Leadership and the use of Power to Achieve Social Change
Daniel William Chappell
Dallas Baptist University

Leadership and the Use of Power to Achieve Social Change
Introduction
The United States changed forever on November 4, 2008. Anyone watching a television on this important evening knew that everything had changed. Barak Hussein Obama had just been elected the 45th President of the United States of America, and he represented the first African American to ever win this office. To many the election was a fulfillment of Dr. Martin Luther King’s dream for social and political equality for African Americans. Still others, including the newly elected President, reached back to Lincoln. President Obama would also, invoke the founding fathers, giving credit to the social experiment that democracy is and thus hinting to the efforts of Washington and others. The days that followed the Obama election would be filled with symbolism leading to the concert on the steps of the Lincoln memorial, and the day of service, called by the President, in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. the day before inauguration. The election of President Obama seemed to have brought full circle the experiment of democracy. The dreams of the founding fathers were present, the echo of Lincoln’s consequential Presidency were present, and certainly the dreams and speeches of Dr. King were front and center in this cultural moment. Yet the cultural moment represented so much more than a continuum of ideas and dreams of significant men. This moment was one of the first major societal changes in a generation. Perhaps not Ironically, the election of Barak Obama had ripple effects upon social change in the United States and what came full circle on November 4, 2008 for the African American and minority communities would begin to happen for yet another oppressed minority, in the years that followed. The Gay rights movement would gain more traction that at any previous time in history. This traction represents another major societal change and shift, that has all the elements and symbolism of the Obama election. Yet these events, all of them do not happen in a vacuum. There are reasons major societal change takes place and at the center of these reasons stands Leaderships use of power. The power wielded can be formal or informal (Heifetz, 2013). Leadership has always used power to bring about change and effectiveness, and this has been the case in the modern battle for societal change on the front lines of the gay rights movement. Yet this movement is not invoking new tools but rather latching on to the tools and tactics used by so many noble causes before them. George Washington’s leadership and use of power to accomplish American independence, Abraham Lincoln’s leadership and use of power to free the slaves and protect the Union, both represent the use of formal and legitimate power and authority, while Martin Luther King’s leadership and use of power to galvanize the civil rights movement, serves as a more natural mentor to the gay rights movement and it’s use of leadership and power in informal ways like King . This paper will trace the stated thesis by looking at the nature of power and leadership in accomplishing change, and transformation, as well as looking at how leadership and power address social change when the answers are not clear and easy to come by. It could be argued that this would be the case in each of the cases involving Washington, Lincoln, King and the Gay rights movement. The change was not easy and the answers were not as always clear-cut as some may contend. The paper will continue by looking at leadership and power within the context of Washington, Lincoln, and King and how each used these concepts to bring about the societal change that they were seeking to lead. Finally, the Gay rights movement will be addressed, beginning with the Stonewall riots through the current precipice of the expected Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) decision to legalize Gay Marriage. The movement will be looked at for how it used some of the principles of Washington, Lincoln and King (especially King) in achieving political and social power to bring about its objectives. The movement has succeeded in embedding its power and influence in almost every sector of American opinion shaping from politics, the media, the legal system and now most importantly the American social conscience. It is contended here that it has done this by taking cues from the Washington, Lincoln and King in their use of leadership and power to bring about lasting societal change.

Leadership and Power for the purpose of Transformation Before moving to the specific examples of Washington, Lincoln, King, and The modern gay rights movement it is necessary and helpful to discuss the nature of leadership and power and how they are to be seen. Are these realities separate from each other? What is the nature of each? Are their various ways that power can be seen or foundations upon which it arises? These are important questions in consideration of the broader thesis that power is used for societal change and Washington, Lincoln, and King have found an expression in mentoring the modern push for gay rights and inclusion into society. Power is part of the influencing process and moving a group of people or society toward change. Peter Northouse makes the case that power is held anytime that someone has the ability to influence another’s beliefs, attitudes, or actions (Northouse, 2015). This is most certainly the case in all of the various entities being considered in this current paper. Washington, Lincoln, and King all held power and used it to accomplish the purposes for which they had stepped into leadership. Each did not use their power the same and the power they had was not equal. Northouse makes note that Power can come from different bases. The idea for this claim comes from the research of French and Raven’s landmark study on power bases and social change (Northouse, 2015). The bases of power noted in the study are a referent, expert, legitimate, reward, and coercive power (Northouse, 2015). Further, it is noted that the bases of power come from either personal power or positional power (Positional: legitimate, reward, and coercive; Personal: referent and expert) (Northouse, 2015). These bases and the particular breakdowns are helpful moving forward as the case is made from above that Washington, Lincoln, King, and eventually the Gay rights movement all operated power from differing bases and that each had or wielded different types of power. Leadership, the seminal work by James Macgregor Burns looks at the nature of Transformational leadership and the interaction of leaders and followers. As such Burns makes not of the difference between leadership and power. Power is not leadership, but rather it is an aspect of leadership. Power is a separate and important process all on its own (Burns, 1978). Burns makes an important contribution to this conversation and thus the study here by noting that leaders make use of various bases of power by utilizing tools at their disposal to accomplish the purpose for which they are employing (Burns, 1978). The tools employed can be economic, military, institutionalized and skill (Burns, 1978). All of these can be tools at the disposal of the leader or just one. Again in the case of the leaders considered here, these men and movements and sometimes multiple ones at the same time utilize various tools. Power can be coercive and Northouse makes the case that this is not leadership and the two must be distinguished from the other (Northouse, 2015). If the case is not made to see the difference in the two then men like Hitler, Jim Jones and organizations like the Taliban or ISIS can be seen as excellent examples of leadership. To be sure all those just mentioned have brought about great societal change or social change. In the case of Hitler, perhaps no single leader has been as effective at accomplishing their particular goals. However, a random poll of the majority of the world’s population would yield that these men and organizations were and are moral monsters. Northouse takes that opinion and puts a researched understanding behind it by pointing out that coercive power is not leadership. Having the power to punish and penalize can accomplish much but it is not true leadership (Northouse, 2015). Burns would agree with this as he puts the emphasis upon noting the relationship between leaders and followers. He points out that leadership happens in the context of conflict and competition as leaders seek to engage and appeal to the potential motive bases of followers (Burns 1978). Here Burns makes the important distinction of arguing that leaders lead people not things and that power especially if it is used coercively can have the effect of seeing oneself as leading things to be manipulated Burns, 1978). Plato made this point in a slightly different way by pointing out that wisdom is needed in understanding the interrelation of power and leadership. Leadership is the combination of power and wisdom. Without wisdom, power is tyrannical, and without power-wisdom is vacuous (Koestenbaum, 1991). Dr. Ronald Heifetz, in his work Leadership Without Easy Answers, makes the point that leadership value-laden and that attempts to understand leadership apart from values are not as helpful (Heifetz, 1994). He argues that it is easier to imagine a leader producing more socially desired outcomes through setting benchmarks or goals that meet the needs of both the leaders and the followers. The subjects of this work again are perfect test cases for this as it will be seen that each had personal motivations, but those motivations were tempered by the goal of bringing about a socially desired need of the people. Heifetz continues to press the case of desired social outcomes by making the case that in order for those outcomes to become a reality the authority (power) most often should come from a place of legitimacy and this legitimacy is based upon a set of procedures within which power moves from the many to the few (Heifetz, 1994). When looking at leadership and power in terms of legitimacy there are those leaders that become excluded, just like in Northouse’s understanding of leadership apart from coercive action (which excluded (Hitler, ISIS, the Taliban, and Jim Jones). Heifetz maintains that this will leave out someone like Martin Luther King Jr. Who risked social chaos by releasing uncontrollable social forces (Heifetz, 1994). Heifetz tempers this point, so as not to be concrete by stating that sometimes a person who leads may have to risk his/her moral state or health in order to protect his moral state and this will involve pushing the limits of the system (Heifetz, 1994). This aspect of King’s leadership will be discussed later as it will be seen that King was able to use power and authority informally in the transformation of racial society, Heifetz discusses this to some degree and length 9Heifetz, 1994). Koestenbaum, in Leadership: The Inner Side of Greatness, is largely focused upon the ethical use of leadership and this involves how leaders use power. He makes the case that motivation or motivating followers and those you seek to lead is formulaic (Koestenbaum, 1991). He points out, “leadership effectiveness equals power (charisma, credibility, and achievement) plus an acknowledgement (recognition)” (Koestenbaum, 1991). The formula represents the character as well as a technique or puts another way it involves personality and accomplishment (Koestenbaum, 1991). So there is another element added here which is the ethical, character side of power and leadership, coming alongside position and personal. The idea of pathos, ethos, and logos seem to come to mind here when judging the credibility that a leader will be extended and the power that they will be able to ethically employ. The leader must have the passion (ability to motivate), ethical character, and the positional credibility or knowledge to lead in the process of transformation. Burns helpfully gives the overall summation of power and leadership in relation. Burns sees power and leadership from the standpoint of relationship. Power is not simply to be used by leaders to achieve their own ends but rather as a relationship between the leader and the follower. The leader is given power through the person and positional bases and then uses this power to accomplish both the goals of the leader and the needs and desires of the followers. Leaders and followers are in a dynamic relationship with one another (Northouse, 2015). This dynamic relationship between leaders and followers is at the essence or core of transformational leadership. Few would argue that the subjects here had it. However, in the case of the modern subject, the gay rights movement, the question is largely open and maybe even unanswered. Part of this exploration will be to seek to offer an answer. The culmination of this review of power and leadership in achieving social change will be an inside look at the gay rights movement and their use of power similar to Washington, Lincoln, and King. There are questions as to perspective that need to be answered and hopefully will. For instance Ken Blackwell in his address, Power and the Christian Leader in a Changing World, makes the case that the change we see being delivered in society today is morally corrupt and the goal is to turn society upside down. He contends that this is unlike the founders who sought to bring order and restore the rights of English citizens (Blackwell, 2003). One clearly perceives that Blackwell would argue that much of the change today is not happening through the political process leading change for the good of order and society but rather that this change is being pushed upon society by those who really have the influence (or informal authority), the artists, entertainers, professor, and athletes, as he names a few (Blackwell, 2003). Perhaps this is will be one of the major results from looking at these relationships and influences. One may very well argue that the LGBT community sees its cause as restorative in nature and that restoring the rights of citizens to live freely for who they are and have that recognized under the law is within the tradition of the founders. Certainly it is within the tradition of King and the civil rights movement (Hirshman, 2013). Michael Lindsay, President of Gordon College, has discussed the new idea of power or the modern expression of power that Blackwell seems to touch upon. Lindsay sees a matrix of power that that involves the overlapping of networks by those in the upper reaches of authority in society (Lindsay, 2014). Essentially these networks form a matrix of individuals, organizations, institutions, and different fields, all using differing tools (mentioned by Northouse earlier) economic, political, cultural, and social (Lindsay, 2014) This is essentially how power operates in society today and this is the type of change that Blackwell seems to lament versus the model seen under the founders and even up through Lincoln. So perhaps Washington and Lincoln Used power in more formal authoritarian ways to accomplish societal change and King (and the civil rights movement) represents a change in the trend and the use of power matrix’s to accomplish societal change. The latter would certainly be a mentor to the Gay rights movement. It has been important to consider these ideas at the thirty thousand foot level to get an understanding of the arch or trajectory of change and the use of power to accomplish that and before turning to the more modern uses of power, the paper will now turn back to Washington and Lincoln and look at their leadership and the use of power more formally to accomplish societal change.

George Washington’s Leadership and Use of Power Earliest childhood understandings of George Washington are often dispensed to American children around the concept of Washington’s honesty. Child after child is told the story of the cherry tree. True or not the picture is not without a warrant as what develops for most is the picture of a highly deliberate, honest and stoic man. Washington was general before he was President, and before this a major. Any reading of the life of George Washington will leave one with a sense that Washington was a man of duty, sincere, humble, and perhaps these are the qualities that made him right for the first of Americas Presidents. James Macgregor Burns notes that Washington was the expected first President and because of that fact it was expected that the Presidency would be a true chief executive, disconnected from factions and parties, and rather a judicious magistrate executive (Burns, 1978). The picture that is painted here is that of a formal man expected to be a formal leader. Burn’s notes that Washington fulfilled this ideal by being less of a party man and so parties formed around the members of his cabinet (Burns, 1978). This information does not serve to give insight to Washington’s leadership and use of power, at this point, but it does seem to give understanding to the type of man that formed the leader and the use of the tools around him. Washington is a picture of formal authority from his position within the Continental Congress, his rising through the military ranks to lead the continental army, through his leadership in the office created for him, the Presidency (Spaulding, 2012). Washington was known as a man of action and wise political understanding (Spaulding, 2012).
According to Edmund S Morgan, what stands out about the American Revolution is not the Army that won American independence. In fact, the revolutionary army was always battling for numbers and was never the force leaders had hoped it could be. However, what stands out is the extraordinary political and military talent and genius that it produced (Morgan, 1980). None of the American founders and band of talent stands out more than the single greatest star among them all, George Washington, whose talent, Morgan suggests is needed today (Morgan, 1980). Morgan’s comments lend further credibility that Washington housed within himself and due to his offices the perfect blend of the power talked about earlier in this work. Washington was a man of character whose power was not coerced but derived from the many to the one due to his character and his earning of this power. The comments of Burns, Morgan, Spaulding and others lend credibility to the idea that the position of Washington was derived from the wisdom and genius of the individual. Washington displayed legitimate authority. It was given to him he did not have to take it for himself. Washington no doubt understood the relevance of listening to the troops. As a major and a General, this would be a skill he developed that would serve him well as President. This advice comes from Phillips work on Lincoln and his take on leadership, but one has to wonder if Washington the great leader before him informed it (Phillips, 1992). In fact, Washington displayed many of the Leadership traits that are on display in Phillips work on Lincoln. Character was the authenticating essence of Washington’s leadership and gaining of power, as he would embody this wisdom Phillips offers to let honesty and integrity be normative as best practices (Phillips, 1992). Washington would be a test case in adaptive leadership. He did not take on the technical problems of the colonies, or the revolutionary war, and the newly formed United States but Washington expressed true adaptive leadership in helping America shape its values and change a system from what was into something entirely new. These ideas are at the heart of Heifetz’s understanding of adaptive leadership (Heifetz, 1994). Washington was the right man for this adaptive work as he was able to lead the people from diagnosis to action and also keep in place those fundamental realities and ideals and build upon them (Heifetz, 1994). Morgan makes note what Burns counted and others as well, that the American Presidency was designed for Washington (Morgan, 1980). Morgan points out that his Excellency and willingness to give power back and not grab for it made him all the more powerful. It was not something he wanted or sought but was willing as a matter of honor and character to step into (Morgan, 1980). So too, Morgan confirms Richard Brookshire’s take on Washington. He was not comfortable around educated men, but he knew how to use them and was known for putting intelligent men around him (Brookshire, 2008). According to Morgan, the genius of Washington was that he understood political and military power. He accepted, however, the Republican form of government in a way that Cromwell never did (Morgan, 1980). This Washington never sought power that was not his. However, Washington knew how to take command when needed and he did (Morgan, 1980). He knew how to lead if still he did not know or want people that well. However, as mentioned above he understood people and the need to use them rightly from his time as a general (Morgan, 1980). So as seen here Washington used Power, perhaps better than most. He was neither highly talented nor relatable. He kept people at a distance yet he was revered as a man of Character and honesty (Morgan, 1980). The talent he lacked in these other areas he made up for in his ability to lead well and step out and to understand the legitimate and formal power and authority given him. These traits and these actions proved to shape one of the greatest countries in the world and they still are today (Morgan, 1980). As he transitions toward the end of his discussion, Morgan makes note that Washington was hard to know as the man and this was so unlike many who would come after him (Morgan, 1980). This is true of Lincoln, who in his writings and those about him give a good sense toward knowing Lincoln the man, and a much more relatable figure (Morgan, 1980).

Abraham Lincoln’s Leadership and Use of Power Lincoln stands out to many in our modern era as a figure to be revered for his role in emancipating the slaves and thus bringing about one of the greatest social justices of our time. He has almost uniform positive appeal among most Americans. Perhaps, the only place in which this is not true is among scholars, who understand all facets to the story. It might surprise many to know that Lincoln was not a natural to the slavery issue and that he turned a blind eye to the cause in the late 1840’s (Guelzo, 1999). However, it would not surprise many to know that this assertion, itself is somewhat debated but it points to a reality that not everything surrounding the sixteenth President is as cut and dry or easy as many would like it to be. No matter the case, Lincoln had certainly taken up the issue of slavery by 1841 (Guelzo, 1999). It isn’t clear whether the Whiggism of Lincoln or his own internal disgust with the practice of slavery, led him to be so against it but by late 1841 he was regularly talking about its vulgarity (Guelzo, 1999). However, Lincoln was put in an awkward position with his politics. According to Guelzo, his Whiggism led him to be against the practice of slavery, but his Whig politics saw the roadblock of the constitution, and it seemed to give sanction and harbor to slavery (Guelzo, 1999). Exercising leadership while one possesses legitimate authority in adaptive situations requires the ability to go against the grain (Heifetz, 1994). Volumes could be written about Lincoln and his leadership but in terms of the societal change he brought about, the preservation of the Union and the systematic freeing of the slaves, his leadership can possibly be summed up. Guelzo points out that Lincoln was a deep man of faith and driven by Character and perhaps he even points out some believe he was a fatalist (Guelzo, 1999). He certainly was a man in conflict with possibly himself, as Guelzo also points out that he may have held or had some personal racism (Guelzo, 1999), However, he knew what had to be done and in some sense this would lead to him going against the grain of his own Whig tendencies and out of which would flow the doctrine of necessity. This was adaptive leadership that Heifetz points to and it was, like Washington had done from a place of legitimate authority and power and brought about major societal change. One aspect here to be highlighted is whether of not his use of power was like that of Washington. No research was found that would directly link or compare the two, so the question and perhaps an inference will suffice. Was Washington’s use of legitimate authority and the tools he utilized like that of Lincoln’s use of his legitimate authority? Both held the Presidency, both were seeking to bring about major societal change, both operated in adaptive situations, but perhaps Lincoln, with the doctrine of necessity goes further than the modest, a reserved Washington would have gone. Phillips portrays Lincoln as a man that understood people and let people understand him, the man. He portrays a man of character and a man who out of conviction understood tough choices (Phillips, 1991). This can seem at odds to some who look at his expansion of the executive and suspension of civil liberties (Burns, 1978), but perhaps that is because society is in a post war, post patriot act era, in which the executive expanded powers and much protest was made about it. Burns points out that Lincoln was scolded by the supreme court post-presidency for his willingness to suspend civil liberties during his time as President. Again, it feels reductionist to attempt to collect the leadership of Lincoln and talk about it in a tangible way but the attempt here is to look at the particular desire to bring about social change and how that was done. Burns discusses Lincoln under the pretext of transactional leaders and perhaps this is due to the fact that Lincoln, under what he saw as a necessity, took actions to ensure the success of his societal objectives. At least in some part he hints to this in discussing the Union and civil liberties. Burns points out that most Presidents are practical men and good at bargaining. However, most are able to resist ideology in the pursuit of making value choices under the duress of events (Burns, 1978). This pragmatism involves the value-laden adaptive leadership that Heifetz highlights in Leadership Without Easy Answers (Heifetz, 1994). Lincoln’s own words point to this reality and the core of his reasoning and use of power during the Civil War. “Was it possible to lose the nation and yet preserve the Constitution? By general law, life and limb must be protected, yet often a limb must be amputated to save a life, but a life is never wisely given to save a limb…” (Burns, p.390, 1978). Lincoln was a changed man and adapted man, due to the constraints before him the whiggish, egalitarian, Jeffersonian libertarian, had adapted to suspend civil liberties during the civil war (Burns, 1978). This was the largest expansion of the executive and a high water mark for the power of the executive in American history (Burns, 1978). Lincoln went on to demonstrate real political opportunism when it came to his emancipation of the slaves. He indicated the right of the states to own slaves but used the powers of the Presidency to manipulate the situation and free them (Burns, 1978). Yet it may be this balancing act between the abolitionists and the border states that Burns points out, led Lincoln to not be as thorough with the reconstruction process as he was in forcing the issue of freedom (Burns, 1978). Burns seems to make the case that the pragmatism had led Lincoln and the North to basically assume outcomes that would not come true in the era of Reconstruction (Burns, 1979). Essentially, freedmen were not guaranteed land, the right to vote, and own property (Burns, 1978). These would continue to be issues that faced the United States moving forward and force the questions of values and morality as they push against the Constitution and the seeming powers of the state as they are compared to the powers of the federal government. Lincoln’s Leadership for societal change was, as noted, legitimate and from a place of authority. He used economic, political, military and social tools available to him. However, his departure from Washington’s style was in the expansion of that power and the willingness to go beyond the normal checks and balances to pursue societal change. Perhaps this signals forward to the mid-twentieth century when Martin Luther King Jr. and the civil rights movement would utilize expanded executive and even broader societal forces to encourage societal change. The difference this time is that it came from a man and a movement with no legitimate authority, and the use of informal power.

Martin Luther King Jr. and the use of Leadership and Power The 1960’s presented one of the most dramatic moments in American history, the Civil Rights movement. With this movement came the production or recruitment of needed leaders. Like the revolution of America’s beginning and the national crisis of wars before it, the time and the moment would call for leadership. Into this, vacuum stepped Martin Luther King Jr. King was a Baptist preacher from Atlanta, GA and as such exercised no formal authority or position. From his early days at Crozier Seminary, King became familiar with the language of revolution and the writings of Communism (King & Carson, 2001). This is pertinent to the conversation here due to the fact that it was the writings of Communism that helped King come to conclusions about the means and outcomes of revolution. For King’s part, he rejected the ethical relativism of Communism and understood that ethics and moral order must drive the need for social change (King & Carson, 2001). Kings own words spell this out well; “ Constructive ends can never give absolute moral justification to destructive means, because, in the final analysis, the end is preexistent in the means” (King & Carson, p.20, 2001). Kings interaction with the writings of Communism can be seen as significant when taken into account with his moral and deeply religious foundations, as well as how they interacted to bring about his view of humanity, freedom and the pursuit of these ideals. King understood that man was first and foremost created in the image of God and this was the foundation of the human right to freedom (King & Carson, 2001). One can surmise that this also had a profound impact upon King’s use of power to bring about that freedom, for just as man should be free and this end is justifiable, the process of obtaining that freedom matters, and cannot be divorced from the means. This seems to be at the heart of King’s comments above. As King continued at Crozier he talks openly about his journey on the theories of non-violence. His original exposure left him skeptical and ultimately unaccepting but it was the teaching of Gandhi, which ultimately showed him how wrong he was and thus led him to accept non-violence and the truth of Pacifism (King & Carson, 2001). Finally, as the intellectual foundations that would create the leader continued, King discusses his understanding of man and the liberal view of man vs. the orthodox view of mankind. Ultimately coming to a middle ground but coming back again and again to the imago day as his primary understanding of humanity (King & Carson, 2001). The stage then was for the revolution and the movement; King would ultimately be drafted into the NAACP while serving as Pastor at Dexter (King & Carson). The theories that had time to ferment in King’s soul would ultimately meet misunderstanding or resistance with the rank and file of the movement. King notes that from the beginning the Montgomery boycott was met with a struggle for the people to understand the method of non-violence (King & Washington, 1992). King regularly used their large meetings and gatherings to teach on the subject of non-violence to a people who had never heard this before and little understood the concept (King & Washington, 1992). King notes that non-violence was just as resistant as violence, but that it was nonaggressive physically but highly spiritually aggressive (King & Washington, 1992). Kings leadership was ultimately tested first within the movement and then later, and perhaps throughout, by individuals and institutions he sought to change. This called for the adaptive leadership that has been discussed as a filter or point of reference in this paper. Interestingly Heifetz takes time in his work to look at leadership with authority and leadership without authority. As has been mentioned, King led without authority and Heifetz points this out but also uses President Johnson as one who led with authority, describing the same moment in history (Heifetz, 1994). It was Johnson and King that struggled publically and privately during the struggle for the Voting Rights Act and the march on Selma (Heifetz, 1994). The struggle for the voting rights act, as a symbolic moment in the civil rights movement, would call for King to utilize different tactics than Johnson, because King had no formal authority. King had to become the living embodiment of the movement and thus play a game of public exposure and private discussion (Heifetz, 1994). The public King would actually use Selma as an opportunity to agitate the situation by putting on display the actions of an unjust system (Heifetz, 1994). Quite literally King would have to use the media and Television to help him get his rhetoric and message across in a highly visible and brutal way. The participants in Selma, though ready would become props, so to speak, in a very public demonstration, and this was the plan to move the conscience of the country toward the voting rights act (Heifetz, 1994). King and the Southern Christian Leadership Coalition (SCLC) used Selma and the drama surrounding it to move the public and thus Johnson and the congress to bring about an end, and end that in many ways would become the defining moment of the civil rights movement (Heifetz, 1994). King would draw the attention of all in formal authority, as the embodiment of the movement. His phones were tapped and his every move watched. Perhaps this is one reason he fought so deeply with his private struggle with affairs, believing he would be exposed and thus destroy the movement (Williams, 2009). King never accepted his personal and private struggles as normal or ok and thus fought to overcome them and maybe this is why he has survived as a moral figure, despite his personal failures (Williams, 2009). King was under extreme pressure and a public-private balance was struck in order to utilize the maximum hi informal authority (Heifetz, 1994). King’s use of informal authority and power to bring about societal change has been looked at and understood for decades since those days. As it has been seen King used the situation and his eyes on the major players with formal authority (Heifetz, 1994) to help move them by moving the systems and culture around them. Some would even point to Dr. King as making some of the first alliances with the evangelical movement, thus using the faith community and religion to rally his cause (Lindsay, 2007). Thus King used a complex web of society, the media, entertainers, the medium of television and radio, to bring front and center the struggle for equality and thus move the major formal powers of his day. This is that matrix of power that Michael Lindsay discusses in A View From the Top that forms a power base in society today. Burns notes that the downside to Kings, highly personal involvement in the movement in becoming the face, was that after his assassination there was nobody with the credibility to carry it on (Burns, 1978). Perhaps this is the reason that the work that needed to continue after King did not and that the struggle for equality has taken longer than expected, although Barak Obama’s election in 2008 saw much f the King dream come full circle. Perhaps one of the greatest societal changes for equality and rights that has strung all the figures in this paper together is still under way. The struggle for gay rights began in many ways in 1969 with the Stonewall riots in New York City (Hirshman, 2013). But as the movement went forward it can be seen that they were mentored by the struggle for civil rights and as opposed to Washington and Lincoln, they became children to a new age of the use of power to bring about societal change. This use of power would be more like the tactics utilized by Dr. King and the civil rights movement. It would rely upon the use of the matrix of power Lindsay mentions.

The Gay Rights Movements use of Leadership and Power Anyone looking at the current cultural landscape in the United States will have to admit that the gay rights movement has become one of the most important and powerful forces that exist today. One need not be a sociologist, a research doctor, political scientist, or power broker to see the fruit of the movement’s power. Marriage equality seemed a distant reality under the Clinton administration and the signing of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996 (Burns, 2006). The Supreme Court has since stripped DOMA of its power and is now considering a ruling that would take the issue of States hands and grant federal protection for same-sex marriage. This coupled with the advancement of the arts and entertainment, as well as the almost universal secular cultural acceptance of LGBT rights and life. The outcome of this movement has been wildly successful from the results point of view. Answering the question how and writing an account of the movement would take volumes. But it is possible here to look at various macro aspects that help the reader to see how an oppressed minority gained almost universal acceptance. It is the contention of this work that there is a direct comparison to the civil rights movement and the leadership of Dr. King. One major difference can be noted at the beginning and that is the absence of any one leader that would be the Dr. King of the Gay rights movement. There have been voices to point to and figures that have stood tall, but no one person has been the face. To accept Burn’s conclusion on King and his limiting the Civil rights movement due to being the highly personal embodiment of the movement would be than to accept the opposite. That is to say that it is possible that while using the tools of informal power like King the Gay rights movement has not made the same mistake of putting all of the hope in one figure. The idea that the LGBT community would seek inclusion under the framing of human rights puts it under the affirmative politics and consideration along with other major rights movements in the United States, most notably the civil rights movement (Mertus, 2007) This is to point out that Mertus believes that the human rights framing has been used by the LGBT movement an it has thus been linked with the Civil rights movement (Mertus, 2007). It is worth noting that Mertus finds this restrictive and that personal identity should be a more unifying factor for the LGBT community (Mertus, 2007), but the point that needs to be made is that the human rights framing has been used by the LGBT community and movement. From the beginning of the gay rights movement, there was a group protest mentality, from the Stonewall riot in New York City to the formation of the Gay Liberation Movement (Burns, 2006). According to Burns, the 1960’s had built a brand new social movement and the Gay Liberation Movement (GLM) was able to seize upon this in highlighting the Stonewall treatment by the New York Police. As a result, the nationwide grassroots movement had begun (Burns, 2006). The first major Leader of the gay rights movement might well be a product of that movement, Harvey Milk. Milk, a San Franciscan, who ran for city office urged Gay men and women to stand up and join the GLM (Burns, 2006). Milk’s solution to the fight for rights was for Gay men and women to come out and demand their rights and put pressure on politicians to afford them their rights (Burns 2006). Milk gave an important address during the Gay freedom day parade in San Francisco and publically called out the President (Carter) for not seeing gay rights as a civil rights issue, and called on all disenfranchised groups to unite in the effort for human rights (Burns, 2006). This is an important moment in the discussion as one can see with Harvey Milk, the most notable man of the movement so far, a willingness to join power and speak to it, as well as to call on cultural forces to move it. Ironically and equally as tragic, Milk was gunned down in November of that same year by the fellow supervisor, Dan White (Burns, 2006). But the era of Harvey Milk was much in correlation with that of the tactics and persona of King. The main difference may be in the boldness and radicalization of the movement as compared to civil rights in the King era. Linda Hirshman lends further credibility to the influence theory proposed here. Hirshman makes the point that it was Tom Hayden and the SDS movement that was directly impacted by the removal of black Americans from lunch counters and the brutal treatment of civil rights workers (Hirshman, 2013). The gay rights movement and the 1970’s expression of it under Harvey Milk were direct ancestors of these movements and their tactics (Hirshman, 2013). Soon after Milk there would be an uprising of important advocacy groups, who early on struggled to maintain bills but would soon become a force in American politics (Hirshman, 2013). The Human rights Campaign held its first fundraiser in 1982 and by 1997 had an operating budget of 10 million dollars and hosted the President of the United States, Bill Clinton at their annual conference (Hirshman, 2013). The Gay Men’s Health Crisis (GMHC) would begin in the 1980’s and begin publically advocating for those dying that the government would do nothing about. By 1997, they would have an operating budget of 30 million dollars (Hirshman, 2013). The history of the movement was to utilize protest as a means to push formal power but to also seek to gain formal and legitimate power in order to continue to push from within (Hirshman, 2013). However, the fight would take time as the AIDS crisis exerted its influence and the Supreme Court ruled against Homosexuals in the now famous sodomy case (Hirshman, 2013). This radicalized the gay movement and another 60’s style protest group began. The AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power (ACT UP), would make the push come out of the closet with the famous slogan, “ No more closet” (Hirshman, 2013). The decade that would follow would see defeats on marriage initiatives and other liberal voices failing to protect the vulnerable and human right cause of this generation. However, as Texas Sodomy laws were struck down, and a wave of legislation started to move across the country, the movement started to generate social inclusion and legal protections from the ground up. The ultimate success has been in the last 4 years as marriage equality has been almost universally accepted and the election of President Barak Obama has turned out to be one of the greatest pushes forward. Ironically the fulfillment of the King dream in Obama has seen the greatest advocate of LGBT rights. The president has repealed don’t ask, don’t tell and has overseen the liberalization of the Supreme Court to protect Appeals courts decisions on Gay rights. What began as a social movement calling for human rights, like its predecessor, the civil rights movement, the gay rights movement has used the matrix of power to now gain formal power in the US, but it was the use of informal protest style power that has led to that arch.

Conclusion The use of formal Power and legitimate authority has been used to bring about all types of change including major societal change. This has been seen in the leadership of General Washington and then during his presidency. Washington used the power humbly and responsibly to bring about the American Revolution and the solidifying of the new country as it’s first President. With Washington and the founders democracy and freedom were born and a new situation and values now controlled the west. Lincoln represented a man who rose through the ranks of power and the political party system (unlike Washington) to take the Presidency and would be tested with perhaps the greatest challenge to the country since the revolution. Lincoln would be called upon to preserve the union, the constitution and states rights while also seeking the societal reform of ending the practice of slavery in the United States. This would call for adaptive leadership and a pragmatic politics. Lincoln used formal power to expand the executive and risk his approval and the authority of the office. He expanded power in his hands to accomplish the societal improvement. Martin Luther King was a departure from Washington and Lincoln due to the fact that he had no formal authority or power but used a coalition of forces to grab the mantle of human rights and speak to power. In speaking to power, King grabbed power and became the embodiment of a movement that culminated in the Voting Rights Act of 1964. In just five short years, another revolution would begin in New York City, within the area of Greenwich Village. The Stonewall riots would spawn a domino effect of social activism spawned from the 1960’s and the civil rights movement. Major leaders within the gay rights movement like Harvey Milk and organizations like the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) would frame their struggle as a common human rights struggle and thus a matter of civil rights. This would lead to the matrix of power seeing increasing success until the last five years when this success has become less speaking to power but the power within itself. The shift has been from the informal and non-authoritative use of power to the use of legitimate authority to bring about this cultures major societal change.

References
Blackwell, K. J. (2003, April 1). Power and the Christian Leader in a Changing World. Address presented at Roundtable Convocation Power and Leadership in Ashland Theological Seminary, Ashland. Retrieved June 1, 2015.
Brookhiser, R. (2008). George Washington on leadership. New York: Basic Books.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Burns, K. (2006). Gay rights. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press/Thomson Gale.
Guelzo, A. C. (1999). Abraham Lincoln: Redeemer President. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans.
Heifetz, R. A. (1994). Leadership without easy answers. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Hirshman, L. (2013). Victory: The Triumphant Gay Revolution. Pymble, N.S.W.: HarperCollins Australia.
King, M. L., & Carson, C. (2001). The autobiography of Martin Luther King, Jr. New York: Intellectual Properties Management.
King, M. L., & Washington, J. M. (1992). I have a dream: Writings and speeches that changed the world. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco.
Koestenbaum, P. (1991). Leadership: The inner side of greatness: A philosophy for leaders. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lindsay, D. M., & Hager, M. G. (2014). View from the top: An inside look at how people in power see and shape the world. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Lindsay, D. M. (2007). Faith in the halls of power: How evangelicals joined the American elite. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mertus, J. (2007). The Rejection of Human Rights Framings: The Case of LGBT Advocacy in the US. Human Rights Quarterly, 29(4), 1036-1064. Retrieved May 27, 2015.
Morgan, E. S. (1980). The genius of George Washington. New York: Norton.
Northouse, P. G. (2015). Introduction to leadership. concepts and practice. Los Angeles: Sage.
Phillips, D. T. (1992). Lincoln on leadership: Executive strategies for tough times. New York: Warner Books.
Spalding, M., PhD. (2012). American Statesman: The Enduring Relevance of George Washington. Retrieved June 1, 2015, from http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/09/american-statesman-the-enduring-relevance-of-george-washington
Williams, L. E. (2009). Servants of the people: The 1960s legacy of African American leadership. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.