Lord Acton was Right

Don · Aug 15, 2010

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

This essay describes a number of studies that back up that golden proverb.

Psychologists refer to this as the paradox of power. The very traits that helped leaders accumulate control in the first place all but disappear once they rise to power. Instead of being polite, honest and outgoing, they become impulsive, reckless and rude.

When people are jockeying for status, positive traits come to the forefront. A study of Berkeley students found:

the students at the top of the social hierarchy—they were the most "powerful" and respected—were also the most considerate and outgoing, and scored highest on measures of agreeableness and extroversion. In other words, the nice guys finished first.

Things can change, however.

Now for the bad news, which concerns what happens when all those nice guys actually get in power. While a little compassion might help us climb the social ladder, once we're at the top we end up morphing into a very different kind of beast.

"It's an incredibly consistent effect," Mr. Keltner says. "When you give people power, they basically start acting like fools. They flirt inappropriately, tease in a hostile fashion, and become totally impulsive." Mr. Keltner compares the feeling of power to brain damage, noting that people with lots of authority tend to behave like neurological patients with a damaged orbito-frontal lobe, a brain area that's crucial for empathy and decision-making. Even the most virtuous people can be undone by the corner office.

The article goes on to cite a number of studies that back up that argument. My favorite:

Although people almost always know the right thing to do—cheating is wrong—their sense of power makes it easier to rationalize away the ethical lapse. For instance, when the psychologists asked the subjects (in both low- and high-power conditions) how they would judge an individual who drove too fast when late for an appointment, people in the high-power group consistently said it was worse when others committed those crimes than when they did themselves. In other words, the feeling of eminence led people to conclude that they had a good reason for speeding—they're important people, with important things to do—but that everyone else should follow the posted signs.

There's no discussion of the distinction between positional and coercive power, but I'm not sure that distinction is noteworthy. Most people are no more willing to challenge their boss than they are their government.

I think this makes for another interesting argument for small civil units, whether productive or political. The larger the organization, the more power resides at the top, and the more the leaders lose what made them potent contributors to their societies.

Plot Device · Aug 15, 2010

In short ........ godhood does not become us.

Ruv Draba · Aug 15, 2010

Power is either a tool or a privilege. When it's a tool for an end we are a servant of that end, but when it's a privilege we mainly use it for sexual competition. We allow others to groom and pamper us, exploit it for social status, and grow snippish if we don't receive our entitlements.

It's easy for power to begin as a tool but then become a privilege, but that really depends on the personality and intention of whoever holds it. There are many examples of people who attain power but don't use it to amass privilege, but they're not as conspicuous as the other sort.

Paul · Aug 16, 2010

I think it's down to fear and lack of fear.
In evolutionary terms, social harmony exists if we fear each other to some extent, (this 'fear' allows for empathy, guilt, etc etc).
If one persons loses that fear, they can longer avail of empathy.
so those in power who remain level headed are those who are still aware of their vulnerability, have fear and hence maintain empathy.
nothing too surprising bout that when you think bout it.

Bird of Prey · Aug 16, 2010

I have long suspected that the OP was true, but it's still terribly disappointing. What's worse, is that it speaks to those in power not necessarily being responsible for their behavior. In other words, the natural course is to become indifferent and arrogant so can we really blame them??

Diana Hignutt · Aug 16, 2010

Bird of Prey said:
I have long suspected that the OP was true, but it's still terribly disappointing. What's worse, is that it speaks to those in power not necessarily being responsible for their behavior. In other words, the natural course is to become indifferent and arrogant so can we really blame them??

Yes.

Don · Aug 16, 2010

Bird of Prey said:
I have long suspected that the OP was true, but it's still terribly disappointing. What's worse, is that it speaks to those in power not necessarily being responsible for their behavior. In other words, the natural course is to become indifferent and arrogant so can we really blame them??

Diana Hignutt said:
Yes.

No, we really can't blame individual players, any more than we can blame people who hang around plutonium for becoming radioactive.

It's endemic to the system. The best thing we can do is keep institutions as small and as powerless as possible. Distributed decision-making is always the most effective. "Worker empowerment" was the corporate world's latest attempt to mimic the normal interaction of people acting in a civil manner.

Concepts like community are critical to a civil society, and communities above some vague size morph into de facto governments, where coercion replaces cooperation. That's the place you start losing quality, whether you're talking about your private life, or a product line.

When any organization attains the size and power of FedGov, it can be realistically described as anti-social, or even sociopathic.

Amadan · Aug 16, 2010

Don said:
No, we really can't blame individual players, any more than we can blame people who hang around plutonium for becoming radioactive.

I don't buy that. It may be very difficult to avoid turning into an entitled asshole when you become wealthy and powerful, but it's not impossible. I'm not willing to let rich people say "Society made me do it" any more than I would poor people.

(This does not mean we should ignore how society shapes people -- which is why I'm in favor of a lot of those interventionist social programs you hate so much -- but individuals are still responsible for their choices.)

NoGuessing · Aug 16, 2010

Power corrupts because when you consolidate it you have a lot more leeway to do whatever you like, and at the end of the day humans are selfish. We care for us and our pack, and then empathy for others varies between people and their values. Not the values they spout from their upper backsides, but the values in their actions.

And values are hard. We only learned large scale cooperation around 75,000 years ago after Lake Toba went boom and humans were pushed to near extinction. The survivors survived because they were better at cooperating with other groups.

Don · Aug 16, 2010

Amadan said:
I don't buy that. It may be very difficult to avoid turning into an entitled asshole when you become wealthy and powerful, but it's not impossible. I'm not willing to let rich people say "Society made me do it" any more than I would poor people.

(This does not mean we should ignore how society shapes people -- which is why I'm in favor of a lot of those interventionist social programs you hate so much -- but individuals are still responsible for their choices.)

I buy it, but I still agree with you.

Individual players are responsible for seeking the route to coercion in the first place. They choose to build a career in bare-handed plutonium-handling, if I can expand that metaphor. I agree that it's possible to beat the system's influence, but the system is rigged to reward those who go along. That's why I put the primary blame on the system. Its very structure naturally produces exactly the sociopathic, out-of-touch mega-organizations that we complain about.

Kudzu's pretty, but nobody in their right mind plants it anymore, because it always devours the host. Yet society promotes the career ideal as a powerful job in big government or big business, by nature the most anti-social careers one can have. :Headbang:

NoGuessing · Aug 16, 2010

Don said:
I buy it, but I still agree with you.

Individual players are responsible for seeking the route to coercion in the first place. They choose to build a career in bare-handed plutonium-handling, if I can expand that metaphor. I agree that it's possible to beat the system's influence, but the system is rigged to reward those who go along. That's why I put the primary blame on the system. Its very structure naturally produces exactly the sociopathic, out-of-touch mega-organizations that we complain about.

Kudzu's pretty, but nobody in their right mind plants it anymore, because it always devours the host. Yet society promotes the career ideal as a powerful job in big government or big business, by nature the most anti-social careers one can have.

Yeah but it is logical that the authority promotes a job in their authority as the best career one can have. I think it will always be that way.

kikazaru · Aug 16, 2010

I think the OP is not surprising and I would venture that everyone has noticed this in the workforce. A person who is likable/reasonable gets a promotion, often becomes a ruthless, arrogant, ass. Imo it is because they had some of those attributes to begin, with but it was tempered with the need to get along with co workers to achieve their goal. However you don't climb the top ladder unless you have a need for power - and then ruthlessness becomes a more dominant trait- because that is what is necessary to remain where you want to be.

I also think that "blame" is not solely on the power seeker. Leaders are necessary - whether in the work force or in politics. People imo may be civilized on the outside, but inside they are still swinging a cudgel and communicating in grunts. They may "think" they want someone with empathy, but what they really want is someone who is strong or perceived as strong - like the alpha in a wolf pack. Empathy while necessary for everyone else to get along, too much in a leader would be considered weak and not in the collective best interest.

In the workforce, the worker's welfare (and thus their family's welfare) is tied to a strong leader who keeps the company running in the black. In politics, people elect a leader who has developed all the skills to become a leader -and many of those skills are not "nice." It's also funny that after one elects a leader for the qualities that make them strong, ruthless, decisive, a risk taker, some of those same qualities allow them to make some not so great decisions regarding their personal lives.

Reminds me of this parable.

A scorpion and a fox meet on a river bank and the scorpion asks the fox to take him to the other side. The fox says, "but if I do you will sting me and I will drown." The scorpion replies "but then I will drown as well." Reluctantly the fox agrees and half way across the river feels a sting in his back. Before he dies, he asks "why?" And the scorpion replies "it's in my nature."

We elect leaders (alpha wolf) for qualities that we as humans considered necessary to keep us and our family's safe. We also seem to forget that those qualities in a leader are not necessary likable - and we are quick to blame them for acting with those qualities in other areas.

Don · Aug 16, 2010

I don't know where you're from, kikazaru, but here in the US the only people who make it to the ballots for the people to "choose" from are those that have the wolf-pack mentality. Saner people never manage to jump all the hurdles thrown in their way.

robeiae · Aug 16, 2010

While I don't disagree with the gist of Acton's words, I do think that it's not an absolute. Far from it, actually.

Looking at the workplace, getting promotions is not always about power, alone. Usually, there is an increase in responsibility as well. So, the person that was friendly then--in the eyes of coworkers--becomes a prick might just be trying to cop with the increased responsibility, might just be trying to manage the change. Because let's face it: as much as the boss is an asshole, the worker is lazy. Not only that, an us against them mentality is common in such situations. The nice, hard-working gal/guy that gets a promotion often finds herself/himself suddenly ostracized from his former circle.

I think the process means something, here. It's one thing to acquire power/responsibility by promotion/merit. It's another thing to actively seek power via political office.

Shadow_Ferret · Aug 16, 2010

Don said:
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

And our founding fathers, being rather wise, knew this and that's why they created all the checks and balances within our government.

Don said:
I don't know where you're from, kikazaru, but here in the US the only people who make it to the ballots for the people to "choose" from are those that have the wolf-pack mentality. Saner people never manage to jump all the hurdles thrown in their way.

Wow. Really? You must live in a different U.S. than I.

Don · Aug 16, 2010

robeiae said:
While I don't disagree with the gist of Acton's words, I do think that it's not an absolute. Far from it, actually.

Looking at the workplace, getting promotions is not always about power, alone. Usually, there is an increase in responsibility as well. So, the person that was friendly then--in the eyes of coworkers--becomes a prick might just be trying to cop with the increased responsibility, might just be trying to manage the change. Because let's face it: as much as the boss is an asshole, the worker is lazy. Not only that, an us against them mentality is common in such situations. The nice, hard-working gal/guy that gets a promotion often finds herself/himself suddenly ostracized from his former circle.

I think the process means something, here. It's one thing to acquire power/responsibility by promotion/merit. It's another thing to actively seek power via political office.

I agree, rob. I saw people go both ways in my career. I think it largely depends on the culture of the organization as well as the size. The larger the organization, the more likely it will have devolved to bureaucratic goals, rather than entrepreneurial ones.

Advancement in those organizations that are focused on bureaucratic goals often becomes more about politics than merit.

Don · Aug 16, 2010

Has anybody watched "Undercover Boss"? I'm sure it's heavily edited, and the type of CEO who could most benefit would never participate, but I've seen a couple of episodes, and it strikes me that every big cheese should spend some time on the front lines on a regular basis.

The ones I've seen were original entrepreneurs who grew the business, so they knew what the front lines were about at one time. It would be interesting to see a career bureaucrat thrown into some of the situations.

Zoombie · Aug 16, 2010

If I run for president, my vice should have a gun, six bullets, and should always be on the watch for me turning evil. If I don't come to my senses after being slapped around a bit, then he has Past-Me's permission to shoot me or at least depose me. Future-Me is not to be trusted.

Shadow_Ferret · Aug 16, 2010

kikazaru said:
I think the OP is not surprising and I would venture that everyone has noticed this in the workforce. A person who is likable/reasonable gets a promotion, often becomes a ruthless, arrogant, ass. Imo it is because they had some of those attributes to begin, with but it was tempered with the need to get along with co workers to achieve their goal. However you don't climb the top ladder unless you have a need for power - and then ruthlessness becomes a more dominant trait- because that is what is necessary to remain where you want to be.

I don't agree with this. It's a blanket generalization. I've known lots of people who have been advanced and stayed the same nice people. On the other hand, I did work with a woman who was sweet and adorable until she started moving up the ladder and then stopped believing workers were people and just another piece of office equipment that could be replaced.

I also don't believe that the only reason to move up the corporate ladder is for a need for power. Many of us just want more money.

Diana Hignutt · Aug 16, 2010

Shadow_Ferret said:
I also don't believe that the only reason to move up the corporate ladder is for a need for power. Many of us just want more money.

Money is power. There is no difference.

Shadow_Ferret · Aug 16, 2010

Diana Hignutt said:
Money is power. There is no difference.

Oh, please.

LOG · Aug 16, 2010

I love how Fable 3 is playing with this idea.
For those who don't know, you'll spend the first part of the game amassing power to become a ruler, and then once you've made ruler, you get to decide which sort of promises you'll keep and how you'll rule afterwards.
Should be fun :evil

Hallen · Aug 16, 2010

Shadow_Ferret said:
And our founding fathers, being rather wise, knew this and that's why they created all the checks and balances within our government.

Yes they did. And every year, those checks and balances become weaker and weaker through our own indifference.

Don said:
I agree, rob. I saw people go both ways in my career. I think it largely depends on the culture of the organization as well as the size. The larger the organization, the more likely it will have devolved to bureaucratic goals, rather than entrepreneurial ones.

Advancement in those organizations that are focused on bureaucratic goals often becomes more about politics than merit.

It comes down to how strong a person's ethics or morals are. I know people who when given relatively great power, become hard and demanding, but also fair and honest. This is a good leader.

I have seen others in the same situation who become petty, greedy, and narcissistic. These are bad leaders. It was built into them from the start.

Our corporate and political system is definitely geared towards the latter. I believe it is because certain people are sociopaths to one extent or another. They are self-centered and willing to forgive themselves for anything. They may have good intentions, but are more driven because of power than because of good works. Put it this way, how many of you out there would really want to run for a high office? Could you stand up to the kind of grilling you would get from the media and your opponents? Would you really want your entire life exposed for others to feed on? The type of person who doesn't care about the above probably doesn't care about what anybody else thinks of them. They conform to social norms as an intellectual exercise rather than an ethical one. Our system demands that people who are the least desirable to lead become those who lead us.

I do agree that size is one of the problems, especially in business. That's a control problem and a lack of deligation problem (and lack of personal responsibility problem).

However, I see it as a moth drawn to the flames rather than the flames drawn to the moth. The system sucks, but it's still the sociopath moth driven to the flames not the uncaring flames driven to the moth. That moth would still be drawn even if the power structure were made into smaller chunks. How many people have experienced that awful person on the PTA or the homeowner's association or little league baseball who wants to control the whole thing to their own benefit?

I agree that power corrupts. It's the extent of that corruption and the individual's moral and ethical compass that defines the extent of that corruption. I think our big problem is that our system is geared to attract those who are most corruptable because of their weak moral and ethical compasses.

Bird of Prey · Aug 16, 2010

Hallen said:
I agree that power corrupts. It's the extent of that corruption and the individual's moral and ethical compass that defines the extent of that corruption. I think our big problem is that our system is geared to attract those who are most corruptable because of their weak moral and ethical compasses.

That's why capitalism only seems to work with a religious dedication that invokes higher aspirations: generosity, honesty, humility, etc.

Without a moral high road, the banality of the low road leads to a society's ruin. I am a strong believer in a universal - or at least nationalistic - ethical/moral standard, preferably spiritually based. . . .

Hallen · Aug 16, 2010

Bird of Prey said:
That's why ~~capitalism~~ life only seems to work with a religious dedication that invokes higher aspirations: generosity, honesty, humility, etc. and a large dose of skepticism.

Without a moral high road, the banality of the low road leads to a society's ruin. I am a strong believer in a universal - or at least nationalistic - ethical/moral standard, preferably spiritually based. . . .

That first statement applies to just about everything so I fixed it for you. Let's look at how communism worked out. Power to the workers? Nope, didn't work out that way.

What we need is to stop rewarding things that are negative. If you are a shyster or sell crap product, you will pay the price, if capitalism is working unfettered. Unfortunately, it isn't. We reward unethical behavior in both business and government right now. Ethical behavior is in essence punished by omission. That's what we have to change.

Lord Acton was Right

All Living is Local

A woman said to write like a man.

Benefactor Member

Very Tired

All Living is Local

Buzz

All Living is Local

Buzz

Benefactor Member

All Living is Local

Touch and go

Court Jester

All Living is Local

All Living is Local

Dragon of the Multiverse

Court Jester

Very Tired

Court Jester

Lagrangian

Mostly annoying

Benefactor Member

Mostly annoying