power is not new; Talking about the organization as a social phenomenon inevitably implies referring to the relationships that arisefrom the interactions that take place within it. In the 1980s, it was already argued that power, whether in the social sphere in general or organizational in particular, is subject to a series ofconditions that include, among others, transaction processes between various interests and expectations which does not exclude a certain degree of coincidence between them- and anexercise of influence, by those who hold power, to impose themselves on private interests (Mendieta & Núñez, 1976). Then, as Stein (2005) states, it is clear that power also comes fromthe so-called followers, who can even exert more influence than the leaders themselves. In accordance with the above, Crozier & Friedberg (1980) stated that power has a relationalcharacter, insofar as it acts on the other and this implies interacting with the other, but they clarify that power is introduced into said interaction only when 2 or more Agents of theorganization depend on each other to achieve a common goal, which can make their personal expectations potentially modifiable. In this sense, power is inextricably linked to negotiation,as it implies an exchange relationship between 2 or more people. For his part, Pfeffer (2000), based on the studies carried out by Bertrand Russell in 1938, formulates the existence of 3key elements in the construction and definition of the concept of power in the organization. The first of them is the influence of some agents over others, the second refers to the fact thatpower does not refer only to unidirectional relationships between superiors and subordinates, but also to the interaction between peers, and finally, the third element considers that suchinfluence is usually conscious and deliberate. In any case, the various conceptions of social power have in common the notion that it implies, at least, the ability of a person to controlanother, or influence them in some way (Shaw, 2004). This is how the so-called styles of leadership and the managerial practices derived from it would inexorably involve an exercise ofpower, that is, influence between individuals. It is enough to carefully observe the multiple definitions of leadership that exist, to find that all of them include, explicitly or implicitly, theconcept of influence. In this order of ideas, power, understood as influence, could acquire different nuances depending on the very attributions that leaders make regarding theorganization and the people that make it up. McGregor (1994) pointed this out since the sixties from his well-known theory X and Y, which was based on the attributions of the leaderswith respect to the workers. The first, theory X, would demarcate a highly regulated, controlled, inflexible and rigid style, characterized by the exercise of coercive power, since at the basethere is a marked distrust in others, in their abilities, attitudes and behavior in general. On the other hand, there is theory Y, in which a flexible and participative style predominates assoon as one trusts others, in their abilities, skills and commitment. The basis of leadership from this theory would be based on trust in others, and its power would be more orientedtowards knowledge and interpersonal relationships (expert power and referent power, respectively), which the leader manages to establish with his collaborators. In the first case (X)diversity is restricted, even deliberately, on the contrary, in the second case (Y) it is strengthened and fostered, contributing not only to the evolution of the organization as a system, butalso to well-being and quality of life of the people who make it up, an aspect that was taken up by Ouchi & Jaege (1978) in their so-called Z theory, which is centered on people, theirculture and individuality. These authors emphasize the importance of interpersonal relationships and participation to achieve effective leadership. However, if it is affirmed that theorganization is made up of diverse and even divergent interests and expectations, power can become an element of cohesion or domination (Murillo, 2009); in the latter case, it wouldimply the imposition of certain interests and expectations that may come not only from the formal leader and the structure that supports him and legitimizes him as such, but also fromthe so-called informal leaders (in terms of influence), as part of the of a complex system that does not follow a pre-established order. It should be noted that this type of leader alsoemerges from the system itself and can become important promoters of change, insofar as they exert considerable influence over the system. The fact that these changes favor or not theadaptation of the organization will depend to a large extent on the leadership processes that arise within the system as a product of the interaction. Affirming that power arises from theinteractions and relationships that occur between the agents that make up the organization, in turn from how they accept a role of followers/collaborators and grant power to the leader,coincides with the proposal of Pfeffer (2000), in which he affirms that power does not come exclusively from the position or hierarchy, but also from the trust that arises in this frameworkof interactions that occur in the organization. 3. An indisputable source of power: followers-collaborators Based on the above, it is the role of the leader to allow the system to self-organize to adapt to changes in the context, which requires that he promote a continuous dialogue between the agents that make up the system through through its potential forinfluence rather than control. In this order of ideas, the leader becomes a facilitator of change, assuming that this can occur even independently of his direction (Bonney, 2003). Thisprocess will be effective in these terms only if the leader fully knows the organization and manages to establish bonds of trust from the followers towards them, which will allow a greaterand better activation of the organizational processes and will favor the adaptation of the system in the face of unexpected changes to which companies will have to face. It should benoted that when talking about adaptation, no reference is made to the permanent and immovable stability of the organization, which, as Pascale, Millemann & Gioja (2002) state, isusually a precursor of death. On the contrary, what should be sought is the movement away from stability and close to imbalance, since it is there where emerging processes of change aregestated (Lichtenstein & Plowman, 2009), fundamental in a highly complex environment, such as the one that permanently assist organizations. This imbalance must inescapably be basedon trust, because when it deteriorates, what Heifetz, Grashow & Linsky (2009) call an unproductive imbalance is triggered. It is here where leadership and the management practices ofthose who exercise it play a predominant role in the evolution of the system, which consists, as Heifetz et al. (2009), in orchestrating the inevitable; which refers to the conflict, chaos andconfusion that change generates in conditions of uncertainty, so that in this way the transformation that it produces in the organization is productive and not destructive. From thisperspective, leadership is called upon to provoke productive imbalances in the system, mediated by trust (fig. 2). When leadership mobilizes the organization towards an unproductiveimbalance, it is not only reducing the adaptive capacity of the system and what this entails, but also to a possible desertion of its followers/collaborators by not finding an echo in theirinterests and expectations. This, consequently, increases the risk of failure of the organization, since the loss of its members not only forces the one who holds power to look for new ones,but also generates a loss of experience and knowledge in the system that is not necessarily They will be replaced promptly and accurately. However, taking the organization to a dynamicadaptive stage implies that the power of the collaborators, who in fact have it, influences the common purposes, and that these, in turn, mobilize the work teams. The unit of analysis ofthis power will be the relationship that they manage to establish not only among the team members, but also among the teams, forming a complex network that would involve the entiresystem. The job of the manager in this case is to lead the diversity of powers that exist within the groups and between them, assuming, as Huxham & Beech (2008) put it, their natural

Accepted Answer

Leadership, power, and organizational mobilization are key components in understanding the dynamics…