Power: Sources of Legitimacy and Implications for Decision Authority

The legitimacy of power refers to the justification and acceptance of authority by those subject to it. Legitimacy ensures compliance not merely through coercion but through voluntary acceptance. Scholars across disciplines, particularly in political science, sociology, and organizational studies, have identified multiple sources of legitimacy.

This text is part of the series on the design of decision governance. Decision Governance refers to values, principles, practices designed to improve the quality of decisions. Find all texts on decision governance here, including “What is Decision Governance?” here.

1. Weberian Framework of Legitimacy

Max Weber (1922) proposed a foundational framework for understanding power legitimacy, categorizing it into three main types. Traditional legitimacy is rooted in long-standing customs, traditions, and cultural norms. Authority is inherited or established by precedent, such as monarchies or religious leaders. The British monarchy, for example, retains legitimacy through historical continuity and cultural symbolism (Weber, 1978). Charismatic legitimacy derives from the personal qualities, leadership skills, or vision of an individual. Followers grant authority based on admiration or belief in the leader’s exceptional qualities, as seen in Nelson Mandela’s leadership during South Africa’s transition to democracy (Weber, 1978). Legal-rational legitimacy, on the other hand, is based on formal rules, laws, and bureaucratic structures. Authority is granted through legal frameworks and institutional procedures, exemplified by democratic governments where legitimacy comes from electoral processes and constitutional law (Weber, 1978).

2. Input and Output Legitimacy

Fritz Scharpf (1999) introduced a distinction between two forms of legitimacy in governance: input legitimacy and output legitimacy. Input legitimacy, or legitimacy through participation, is achieved when power reflects the collective will of the people, such as through democratic elections or stakeholder engagement. Public referendums that ensure legitimacy through citizen participation serve as an example (Scharpf, 1999). Output legitimacy, or legitimacy through performance, is based on the effectiveness, efficiency, and problem-solving capacity of power. Technocratic governance, for instance, where expertise legitimizes decision-making, such as in central banks managing monetary policy, illustrates this concept (Scharpf, 1999).

3. Beetham’s Three Components of Legitimacy

David Beetham (1991) argued that legitimacy consists of three components: legal validity, normative justification, and consent and recognition. Legal validity requires that power conforms to established rules and laws. Normative justification involves power aligning with broader moral and cultural values. Consent and recognition are necessary when those under authority accept and recognize its legitimacy (Beetham, 1991).

4. Suchman’s Typology of Legitimacy

Mark Suchman (1995) outlined three types of legitimacy relevant to organizations and institutions: pragmatic, moral, and cognitive legitimacy. Pragmatic legitimacy is derived from perceived benefits or self-interest, as seen when businesses gain legitimacy by serving customer needs. Moral legitimacy is rooted in ethical considerations and societal approval, often demonstrated through corporate social responsibility initiatives. Cognitive legitimacy exists when power is perceived as natural or inevitable, as with the widespread acceptance of bureaucracy in modern societies (Suchman, 1995).

5. Gramsci’s Concept of Hegemony

Antonio Gramsci (1971) introduced the concept of hegemony, wherein dominant groups maintain power by shaping ideologies and cultural norms. Power is legitimized through media, education, and institutions that normalize existing hierarchies. The acceptance of capitalist market structures as ‘natural’ and inevitable is a prime example of ideological legitimacy (Gramsci, 1971).

6. Performance-Based Legitimacy

Seymour Martin Lipset (1959) argued that governments gain legitimacy when they deliver economic growth, stability, and security. The legitimacy of authoritarian regimes is often justified through arguments based on economic performance rather than democratic participation (Lipset, 1959).

7. Procedural and Substantive Legitimacy

Tom Tyler (2006) emphasized that legitimacy is shaped by procedural fairness and substantive outcomes. Procedural legitimacy occurs when decisions are made transparently and fairly, as in courts upholding due process. Substantive legitimacy is reinforced when policies produce fair and desirable outcomes (Tyler, 2006).

Conclusion

The following table summarizes the sources of legitimacy discussed in this text. It suggests characteristics that the decision maker, the decision process, and decision outcomes need to have, to legitimize the power given to the decision maker.

Source of Legitimacy	Characteristics of the Decision Maker	Characteristics of the Decision Process	Characteristics of Decision Outcomes
Traditional (Weber)	Inherits position, adheres to customs	Stable, predictable, rooted in tradition	Consistent with historical norms and expectations
Charismatic (Weber)	Charismatic, visionary, inspiring	Flexible, adaptive to leader’s vision	Inspires loyalty, mobilizes followers
Legal-Rational (Weber)	Knowledgeable, law-abiding	Transparent, rule-based, procedural	Legally compliant, procedurally fair
Input Legitimacy (Scharpf)	Responsive to constituents, participatory	Open, inclusive, participatory	Reflects public will, accepted participation
Output Legitimacy (Scharpf)	Focused on performance, results-oriented	Efficient, goal-directed, evidence-based	Effective, high-performance outcomes
Legal Validity (Beetham)	Adheres to legal norms	Consistent with laws, institutionally supported	Legally valid and recognized
Normative Justification (Beetham)	Ethical, value-conscious	Aligned with societal values	Seen as morally justified
Consent and Recognition (Beetham)	Seeks stakeholder buy-in	Transparent, communicative	Publicly accepted, widely supported
Pragmatic (Suchman)	Practical, responsive to stakeholders	Customer-oriented, performance-focused	Perceived as useful and beneficial
Moral (Suchman)	Ethical, socially responsible	Ethical standards, corporate social responsibility	Socially and morally acceptable outcomes
Cognitive (Suchman)	Embedded in societal norms	Routine, familiar practices	Perceived as natural and inevitable
Ideological (Gramsci)	Ideological leader, persuasive	Media-driven, cultural hegemony	Aligns with dominant societal beliefs
Performance-based (Lipset)	Results-oriented, efficient	Performance metrics, continuous evaluation	Delivers tangible, measurable success
Procedural (Tyler)	Fair, impartial, transparent	Transparent, impartial procedures	Perceived as fair and just
Substantive (Tyler)	Focused on equitable outcomes	Outcome-focused, result-oriented	Outcomes seen as fair and beneficial

Research across disciplines highlights that the legitimacy of power is multifaceted and depends on various sources, including traditional, charismatic, and legal-rational authority; input and output legitimacy; Beetham’s components of legal validity, normative justification, and consent; Suchman’s pragmatic, moral, and cognitive legitimacy; Gramsci’s ideological legitimacy; performance-based legitimacy; and procedural and substantive legitimacy. Understanding these diverse sources helps sustain authority and ensure compliance without coercion.

References

• Beetham, D. (1991). The legitimation of power. Palgrave Macmillan.
• Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. Pantheon Books.
• Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks. International Publishers.
• Lipset, S. M. (1959). Some social requisites of democracy: Economic development and political legitimacy. American Political Science Review, 53(1), 69-105.
• Scharpf, F. W. (1999). Governing in Europe: Effective and democratic? Oxford University Press.
• Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571-610.
• Tyler, T. R. (2006). Why people obey the law. Princeton University Press.
• Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology. University of California Press.