The Dark Side of Power

Do the following scenarios seem familiar?

?

A young staff who started as a junior position was hardworking, well trusted and respected by colleagues, but he became bureaucratic and ruthless once he was promoted to be a manager, and even worst when later became a senior executive.

?

Parents who pushed their kids to eat more veggie on the dining table forgot how much they themselves resent eating the very same thing couple decades ago.

?

A politician who started as a strong advocate for the disadvantaged groups became fence-sitter once he has earned a seat in the congress.

?The higher power we have, the less empathy we have.

Unfortunately, the above examples are more like the norms than exceptions. Why? It is because power and our ability to empathize usually go exactly the opposite direction. The higher power we have, the less empathy we have. Hence, the manager forgot what challenges he used to face in junior positions, parents forgot what the kids really want, and the politician forgot the initial purpose of his career.

?

According to Dr. Dacher Keltner, professor of psychology at the University of California, Berkeley and author of “The Power Paradox”, as people gain more power, whether in the context of work, school, or family, we tend to be “more self-serving and self-focused and wanting to maximize their own gains”. In other words, power makes us “a little bit more narcissistic, a little bit less attentive to other people, a little bit more impulsive in our behaviors”.[i]? Dr. Keltner’s research confirms an old saying, “Power corrupts people”.

?

Let’s look at a hypothetical example. When Richard was a junior staff, he always wanted to contribute his voice in the team meeting. He felt that the boss was too dominating during the meeting, and the quality of discussion and decision could benefit from diverse opinion of the team. If the boss were a bit more welcoming to others’ voices, team members including himself would feel more engaged and accountable.

?

Some years have passed. The boss has retired and Richard succeeded the leadership position. When Richard carried out meetings with his team, people followed the unwritten cultural norm – look up to the leader for direction. Richard, now in the leadership position and holds the highest power in the team, simply followed the suit. There’s nothing wrong with people looking up to himself for direction, he said to himself. The decision-maker makes the decision. What’s wrong with that?

?“Power corrupts people”. It’s a one-way street.

Soon, the thought of “Nothing wrong with that” turns into “It’s good to be like that”. Further, the self-reinforcing message becomes “It has to be like that”. The higher the position Richard climbs, the more reinforcing that is. “Power corrupts people”. It’s a one-way street.

?

Are there exceptions? We might like to entertain the idea that there are exceptions. Better yet, we ourselves are the exceptions. “I won’t be like that”, “My situation is different”.

?

In a famous social study[ii], researchers asked participants to rate their driving abilities among their peers. Astonishingly, 88% of the Americans ranked themselves in the top half in terms of driving safety, and 93% of the Americans ranked themselves above average in terms of driving skill. By definition, the number of “above average” cannot go over 50%. Obviously, people often over-estimate their ability in self-assessment.

?

We wishfully believe that we are the exception to the power corruption pattern. In fact, we are more susceptible than we thought. When the corruption inevitably occurs, we rationalize the behaviors with questionable excuses – “That doesn’t count”, “It’s an emergency”, “I didn’t mean to do that”.

?

Is there a way to break the power corruption pattern?

?

Yes, there is. One way is to elevate other’s power. By reducing the power distance with others, we put ourselves in situations where we are less likely to abuse the power on hand.

?

For instance, Richard may break the pattern of “Top-down domination” by creating psychological safety in the team. On one hand, he may invite team members to take turn to air their opinion on the subject at hand, starting from the lowest ranks to the highest. On the other hand, Richard reminds himself to express appreciation to people’s input, regardless of quality and quantity. Further, he seeks frequent feedback from others and admits mistakes when necessary. Over time, he may turn the situation around and prevent himself from falling prey to the power corruption pattern.

?

By empowering people, we create engagement and accountability. By sharing and distributing power, we are less likely to be the “hero” who dictates and controls everything. By elevating power of others, we develop people’s potentials and create opportunities. In short, we can improve the lives of others by giving up some of our power.

We see power as a zero-sum game, like an exhaustible amount of resource on Earth.

It sounds logical and reasonable, but why few people with power do exactly that? Why do most people only hold onto the power even tighter? It is because we see power as a zero-sum game, like an exhaustible amount of resource on Earth. If you get more, I will have less.

?

Needless to say, this frame of mind is false. When you give up some power, you can actually gain more, not less of it. There are two reasons.

?

First, in the fast changing and volatile world today, organizations face new and challenging problems every day. Some problems are totally unforeseen (such as COVID-19 couple years back). No single individual or star leader will be able to have all the answers. One way to tackle this is to take on an iterative approach to problem-solving. It starts with identifying and analyzing the problem, prototyping solutions, testing and evaluating result, and refining and iterating. The success of this iterative approach requires acceptance of failure. Fail fast, fail forward. The role of the leader is not necessarily someone who has more technical expertise or experience, but someone who acts more like a facilitator in orchestrating the problem-solving process. The leader’s job is not to dictate and control, but to develop trust, create room for diverse opinion, and rally everyone to celebrate results. In order to do this, the leader must transfer some of her power as a “traditional manager” to their team. If we believe that this facilitator style of leadership is what the modern workplace requires, we can see why losing some power actually boosts the leader’s power.

?

Second, autonomy, growth and development are major motivation factors in the knowledge economy. A workplace that lacks autonomy and growth opportunities won’t be able to retain talents. On the contrary, staff who can exercise autonomy at work and receive learning and growth are usually highly engaged. Coincidentally, both autonomy and growth require the leader to distribute some of the power. Instead of dictating the staff what to do, the leader allows the staff to exercise autonomy to decide how to do. Instead of taking the risk of developing the staff and the staff leaves the company, the leader chooses to develop her anyways. Who wouldn’t want to follow such leader? When team members are highly engaged, the team’s potential and competence levels also go up, giving a boost of power to the team leader.

?

It is clear that when leaders give up some power for the benefits of others (team members or the organizations), their level of power actually go up, not down. In other words, when we help others to gain more power, we are actually helping ourselves.

The real enemy is actually ourself.

Looking back at Richard’s example and the scenarios at the beginning of the article, it seems like power is the culprit. Power corrupts people – that’s the dark side of power. Nevertheless, the real enemy is actually ourself. It’s our fear of losing power. It’s our greed of earning more power. The concept of losing something in order to gaining more is counter-intuitive. In fact, I would argue that if we give up some power only because we want to gain more of it later, it usually won’t work very well. We would become calculated, inauthentic and short-sighted. Just like the day-traders who glue their eyes on the ups and downs of the stock market, we tend to focus on the short-term reward instead of the long-term benefits of others. Again, it is ourselves to blame.

?

The antidote is to focus on the benefits of others, not ourselves. The purpose of power is to improve the lives of others. We might benefit from it during the process, but it should stay as a positive side effect, not the main purpose.

?

If Richard intends to grow and develop an engaging team instead of enjoying his leadership aura, he would be willing to give up some of his power to the team.

?

If parents want to raise kids who do the right thing because it is the right thing to do not because parents told them to do, they would change their approach to educate and guide the kids and let them make their own decision on what to eat.

?

If the politician aspires to serve the country instead of satisfying his own thirst of power, he would choose to do the right thing even though it might not get him the most votes in the next election.

?

This antidote is very easy because there’s only one thing to deal with.

?

This antidote is the most difficult because we are battling the devil within.

[i] https://www.apa.org/news/podcasts/speaking-of-psychology/power

[ii] https://www.smithlawco.com/blog/2017/december/do-most-drivers-really-think-they-are-above-aver/#:~:text=When%20they%20were%20asked%20to,69%25%20of%20the%20Swedish%20students.