(iStockphoto/Rawpixel)The subject of power has a certain intoxicating aura about it. Maybe that’s why I studied and wrote about interorganizational power in channels of distribution while teaching courses in marketing too long ago. The subject has come up from time to time in my case studies, including one I prepared about the New York Police Department.
At NYPD, in his first stint as Police Commissioner, Bill Bratton led massive changes in nearly every aspect of the department, including the focus of the city’s policing, the use of new technology, changes in information available to leaders, and cooperation between the police and neighborhoods in the control of crime.
Still, he found himself facing questions from the public about the improper behavior of members of the force. He concluded that one reason was that too many of the wrong recruits had been selected years earlier for entry into the force. They were seeking the power over others that wearing a uniform and carrying (and using) a weapon would afford them. As a result, the selection process was altered, but of course the effects of the change would take years to be seen.
This probably explains why I eagerly picked up a copy of an extensively researched recent book, Power, for All, by Professors Julie Battilana and Tiziana Casciaro. The authors define power as “the ability to influence others’ behavior, be it through persuasion or coercion … (through) control over access to resources the other person values.”
Understand who controls what and the degree to which it is desired and you understand a great deal about a power relationship. Of course, power can be used for good or “dirty” purposes. “Power poisons,” according to the authors, are hubris and self-focus (including a lack of interest in others and their concerns). They can be countered by “power antidotes,” humility and empathy, that lead to achieving goals in responsible ways. Power antidotes support such things as diversity, inclusion, “voice” for everyone, psychological safety, innovation, employee engagement, productivity, and so on.
If the good use of power is the objective, they ask, why is it that the wrong people often possess power? They point to several reasons. Power-seekers self-select. They appear to want the job more. They also impress us—“many of us are disposed to prefer people who project an air of strength and a sense of supreme control, people who give us a feeling of security and stability”—until we find out they have too much hubris and self-focus, causing them to exercise power in destructive ways. The NYPD is a case in point.
Getting the right people on the bus—as Ken Kesey suggested—and in the right seats—as Jim Collins added—requires an emphasis on selecting, training, measuring, and rewarding with a greater emphasis on humility and empathy, according to Battilana and Casciaro. Easier said than done? For example, research has documented the conclusion that those who experience more power as they rise in an organization become “less attentive and more insensitive to others’ emotions,” quoting the authors. If their participation in the selection and promotion process also increases, what can we expect from their choices? Will they place the proper emphasis on qualities such as humility and empathy?
Does putting selection decisions in the hands of the powerful, as the saying goes, invite the fox into the chicken house?
How do we make sure the right people end up with power in organizations? What do you think?
Share your thoughts in the comments below.
Editor's note: Heskett explores the leader's role in his upcoming book, Win From Within: Build Organizational Culture for Competitive Advantage, available in January 2022.
References:
- Julie Battilana and Tiziana Casciaro, Power, for All: How It Really Works and Why It’s Everyone’s Business (Simon & Schuster, 2021).
- Jim Collins, Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap … and Others Don’t (HarperBusiness, 2001)
- James L. Heskett, “NYPD New.” Case No. 9-396-293 (HBS Publishing, 1997)
- Dacher Keltner, The Power Paradox: How We Gain and Lose Influence (Penguin Press, 2016).
- Tom Wolfe, The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1968) for the reference to Ken Kesey.
Your feedback to last month’s column
The sense of the discussion of this issue was that, while trust may be a combination of nature and nurture, to some degree it is possible to train for trust.
Those most doubtful about the proposition included Fernando De LaTorre, who commented, “I found (it) hard to work for trust as a goal. I think you work and live your values, and trust will stay in the culture.”
Alan Arnett said that “trust comes when you learn to make progress and solve problems together. You can’t create it in some systems or processes.” Bill Edwards added, “Trust is a trait! Like any trait, it is earned by action and repetition.”
Bill Fotsch added, “Companies that have clear goals, transparency of performance and compensation aligned around those team goals create an environment of trust.”
Others were more enthusiastic about the notion, nevertheless with caveats regarding cultural differences around the world. As Ashok Jain put it, “Thru small actions practiced consciously one can train himself in trustworthiness.”
Frances Pratt said that “people are often unaware of the elements that build trust (reliability, credibility, and intimacy) and what practical things they can do to increase these in their client communications.” Dan Wallace, a training practitioner, replied, “Yes, 100 percent, absolutely… I ask leaders to take a hard look at the people around them and ask if they can … give thumbs up (on three dimensions) … intent (oriented toward … the greater good … of others), reliability, and competence.” Paul Browning’s research “uncovered 10 practices that leaders can develop to enhance the trust people have in them.” Presumably, they can be taught.
Studioriley cautioned us about generalizing on the question when he said: “There is a danger. The concept of trust itself is dynamic and culturally bound … Strong cultures can reduce the need for a conversation about trust because the need for trust only manifests when there is no cultural congruence and the heterogeneity of the organization has bred soul destroying fiefdoms of self interest.”
The dilemma of nature and nurture was framed by David Massello when he said, “Ah trust—starts at birth at least between baby and parent. I think people already own the capacity to create trust. The better question may be how to help them understand their own skills and use them on purpose in more situations.”
To what degree is trust a matter of nature vs. nurture? What do you think?