« Middle-Aged Men and Ponytails | Main | Should You Apologize? (It Depends) »

Mar 21, 2022

Power Struggles Among Nice People

Arm-Wrestling by KAZ Vorpal kazvorpal 7993121237 EDIT

Most of my clients are CEOs of growing companies, most of the rest are C-level executives in similar settings, and a number of others are leaders in investment or professional services firms. In order to be effective in these roles they must be able to influence others, wield authority, and maintain status. At the same time my clients are conscientious people who care about the well-being of their employees and colleagues, aspire to make a positive difference in the world, and are striving to do their best.

As a result of these factors, a theme in my practice is what I describe as "power struggles among nice people." And yet a challenge is that many of us imagine that people who engage in power struggles aren't very nice, and that nice people shouldn't struggle for power. This leaves us with a stark choice: Be an asshole and win, or be a decent person and lose--but it doesn't have to be that way.

1. The Ubiquity of Power Struggles

We often think of a power struggle as a rancorous, zero-sum battle between bitter enemies, but that's just one version, and it's relatively rare. Far more common are the everyday efforts noted above: influencing others, wielding authority, maintaining status. Consider how often we engage in these activities every single day, and how infrequently we employ formal decision-making frameworks or conflict-resolution tools in the process. From this perspective we can define a power struggle in much less charged terms: any situation in which the parties must assert themselves to overcome resistance and achieve their preferred outcome.

There are no cartoon villains and few outsized expressions of force in these everyday power struggles. As I've noted before, force and power are not the same thing--force is "strength or energy as an attribute of action," while power as "the ability to produce an effect." [1] Most power struggles are rather mundane affairs, and in this sense we might think of them as the "dark matter" of organizational life--they affect almost everything but escape observation unless we're paying close attention. [2]

Why are power struggles so common? There's certainly a connection with our origins as a species. Primates rely on social structures to obtain resources and to defeat or evade threats, and humans possess the singular advantage of being able to cooperate in larger groups than our evolutionary rivals. [3] This has allowed us to dominate the planet, but as a consequence we face much greater competition from within the group, and we've had to develop a complex set of social skills to assert our preferences while minimizing intra-group conflict. [4] A similar pattern of constant, non-violent power struggles can be observed in the chimpanzee, which, notably, is the only other species of great ape whose social groups include multiple males that co-exist in a shifting dominance hierarchy. [5]

But we may wonder why humans continue to rely on informal displays of power to accomplish these goals. Why don't we utilize the other decision-making frameworks and conflict-resolution tools that we've developed more frequently? Because power struggles are often more effective than those alternatives.

2. The Desirability of Power Struggles

When defined as "zero-sum battles between bitter rivals," power struggles are obviously undesirable. Such efforts waste time and resources, cause needless division, and serve as distractions from more productive activities. But when we recognize a broader definition, it becomes apparent that power struggles are more efficient or less costly than the alternatives, which generally fall into one of three categories: voting, consensus, and hierarchy.

Voting is possible only under a highly specific set of circumstances: Decision-making authority can be fairly apportioned by vote, whether by person, ownership share, or some other method. All parties agree that a decision must be made at a certain point in time, after which further efforts to influence the outcome will be counter-productive. And the most powerful parties can be trusted to abide by the outcome when a vote doesn't go their way. We can easily see why voting is used so rarely in organizational life--although it's worth noting that votes are preceded by campaigns to win support in which expressions of power may figure heavily.

Consensus also comes with necessary preconditions: All parties must reach agreement in order to move forward, and even the least powerful figure has the authority to withhold approval. Complicating matters is the contemporary preference for the appearance of egalitarianism, which often results in a half-hearted attempt at obtaining consensus that inevitably stalls, at which point the most powerful party pulls rank and dispenses with the charade, resulting in a full-blown power struggle. But even in an authentic attempt to reach consensus, the discussions and debates that comprise the process are themselves a type of power struggle.

While there are companies, industries, and even parts of the world where hierarchy remains a primary means of decision-making and conflict resolution, that's not the case in my clients' organizations. To a large extent this is the result of two related trends in management over the past century: the increasing importance of the "knowledge worker" [6] and the move away from centralized command-and-control structures. [7] My clients and almost all of their employees and colleagues are knowledge workers of one sort or another, and in this context the leader who merely issues directives will eventually pay a price. Knowledge workers put a high value on latitude and autonomy, and they have a low tolerance for being repeatedly overruled.

But while leaders might refrain from relying explicitly on hierarchy to avoid alienating their employees, this isn't to suggest that hierarchy is absent or irrelevant. Hierarchical distinctions are a constant presence even in the flattest organizations [8], and parties engaged in a power struggle may exploit any such advantages in their efforts to prevail. But the subtle use of a hierarchical distinction while conducting a power struggle is very different than a dictatorial command. In these settings, most directives imposed via hierarchy can be viewed as the outcomes of failed power struggles, in which the leader had hoped to avoid "giving an order." [9]

So we see that alternative means of decision-making and conflict-resolution come with constraints that render them impractical in many circumstances, and that even when such means are employed the process typically involves a series of power struggles. Given these conditions, we might imagine that anyone who aspires to succeed as a leader would be ready to engage in power struggles on a regular basis--and yet that's not always the case. Many leaders in my practice report feeling surprised when power struggles occur, resentful of the obligation to participate in them, and depleted by the demands of the process. Why is this? What prevents these leaders from being better prepared for and more effective at engaging in this fundamental feature of organizational life?

3. The Problem with Nice People

As noted above, my clients can be characterized as "high-achieving nice people," and in my experience many nice people are uncomfortable with displays of power and put a premium on maintaining interpersonal harmony, which puts them at a disadvantage when they're obligated to assert themselves and overcome resistance in order to obtain a desired outcome. Further, if they continue to emphasize personal achievement over cultivating power and influence, they eventually limit their professional success.

To understand why, we turn to the work of the eminent 20th-century psychologist David McClelland, one of the leading scholars on human motivation, who theorized that people are driven primarily by three distinct needs [10]:

  • The need for achievement, or "doing something better for its own sake, or to show [that one] is more capable of doing something." [11]
  • The need for power, or concern "about having 'impact, control, or influence over another person, group, or the world at large.'" [12]
  • The need for affiliation, "or the need to be with people" and a concern with "establishing, maintaining, or restoring a positive affective relationship with another person or persons." [13]

McClelland also studied people's capacity for "activity inhibition," or impulse control, and his research showed that the most successful senior leaders display 1) a relatively high need for power, 2) a relatively low need for affiliation, and 3) a high degree of impulse control, a distinctive pattern that he called "leadership motive syndrome." McClelland found that people who possessed this combination of traits were most likely to obtain senior leadership positions, ultimately outpacing those who merely had a high need for achievement. [14]

The latter group's focus on improved performance and desire for personal feedback helped them succeed at the outset of their careers, but limited their effectiveness at scale when results must be obtained not merely through individual effort but through the ability to lead others, and when feedback cycles are long and unpredictable. [15] In addition, McClelland noted that people with a high need for affiliation often have shortcomings as leaders as they strive to avoid conflict and prioritize warm relationships. [16]

These conclusions pose some significant challenges for "nice high-achievers":

  • Nice people underestimate the importance of power and influence in long-term success at senior levels.
  • They overestimate the importance of personal achievement and being liked.
  • A consequent reluctance to engage in everyday power struggles prevents them from learning how to display power and exert influence effectively.

But a deeper understanding of this research makes clear that "nice people" aren't doomed to underachieve--and even possess several key advantages.

4. The Opportunity for Nice People

Let's highlight the relative dimension of McClelland's "leadership motive syndrome." It's not the case that effective senior leaders must possess the greatest possible need for power, or that a high need for affiliation is an inherent barrier to a senior role. The point is simply that their need for power must be relatively higher than their need for affiliation--in other words, senior leaders can't allow a desire to be liked or a preference for harmony to prevent them from displaying power or exerting influence when necessary.

Further, note the importance of impulse control in the most effective senior leaders. An alternative pattern of traits identified by McClelland was 1) a high need for power, 2) a low need for affiliation, and 3) a low degree of impulse control, which he called "conquistador syndrome." [17] Leaders who exhibit this pattern may enjoy some success, but their self-aggrandizing displays of power limit their effectiveness at senior levels, as McClelland and his colleague David Burnham concluded in a summary of their research:

The top manager of a company must possess a high need for power--that is, a concern for influencing people. However, this need must be disciplined and controlled so that it is directed toward the benefit of the institution as a whole and not toward the manager's personal aggrandizement... We discovered one more fact in studying the better managers... They were more mature. Mature people can be most simply described as less egotistic. Somehow their positive self-image is not at stake in their jobs. They are less defensive, more willing to seek advice from experts, and have a longer-range view. [18]

Put differently, the most successful senior leaders have a substantial capacity for emotion regulation. [19] They don't allow fleeting feelings to translate into counter-productive behavior. As McClelland noted, people with a high need for power think about "carrying out a number of impulsive aggressive acts...but they did not in fact do them more often" than people with a low need for power. [20] And nice people typically share that capacity for emotion regulation (even if it's often put to use in efforts to generate warmth and evoke positive feelings in others.)

Finally, observations from my practice suggest that nice people are likely to rank high on two dimensions of "emotional style" identified by neuroscientist Richard Davidson that are relevant here: 1) context-sensitivity, or the ability to grasp what will be perceived as appropriate in a given situation and tailor one's behavior accordingly, and 2) social intuition, or the ability to assess others' mental and emotional states on the basis of body language, tone of voice, and similar data. [21]

In sum, while nice people may have to overcome some self-imposed obstacles in order to engage in everyday power struggles, they're also likely to possess several characteristics that will enable them to be more effective in the process. So if you identify with this description--if you're a "nice high-achiever"--where do you go from here?

5. Putting It Into Practice

A note on social identity, including, but not limited to, gender and orientation, race and ethnicity, education and class background: I'm keenly aware that in many settings the behaviors that convey power and influence are historically associated with people who already hold power and influence. I realize that if you don't match that description in your organizational context you may well face additional obstacles when your efforts to exert power and influence run counter to the expectations imposed upon you as a result of your social identity. That said, I'm equally aware that merely conforming to those expectations is a likely path to frustration and underachievement. When we're not in a position to change the surrounding culture, one of the key steps is determining how to conform just enough to that culture to avoid being rejected by it while also ensuring that the culture doesn't dictate our behavior to our disadvantage--which is a challenge I've addressed with many "nice high-achievers" in my practice over the years. [22]

Our needs for achievement, power and affiliation are informed by a range of sources, from our family environments as children to our education and professional training to the culture at large. But if we determine that our current needs are resulting in behaviors that make it more difficult to achieve our goals, we can change our approach with a degree of self-awareness, deliberate effort, and practice over time. (McClelland noted the efficacy of management training workshops in helping leaders modify their styles and deliver improved results. [23])

It's also evident to me from my years as a coach and experiential educator that we can (and must) distinguish between our personal preferences and what is being asked of us in a given situation, and that effective leaders consistently get out of their comfort zone to experiment with new behaviors, even (and especially) when such efforts feel awkward or inauthentic. If you identify as a "nice high-achiever," I suspect that being more assertive to overcome resistance and obtain your desired outcome will feel uncomfortable--and I'm absolutely certain that you needn't allow such feelings to stand in your way. I'm hopeful that this reading provides a useful starting point in that process--and it's just a starting point. What's next?

Consider your beliefs about power and influence and how they affect your approach to everyday power struggles:

Learn more about the means by which power and influence are displayed and the behaviors that convey power and influence:

Actively experiment with alternative approaches, especially any that feel uncomfortable or inauthentic:

Get regular feedback and integrate it into your ongoing efforts:

 

Dedicated to Jeffrey Pfeffer.

I didn't take Jeff's class "Paths to Power" when I was an MBA student at Stanford, but I discovered his work on power as a coach and it deeply informed not only my work with clients, but also my teaching when I later joined the Stanford faculty and became a junior colleague to Jeff. It's my understanding that I'm the only faculty member who ever taught Interpersonal Dynamics (aka "Touchy Feely") and included Jeff's work on my syllabus, in part because I believe the course's T-groups are one of the best settings in which we can learn about power.

Footnotes

[1] Force Isn't Power

[2] What Is Dark Matter? (Nola Taylor Redd, Space.com, 2019)

[3] Neocortex size as a constraint on group size in primates (Robin Dunbar, Journal of Human Evolution, 1992)

[4] Social: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Connect, page 32 (Matthew Lieberman, 2013)

[5] Chimpanzee Politics: Power and Sex Among Apes pages 104-105 (Franz de Waal, 2007). My understanding of De Waal's work suggests that while chimpanzee power struggles can turn violent and occasionally prove fatal, the vast majority involve dominance displays and the re-shuffling of hierarchical relationships rather than the elimination of rivals.

[6] The Effective Executive: The Definitive Guide to Getting the Right Things Done (Peter Drucker, 1966): "Today...the large knowledge organization is the central reality. Modern society is a society of large organized institutions. In every one of them...the center of gravity has shifted to the knowledge worker... The knowledge worker cannot be supervised closely or in detail. He can only be helped." (pages 3-4)

[7] Beyond Theory Y (John Morse and Jay Lorsch, Harvard Business Review, 1970): "With highly uncertain tasks that require more extensive problem solving...organizations that are less formalized and emphasize self-control and member participation in decision making are more effective."

[8] Organizational Preferences and Their Consequences (Deborah Gruenfeld and Larissa Tiedens, Chapter 33 in the Handbook of Social Psychology, 2010): "The production of hierarchy is a central and omnipresent component of organizing."

[9] Leaders sometimes express a desire to operate in a more hierarchical environment where they could just "issue orders, like in the military." But I once asked a Navy SEAL officer how often he had given an order overriding a subordinate's dissent. "Twice," he said, "in thirteen years." Here, too, I'm reminded of a comment from Frans de Waal's research on chimpanzees, cited above, in which he notes that high-ranking members of a group seldom show their teeth in aggressive displays, presumably because they don't need to. (page 21)

[10] For an extensive discussion of each of these needs, see Human Motivation, Chapters 7-9 (David McClelland, 1987). Having developed his "motivational needs theory" around these three drives in the 1960s and '70s, later in his career McClelland suggested that a fourth such drive is the "avoidance motive," characterized by a fear of failure and a need to minimize anxiety and reduce distress (and discussed in Human Motivation, Chapter 10.) However, while McClelland's research on leadership identifies a relationship among the first three needs, he doesn't integrate the avoidance motive in the same way, nor is it included in most discussions of his theory, so I've omitted it here as well.

[11] Ibid, page 229.

[12] Ibid, page 271. (McClelland cites a definition made by his colleague and former student David Winter: The Power Motive, 1973.)

[13] Ibid, page 347. (McClelland cites a definition made by his longtime collaborator John Atkinson with Roger Heyns and Joseph Veroff: The effect of experimental arousal of the affiliation motive on thematic apperception, The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1954.)

[14] Ibid, page 313:

"By way of contrast, those with high n Achievement peaked in their careers [earlier]. The nonlinear trend is significant. The explanation seems to lie in the fact that individuals high in n Achievement are used to doing things by themselves and for themselves... They are able to advance in the company as long as their job involves the individual contributions they make. However, at higher levels the focus on the job shifts to influencing others. The greater success of those with the leadership motive syndrome at this level can be explained on the grounds that they are interested in influencing others (the high n Power score), they are not unduly concerned about whether they are liked or not (the low n Affiliation score), and they are self controlled (the high Activity Inhibition score)."

[15] Ibid, page 254.

[16] Ibid, pages 354-355.

[17] Ibid, page 312.

[18] Power Is the Great Motivator (David McClelland and David Burnham, Harvard Business Review, originally written 1976, revised 1995, republished 2003.)

[19] The Tyranny of Feelings

[20] Human Motivation, page 281.

[21] The Emotional Life of Your Brain: How Its Unique Patterns Affect the Way You Think, Feel, and Live--and How You Can Change Them (Richard Davidson and Sharon Begley, 2012)

[22] Conform to the Culture Just Enough

[23] "Power Is the Great Motivator" (McClelland and Burnham)

Photo by KAZ Vorpal.