Posted
Nov 2009
Losing Touch
Power diminishes perception and perspective
Based on the research of Adam D. Galinsky, Joe C Magee, M. Ena Inesi And Deborah Gruenfeld
With great power comes great responsibility, so goes the famous saying. But responsibility is not all that seems to accompany puissance—dictators often exhibit extreme behavior, often in ways patently detrimental to their nations; managers are often accused of not understanding their subordinates’ points of view; and the dominant partner in a relationship often accused of being insensitive to the other’s needs. People in power, it seems, are prone to dismiss or, at the very least, misunderstand the viewpoints of those who lack authority.
Research by Adam Galinsky (Professor of Management and Organizations at the Kellogg School of Management) and his co-authors Joe Magee (Assistant Professor of Management at New York University), M. Ena Inesi (Assistant Professor of Organizational Behavior at the London Business School), and Deborah H. Gruenfeld (Professor of Leadership and Organizational Behavior at Stanford University) explores the effect of power on perspective-taking and suggests that power reduces the ability to understand how others see, think, and feel. According to Galinsky, these findings may also give insights into how leadership can be harnessed to make global leaders more socially responsible.
Self-Oriented versus Other-Oriented
Galinsky and his co-researchers tested across five studies the hypothesis that—compared to individuals with little power—high-power individuals anchor too heavily on their own perspectives and demonstrate a diminished ability to correctly perceive others’ perspectives.
High-power individuals anchor too heavily on their own perspectives and demonstrate a diminished ability to correctly perceive others’ perspectives.
The researchers first investigated the effect of power on one’s ability to adopt the visual perspective of another individual. This was done by “priming” individuals with different levels of power, then asking them to write the letter “E” on their foreheads. To prime the subjects, Galinsky and his colleagues asked half the subjects to recall an experience when they had high power and the other half to recall a time of low power. It was predicted that high-power individuals would be more likely to write the E in the direction in which they would read it (i.e., a “self-oriented” E [see Figure 1], which would appear to be backwards to a spectator looking at the subject’s forehead). Conversely, low-power individuals were expected to conform to an observer’s point of view, writing the E in the correct direction for reading by the spectator (“other-oriented” E [see Figure 2]), but reversed for the subject themselves. After accounting for effects such as participant gender and handedness, the researchers’ analysis confirmed that individuals primed with high power were three times more likely to draw a self-oriented E than those primed with low power.
 Figure 1: Self-Oriented “E” |
 Figure 2: Other-Oriented “E” |
The next experiment was a study of the relationship between power and the extent to which power-holders assume others see and know the world as they do, often by believing others have access to their privileged and hidden knowledge. Again, the research participants were primed just like the first experiment. They were then asked to imagine that, with a colleague, they had an unpleasant experience at a restaurant that had been recommended by the colleague’s friend. The next day, the colleague sent an e-mail to the friend stating that the food was great. By itself, this message appeared very sincere. The only way to know the message’s intended sarcasm would be to have access to the privileged information of the bad dining experience. Participants who had this privileged information were then asked how they thought the colleague’s friend would perceive the message. High-power participants were found to be more likely to assume that the colleague’s friend would perceive the sarcasm in the message. This confirmed the hypothesis that as power increases, power-holders are more likely to assume that others’ insights match their own.
Diminished Empathy
The investigators also discovered that power can inhibit empathy, the ability to perceive another person’s emotional states. After being primed with power, participants were shown a set of twenty-four images of faces expressing either happiness, sadness, fear, or anger. For each image, the participants were asked to guess which of these four emotions was being expressed. High-power participants made more errors in judging the emotional expressions of others than were baseline participants who had not been primed.
It may be that reduced perspective-taking is not a conscious decision that happens when power is attained; rather, it might be a psychological state that is an emergent property of increased power. Furthermore, reduced perspective-taking might be a way to prioritize one’s attention toward the most important tasks among a multitude of responsibilities that often accompany increased power. If reduced perspective-taking is indeed an automatic effect, then there is all the more reason for concerted measures to eliminate it. One of the best means to inspire perspective-taking in the powerful is to make leaders feel more responsible for their subordinates. Closely related to this is the need to make leaders accountable, to keep their more egocentric and destructive psychological forces in check.
Galinsky offers the metaphor of driving a car to understand how power can be transformed into effective leadership. The agency of power is akin to pressing the gas pedal. Without acceleration, one is left standing still, unable to move forward. But one also needs a steering wheel to avoid crashing into obstacles along the way. Perspective-taking without agency is ineffective, and agency without perspective-taking is dangerous and irresponsible. Effective leaders require acceleration and prudent steering—power coupled with perspective-taking. The springboard of power combined with perspective-taking may be a particularly constructive force to develop socially responsible global leaders.
Read more articles in:
Leadership
Policy, Politics & Social Enterprise
Translation:
Français
Español
Deutsch
中文
17 Comments
Nov 4 2009
Good post. On the later point about not being able to read facial expression. Is there any validity to executives having to take emotions out of decisions, therefore they become more apt toignore expressions in the hope/want to proceed objectively through decision making?
Nov 5 2009
It it possible that having a strong vision of future-state, usually a necessary for leadership situations, could also diminish empathy?
Nov 6 2009
I experienced over the last couple of years that anonymous chat sessions with employees can be an effective way to develop the perspective of high-powered executives. The collective perspective of a relevant group of employees often contains many sensible, sometimes even wise, observations and suggestions, which are hard to ignore for executives who are genuinely interested to achieve the best business results. The impact of these sessions can further be enhanced by actively testing (again anonymously) the main viewpoints of the executive. This method works best when the executive agrees beforehand to listen to the employees views.
Nov 6 2009
So to boil it down, the article seems to say that:
power x time = sociopath.
It would go a long way to explaining House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, as well as the long-serving fromer Congresspeople arond the President such as Rahm Emmanuel and Janet Napolitano who seem to think that anyone who disagrees with them is a terrorist, deranged or an employee of FOX News. It would also explain their attempts to smear or silence those who disagree with them instead of debating the issues. A good argument for congressional term limits if there was one.
Nov 9 2009
Good post.
Interesting to check (or maybe it was already checked) whether this character is something people becoming leaders are born with, and because of that are naturally becoming ones, or this I something created due to their position.
Gilad
http://giladlsh.wordpress.com/about/
Nov 10 2009
Where do they ask the question whether the people that rise to power ever had perspective when they were at lower positions? Is there some selection process that leaders use that causes them to continue to pick people ‘like themselves’ with similar perspectives and thus a continuation of the same. Perhaps these questions are answered in the complete study. If not, they need to follow executives as they start and move through their careers to truly understand the process.
Nov 10 2009
Thought provoking post! I do second the comments to where it would be interesting to study what is the role of the society and our current leadership training and practices. People in power feel validated by the system, no wonder that they trust their judgment completely. ?Absolute power corrupts absolutely? (Lord Acton, 1887) Are WE likely to see as leaders (groom, promote, or chose to follow) a certain type of individuals who display these dictatorial characteristics? I will never forget when in leadership training my choice of ?thought leaders? as leadership role models was belittled by others (?those are not real leaders?). In my opinion there three main categories of leaders: ?dictators?, ?generals? and ?gurus?, with some people combining characteristics or evolving over time toward one end of the spectrum. What do you think? Feel free to answer at the recent post I had written about these in my Constructive interference blog http://constructiveinterference.wordpress.com/2009/10/27/dictators-generals-and-gurus/#comment-40
Nov 10 2009
I am mildly curious if there was any breakdown along gender lines?
Nov 10 2009
My sense is there confusion between power and authority especially in discussing roles. Power comes from within. Authority is given usually by relinquishing some personal rights. The roles you mentioned have abused their authority and thus corrupted their own power.
A great book to understand the ramifications of this topic is Power vs Force.
Many have used their power to gain authority and then fail to effectively exercise their authority. The end result is people suffer from mismanaged authority because of a lack of values.
Nov 10 2009
I concur with your premise in regard to the power hungry, dictatorial types, but trying to extend the premise to all who hold a position of authority represents flawed logic. I found the argument presented to be somewhat myopic in perspective, and one-sided in presentation.
Clearly the acquisition of power and authority by those ill-equipped to handle such awesome responsibility, or by those intent on abusing such responsibility is always an issue. However authentic leaders who see their primary role as a steward of trust, and who subscribe to the belief of service above self, have the opportunity to leverage influence for the greater good.
True leaders expand their sphere of influence to create additional perspective. They understand that the perspective acquired through expanded relationships, the creation of trust, and the use of wise counsel improves their performance as a leader, and ultimately benefits those they lead.
Nov 10 2009
Just as individuals lack hubris, so too can companies become ignorant of what their customers want and need. Focus outside yourself and you can solve problems for others (which is how companies make profits).
http://pivotpointsolutions.net/
Nov 11 2009
This is a complicated topic to be boiled down to thrust and rudder. Although the previous comments about the current White House and Congress is a good example of all thrust and no rudder. Not all people in authority lose their perspective. I have encountered more than one person with authority that was able to maintain theirs. When power people surround themselves with more like themselves I believe it is more an indication of insecurity and perhaps incompetence. This method provides them the most effective way of maintaining power and having an easy ride. I was fortunate enough to have a couple of fine mentors that taught me to surround myself with the smartest people I could find whether I liked them or not and then listen to what they said. It certainly didn’t make for an easy ride but it sure improved my success rate.
Having encountered more of these powerful lost souls than any one person should encounter, if this research could alleviate even a small percentage I would be on that bandwagon in an instant.
Nov 11 2009
This article describes why our country is in such a pickle. Replace the words “power” and “powerful” with “money” and “rich,” and I don’t think that this article changes at all.
Nov 11 2009
Great study - even if just for provoking thought. The findings are consistent with Warren Bennis’s claims about “neotony” (or a youthful mindset) being a characteristic of the most effective leaders. Those who have youthful qualities never forget what it was like to be in the trenches—to be the follower. “Remembering what it felt like,” is without doubt a quality of those who impact others.
www.bluerudder.net
Nov 11 2009
While quoting Lord Acton’s famous maxim, most people gloss over the key part of it: “Power corrupts”. But in understanding this key part lies the shortest path to solutions to so many of our problems… www.CorruptionManagement.com
Nov 14 2009
Interesting article…...it would “seem” intuitive that the solution of power+perception=increased perceived social responsibility. But is it not our biggest irrationality that everyone else is rational?
Feb 19 2010
A great insight which aptly relates to the current hierarchical structures corporate world. As the power of the individual increases, the level of understanding for others/subordinates decreases. But are there ways to minimize this effect. Clearly, diminished empathy of the powerful (mangers, supervisors) towards others is due to their long endured stress levels and other larger than life responsibilities. However, an outlet to the nurturing stress can be a possible solution. But practical norms have to be set to incorporate easing stress levels in the corporate.