Psychology of power: is it possible to choose the ideal candidate?

Psychology of power

Power is the ability to command in conditions where the one who is ordered (the object of power) is obliged to obey the one who orders (the subject of power).

It is mandatory for the authorities to:

1. presence of at least two partners;
2. subordination of the object to the order of the subject of power;
3. the presence of social norms establishing the right of the subject of power to give orders and the obligation of the object of power to obey them.

In psychology, when explaining the phenomenon of power, they first of all pay attention to its motivational basis. In J. White's theory, power (in the sense of strength, abilities, competence) is understood as the result of some universal fundamental motive; in Adler's concept, a special motive is derived - the desire for power and superiority - from the initial insufficiency of power. For J., Piaget and J. White, competence is the result of a functional “effect motive”, which encourages the subject to constantly enter into dispute with the surrounding world, including the social one, in order to improve his ability to act effectively. Primitive forms of social power are characteristic of a person starting from 2-3 years old: he can command them, beat them or threaten them. At the same time, he begins to grasp the nature of the roles.

Austrian psychologist Alfred Adler (1870-1937), the founder of individual psychology, considered the “will to power” to be the central principle of his theory of personality. He believed that the main source of motivation was the desire for self-affirmation as compensation for the feeling of inferiority that arises in early childhood, which determines a person’s specific “life style.” According to his theory, by striving for perfection, superiority and social power, the subject tries to compensate for the power deficit determined by his constitution, perceived as a lack of his abilities (lack of masculinity in women, various kinds of bodily imperfections, a child’s dependence on adults) and experienced as an inferiority complex.

French and Raven identified five types of sources of power, later Raven and Kruglanski supplemented this classification with another type (information power) and further differentiated types of power based on the consequences of the use of power associated with each source and the “cost” of this use.

1. Reward power. Its strength is determined by B's expectation of the extent to which A is able to satisfy one of his (B's) motives and the extent to which A will make this satisfaction dependent on B's desired behavior.
2. The power of coercion or punishment (coercive power). Its strength is determined by B’s expectation, firstly, of the extent to which A is able to punish him for actions undesirable for A by frustration of one or another motive, and, secondly, the extent to which A will make the dissatisfaction of the motive dependent on B’s undesirable behavior. Coercion here lies in the fact that the space of possible actions of B as a result of the threat of punishment is narrowed. In extreme cases, coercive power can be exercised directly physically, as when a child who does not want to go to bed is beaten or forced into bed.
3. Legitimate power. We are talking about the internalization of other B norms, according to which A has the right to control compliance with certain rules of behavior and, if necessary, insist on them.
4. Reference power. Based on B's identification with A and B's desire to be like A.
5. Expert power. Its strength depends on the amount of special knowledge, intuition or skills attributed to A by B, related to the sphere of the behavior in question.
6. Informational power. Occurs when A has information that can make B see the consequences of his behavior in a new light.

American psychologist D. Cartwright created a descriptive model of power, according to which the motive of power is a manifestation of the universal desire to possess the means of satisfying one’s needs and desires. “All people tend to influence others and try to occupy positions of influence because they strive for certain goals, the achievement of which requires the use of influence.

The very important fact that people depend on each other to achieve their goals and satisfy their needs leads to the desire to use power when another person interferes with the fulfillment of his desires. The use of power, as noted, makes a person more accommodating, compliant and ready to help, and the motivation of power becomes instrumental. A typical example of such an instrumental action of power is its role-based use. People holding leadership positions in social groups and organizations (family, school, company, military service) are expected to ensure that everyone adheres to the same standards of behavior. Therefore, the status and role performed include sources (resources) of power, thanks to which deviants can be punished or excluded from the group. The instrumental approach to the motivation of power is followed, in particular, by J. Veroff.

Another point of view on the motive of power (in particular, it was held by famous American psychologists D. McClelland and D. Winter) is associated with the concept of internal reward : in this case, power is not a means of putting pressure on other people, but a source of internal pride, vanity, high self-esteem. In this case, the motivating principle is the desire to make it tangible for another, to influence his behavior. By using power, a person feels his power, he develops a sense of self-confidence, his self-esteem grows, etc. At the same time, the perception of a partner may change, who may be assigned a more dependent and less autonomous position. Subjectively, there appears to be a decrease in the importance of the partner and at the same time the psychological distance between them increases.

The personal construct “power motive”, invented by psychologists, reflects individual differences in power behavior. First of all, there are differences between people in the strength of the desire to multiply and increase sources of power. Even the simple possession of power can bring satisfaction without any application of power to another person. From the point of view of obtaining satisfaction from power, the feeling of possessing it is more significant than the impact on other people. Desired sources of power can be prestige, status, financial position, leadership position, and the ability to control information. Thus, in the work of D. Winter (1973), it was shown that among students holding any positions in student government, the level of power motivation significantly exceeds the average. The volunteer organizers of a program for improving life in a large city, which played an important role in local politics, also had a high motive for power. However, such a motive could not be found among officials of the same city.

In a later version of his theory, D. Winter defined social power as the ability to produce the desired effect in the behavior or experiences of another person. By nature, a person cares not only about survival or food, but also about maintaining power over his environment. If it is lost, he immediately rushes to restore it. A person shows concern for maintaining power through his actions, which may include:

1. active violent acts directed at another person, such as assault;
2. providing assistance, advice, support, assistance without any request from another person:
3. trying to control another person;
4. an attempt to influence, convince, persuade, bribe;
5. the desire to impress another person.

It may also be important how much the subject is able to take into account his own sources of power, his own means of influence and the motives of another person. Sample testing conducted by D. Winter revealed a strongly expressed power motive among priests, teachers, journalists and psychologists, in contrast to administrative employees, doctors and lawyers. In the first four cases, we are dealing with clearly “manipulative” professions associated with educating other people, influencing them and changing them.

W. Schnakers and W. Kleinbeck (1975) found that subjects with a high power motive behave more actively in “negotiation games”, have a more significant influence on their partners, are more likely to cheat, and are aimed at winning more from the very beginning. Schnakers and Kleinbeck define the power motive as the desire to carry out one's intentions and decisions, using, if possible, one's control over current events.

They say that politics is the second oldest profession. But I came to the conclusion that it has much more in common with the first one. Ronald Reagan

A. Donley and D. Winter measured the strength of the power motive of 12 people who lived in the 20th century. American presidents (by analyzing the content of speeches delivered upon taking office) and correlated it with the political effectiveness of their activities (according to historians), with entry into the war and with the scale of cabinet changes. Despite the enormous apparatus of power at the disposal of presidents, those who, judging by the indicators used, had a weak power motive (Taft, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover and Eisenhower) used this apparatus less actively than presidents with a strong motive authorities (F.D. Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy and Johnson). In this way, American psychologists managed to differentiate between “strong” and “weak” political leaders.

Speaking about the morality of intentions, we can recall the distinction introduced by Thibault and Kelly between fatal and behavioral controls. In the case of fatal control, A influences the consequences of B's ​​actions without caring about his motives or his actions. In the case of behavioral control, A influences the consequences of B's ​​actions only to the extent that he previously managed to motivate B to act in the manner desired for himself (A).

A study by D. McClelland and D. Bernheim (1976) found a need for power and a desire for leadership among entrepreneurs and managers. If a manager gravitates towards power and for him it is the best motivator of behavior, then his entrepreneur is inclined to do something else - to lead, even if this increases the degree of risk. Scientists have discovered that an entrepreneur who creates a rapidly growing business firm is rarely a leader. The reason is simple: achievement is a game for one, not for many. Indeed, you can achieve something alone, but not in a crowd. As a firm grows, it develops an organizational structure that establishes or organizes the relationships of many people. Motivation for achievement is transformed into the need for power. After all, power is a purely structural characteristic.

Power is possible where the relationships of many people are built into a certain hierarchy, divided into less and more prestigious (influential, privileged, powerful) positions, where there are leaders and led. The desire to occupy the key, most influential position is the need for power, or dominance (dominance, predominance, superiority). It is quite obvious that “the desire to do something better than yesterday” turns here into the desire to gain a better position than others.

Unlike an entrepreneur, a manager (especially in a large corporation) is less characterized by the desire to express his “I”. McClelland's Leadership Motive Pattern scale measures levels of affiliation, need for power, and suppression (containment). With its help, it was possible to establish that the need for power is inherent in every effective, or good, manager. But every motive turns out to be more powerful than even the desire for personal development. In general, it literally drowns out all other urges in a person, drowns out all other needs, especially if they contradict him. This is a completely healthy start in a manager’s activity. A self-respecting manager has precisely the need to influence the behavior of other people for the benefit of the organization as a whole.

The managers McClelland surveyed showed low levels of need for affiliation, which means low levels of need for cooperation and cooperation with other people. Power can lead to authoritarianism, however, such a tendency can be extinguished by a high degree of self-control of the manager and his “maturity” (a psychological characteristic of the level of personal development). Very often, the motive of achievement, inherent, for example, in engineers who are prone to creative dedication, comes into conflict with the motive of power, which characterizes managers and their developed need to influence the behavior of others.

In another study by McClelland, subjects played roulette, a simulation of a real-life risk situation. The subjects, previously tested using a special method that determined their motivational type, made bets, won and lost. To participate in the experiment, subjects with a dominance of one of three motives were selected: power, achievement, affiliation. As you can see from the picture below. subjects with a high power motive preferred the riskiest bets, that is, those that brought the greatest winnings, but with the lowest chances of success. Subjects with a high affiliation motive behaved practically in the opposite way, preferring a low level of risk and trying to avoid open competition. The behavior of the subjects with the dominance of the achievement motive turned out to be unexpected: they chose not low bets, which would be expected for a gambling situation, but high bets.

Probability of winning

Individual differences must also be manifested in the purposes for which a person ultimately seeks to exercise power or exert influence. The use of power can serve to create pleasant experiences of subordination of others to one's will and provoked helplessness of another person, which leads to increased self-esteem. But it can also serve a “good cause,” the goals of a group or organization, or the “correctly understood interests” of the target itself. From a moral point of view, the perceived intentions of the actor using power are assessed by participants in the situation and outside observers as “good” or “bad”, “legal” or “illegal.”

It is in this sense that McClelland distinguishes two types of motives, calling them personality-oriented (P-Power) and socially oriented power (S-Power). McClelland and his colleagues found that the indicator of “activity delay” in descriptions of TAT and other verbal materials (frequency of use of the particle “not”), with high other indicators of the power motive, correlates with the possession of a responsible position and low alcohol consumption (S-Power), while while in the absence of activity delay, a high power motive is combined with excessive consumption of alcoholic beverages, boasting of prestigious things, giving ersatz satisfaction from reading pornographic and sports magazines, as well as with a propensity to take risks in gambling (P-Power).

The difference between the two types of power can also be revealed by introducing into the categories developed to measure the motive of power an analysis of the content of additional categories that record, for example, whether the use of power is aimed at achieving one’s own good or the good of other people, whether a person doubts his sources of power and his ability to use them. Based on the distinction between the direction of the motive of power for one's own benefit or for the benefit of other people, McClelland developed a theory of a four-stage classification of the exercise of power. It goes back to the psychoanalytic theory of the development of the “I” developed by Erikson. They capture only the first, most important half of life, when the formed types of power relations influence the rest of life. At the first stage, in early childhood, the model “I am given strength by others” is established, the model for which is the mother’s relationship with the child. From the perspective of power orientation in later years of life, it means relationships with people who can support, protect, inspire, inspire, in short, increase the individual’s sense of personal power (for example, a person is inspired by the speech of a political leader). At the second stage (middle childhood), relationships are built according to the “I give myself strength” model and are characterized by the desire to gain independence from the mother and independently control one’s own behavior. At the next stage of growing up (“I want to impress others”), the teenager is overcome by doubts about any and all authorities, he constantly changes friends and strives to gain leadership. At the fourth, final stage of an adult (“I want to do my duty”), moral values ​​come to the fore. He strives to devote his life to serving a cause or a specific social group. If in the first two stages a person gains power, then in the next two he uses it. If the third phase is focused on selfishness, then the fourth is focused on altruism. In such a contradiction, the difficult process of socio-political formation of personality takes place.

These stages represent successive stages of maturation that a person goes through in the process of his development. Reaching a higher stage does not cancel the previous ones; they remain at the person’s disposal and can be updated in the appropriate situation. Having succumbed to panic, an adult falls down the levels of development and reproduces the behavioral stereotypes that were inherent in him in childhood (dependence on authority).

Having analyzed extensive cultural, anthropological and psychological material, McClelland established that the prevalence of the masculinized ideal in Western culture forms a special configuration of power relations, at all levels, in contrast to Eastern culture (in particular, Indian) with its typically feminine forms of use of power. , where the absence of such an ideal created a completely different type of implementation of power. It must be said that D. McClelland, being a psychologist by training, nevertheless paid great attention to anthropological and cultural research. In 1961, David McClelland's famous bestseller, The Achieving Society, was published. It examines the application of achievement theory and power theory to a variety of fields—learning and perceptual theory, autonomous learning, and cross-cultural research.

In addition to cross-cultural specifications of power, McClelland also studied gender specifications. Comparing data from two groups of subjects, men and women, he found characteristic signs of the female form of power: inspiration from working with other people, lack of assertiveness, a tendency to leave everything until the last minute, love for children and a willingness to volunteer to care for them.

In one study, McClelland and Teague asked subjects to test their strength. Everyone could choose an arm wrestling partner according to their taste - a person of equal strength, stronger or weaker. Individuals with a low power motive chose rivals of equal or lesser power; with a high motive, authorities preferred rivals of equal or greater strength. But here’s what was even more surprising: individuals with a high personality-oriented power motive were prone to boasting, posing as greater risk-takers than they actually were. Only among subjects with a low need for power, the assessment of their own chances of success was inversely related to the strength of their partner: the stronger the partner, the lower they placed themselves, and vice versa. When they lost to a stronger opponent, they did not feel hurt. Subjects with a pronounced power motive, having lost, felt the more hurt the more importance they attached to victory over their opponent. Their assessment of the chances of success did not depend on the strength of the opponent.

•Exceptional circumstances may require exceptional measures. Transitional periods often force people to sacrifice their freedom in the name of saving efficiency. In an occupied country, democratic principles are out of the question, since the rules are dictated by the mere presence of the invader. Of course, in the twenty-first century it is necessary to strive for maximum freedom, but this should not conflict with the survival of the nation and its security.” Jean-Marie Le Pen, famous French politician

Using the TAT technique, the concept of Erikson’s four stages of development of the “I” and McClelland’s achievements, M. Stewart created her own theory that reveals:

1. attitude towards authority;
2. attitude towards people and objects;
3. feelings;
4. actions.

To test it, a sample of 35 Harvard freshmen was used. It was possible to identify the peculiarities of the attitude towards authority at different stages: at the first - authority is welcomed, at the second - it is criticized, at the third - they are outraged by authority, at the fourth - individual authorities are alienated.

Five Types of Leadership Power

Power is often described in terms of personality characteristics. However, it also depends on the position held. Scientific works identify five main types of power, as shown in Fig. 6.1.

Rice. 6.1. Five Types of Leadership Power

Legitimate, rewarding and coercive authorities fall under the category of official power,

which is largely determined by corporate procedures and policies.
The position of a leader determines his ability to reward and punish subordinates. However, it is important to remember that office power and the ability to be a leader are not the same thing. A person can have formal power without being a leader. Two sources of personal power
include expert and referent power. They are based on the leader's knowledge and personal characteristics.

Legitimate power. The power that comes from a position is called legitimate power. For example, if a person is appointed as a boss, workers understand that they are obliged to follow his orders. Employees perceive this source of power as legitimate, so they obey the boss assigned to them. Each position comes with certain rights, responsibilities and prerogatives. Subordinates believe that their formal superior has the right to set goals, make decisions and take certain actions. Most Americans recognize the right of the leader of an organization to determine the direction of its activities.

Rewarding power. Another type of power is rewarding power, which comes from the power to reward other people. Appointed supervisors may use formal rewards such as salary increases or promotions. In addition, organizations give top managers the right to distribute financial and physical resources, on which the performance of tasks by subordinates largely depends. Using reward power allows you to change employee behavior.

Coercive power. The opposite of rewarding power is coercive power, which is achieved by giving the leader the authority to punish or recommend punishment. Supervisors have coercive power when they are given the power to fire or demote subordinates, criticize their performance, or reduce their salaries. For example, if a sales representative performs poorly, his boss may criticize him, reprimand him, write down the employee's personnel file, or limit his promotion opportunities. Coercive power is the reverse, negative side of legitimate and rewarding power.

Expert power. Power based on professional knowledge or skills required to perform tasks assigned to subordinates is called expert power. When a leader is a true expert, subordinates agree with his recommendations. Middle managers often have a thorough knowledge of the production process, which helps them advance through the ranks. However, top managers may have a poorer understanding of technical details than their subordinates. For example, a low-level manager responsible for communications at Empire Blue Cross

proved himself to be a true expert when, on September 11, 2001, after the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, where the company’s offices were located, he established telephone communications and voice mail within 24 hours.
“He acted on his own, using all his professional knowledge, and at that moment he became a real leader,” says the CEO of Empire Blue Crosse
. Highly professional employees are able to influence the decisions made by their bosses. This is especially important when leaders hide or disclose specific information for one purpose or another.

Referent power. The last type of power is referential. Referent power is based on the personal characteristics of the leader, forcing subordinates to respect their boss and carry out his orders. When subordinates respect their leader for his treatment of them, the leader acquires referent power. This power depends more on the personal characteristics of a person than on the position he occupies. Referent power is characteristic of charismatic leaders. The Practical Leadership Skills section explains how referent power can be effective.

Reactions to the use of power. Leaders use different types of power to influence subordinates to achieve corporate goals. Success here largely depends on the reaction of employees to the manifestation of power.

When a leader correctly exercises position power (legitimate, rewarding, and coercive), subordinates accept it. Submission is a behavior in which people follow the direction given by the leader, regardless of whether they believe that direction is the right one. Employees follow orders even if they don’t like them. But at the same time, certain problems arise, for example, subordinates perform only the necessary work, without trying to fully reveal their potential. Excessive use of official power (especially coercive power) may encounter resistance from employees. Resistance is behavior in which subordinates involuntarily try to avoid following orders and instructions or simply do not obey orders. Thus, the effectiveness of a leader who relies solely on positional power is limited.

When a leader uses personal power, subordinates are more likely to accept it. Approval is a behavior in which employees accept the leader's views and enthusiastically follow his instructions. It is clear that approval is much preferable to submission and resistance. To perform ordinary tasks, submission is enough. Approval becomes of paramount importance when a leader makes changes, which, as a rule, are associated with risks and uncertainty. Experienced leaders can successfully combine personal and official power.

The role of the subordinate. It is known that if a person has control over resources or possesses rare professional skills, he acquires a certain power. Consider, for example, a situation in which a high school senior who excels at football as a defensive back enters college when there is a shortage of good players in that role. He will receive tempting offers from numerous colleges that will try to attract this person to their sports team.

It is important to remember that a key aspect of power is having subordinates. That is, the more individual A depends on individual B, the more power B has over A. A person gains power if other people obey him. This subordination may concern information, resources, cooperation, etc. The more people subordinate to an individual, the more power he has. The nature of subordination to a leader changed during the prosperous period of the 1990s, when unemployment was low and the labor market was tight. Under these conditions, a good specialist had a wide choice of employment options, and the staff depended less on managers than managers on staff, since it was difficult for an employee who left the organization to find a replacement. Just a few years ago, there was a severe shortage of highly qualified engineers in the labor market. Therefore, a good specialist could simultaneously consider several offers, and then demand from the employer a salary increase and increased benefits. At the beginning of the 21st century. the situation changed dramatically. The downturn in the economy caused mass layoffs, and employees' dependence on employers increased once again. In conditions of high unemployment this always happens. Every employee knows: if he is fired, it will be difficult for him to find a new job, and his well-being in life depends on his work.

This type of subordination primarily affects official power, which gives the manager the right to reward and punish subordinates. When bosses are dependent on subordinates (for example, in a tight labor market), leaders should use personal power to a greater extent because, despite the abundance of choice, people tend to prefer a job where they respect and admire the leader . In conditions of high unemployment, it is easier for a leader to use official power, but this power rarely instills enthusiasm in subordinates and does not inspire them to achieve high results.

Subordination in organizations is established in cases where personal control over the distribution of resources arises. Resources may include work assignments, rewards, financial support, knowledge, materials, information, and time. Subordination is determined by three characteristics of resources: significance, limitation and irreplaceability.

Significant resources
are those resources that are very important to corporate performance. Resources are significant
for a number of reasons. For example, they can form an important element of the final product, influence sales, and reduce uncertainty. In many organizations, the chief information officer wields enormous power because information is critical in modern business.

Limitation

resources is related to their availability.
Expensive and inaccessible resources create a stronger dependency than available ones. For example, Wal-Mart
once decided that it would no longer provide sales data to market research firms.
As a result, these firms, which included AC Nielsen
and
IRI,
were forced to spend more time and money to understand consumer demand.
Wal-Mart
itself could use its position to demand more money from research firms for providing the information they were interested in. A similar dependence associated with specific knowledge and skills can arise within the same organization. Thus, in many companies engaged in online sales, some young managers, having perfect Internet skills, have a certain power over senior managers who do not have these skills.

The third characteristic of resources, indispensability,

causes a situation in which, for example, managers or ordinary employees with control over hard-to-replace resources concentrate significant power in their hands. These resources may be specialized knowledge and skills or access to influential people. For example, the CEO's secretary often has more power than the middle manager, who must work hard to get a few minutes of his boss's time for a simple conversation.