it when I gained rights to park in the managers’ car park.’ The equivalent to Lubutu’s rock at Taronga Zoo.
Years later, armed with the insight of instincts, I could see his point. It doesn’t mean that there is not a case for egalitarian leadership. It does mean, though, that try as we might to remove symbols of position in the pecking order, they will keep popping up. And any opportunities to progress in our social group are generally extremely motivating.
Hierarchy provides a vital function for complex social animals. It provides the means by which social animals can live and function. Human groups are able to coordinate their efforts because of hierarchy. This applies to work organisations, to church groups, to sporting groups and to political parties. The largest organisation in the world is reportedly the Chinese army with 1 million people and a human group that size can still function—because of hierarchy.
Political parties are a useful study because they are so on display. If hierarchical power is not clearly in the hands of a single dominant individual, then the political party is weakened until that situation is resolved. In the Primaries leading up to the 2008 uS Presidential elections, the Democrat Party had two primary contenders in Senators Obama and Clinton. For the time that the candidature was unresolved the party was divided into two factions. There was rumour and innuendo directed from one candidate to another. There were coalitions and alliances. And the situation continued until Senator Obama pulled away as the preferred candidate and then the party was able to settle its differences and unite. Senator Hillary and ex-President Bill Clinton swung behind candidate Obama. The party became united and the single leader had the power and authority to harness the resources and energy for the campaign.
For organisations, it is reassuring for leaders to know that the natural and necessary pattern is that people work for a manager, the manager in turn works for a boss and on up to the CEO. This reporting hierarchy, formalising the pecking order, allows organisations to function. But it also means that if each leader does not deliver what they need to at their level then the organisation will rapidly become dysfunctional.
Indicators of power
A key aspect underpinning hierarchy and status is the dimension of power differences in groups. In making sense of hierarchy and status in organisations, it’s handy to know the behaviours that are typically displayed by people with high power or low power.
Researchers from Stanford university and the university of California studied the positive and negative indicators of power. They found ‘striking differences in how powerful and less powerful individuals perceive and act within the social environment’. They hypothesised that elevated power provides rewards and freedoms while reduced power is associated with increased threat and punishment.
They listed the attitudes and behaviours typical of powerful people. Some are positive and some are negative. Not all leaders in high-power positions demonstrate these behaviours, but the research revealed the strong tendency for them to do so.
Positive implications of power
On the positive side, when people are in positions of relative power they are more likely to:
initiate ideas and be more direct in their expression of ideas
engage in group activity
express approval and affection
show more gestures and less facial construction
display smiles of pleasure
feel and display positive emotions.
negative implications of power
But when people are in positions of relative power, they are also more likely to:
take what they want for themselves and be quicker at detecting material rewards
treat any situation or person as a means of satisfying their own needs
talk more, speak out of turn and interrupt more
ignore what other people say and want
ignore how less powerful people react to their behaviour
act rudely and be more aggressive
enter the social space of others
tease and be more aggressive in their teasing
stereotype others
eat with their mouths open and get crumbs on their face and table!
Eating and leaving crumbs on their face and table? When I mentioned this one day to a group of business people on one of our zoo workshops, one participant laughed and told a story about her CEO who never interrupts his lunch routine but continues to eat ravenously, always makes a terrible mess of his chin, tie and table in apparent oblivion to his hungry visitor watching on.
The point behind these negatives is that high-power people can. They can talk when they want to even if that means interrupting others; they can detect and take rewards for themselves. Because they thought they could, the three CEOs of the uS automotive companies were preoccupied with their own interests—but got a rude shock when the reaction of the public reduced their chances of gaining government support.
Of course, we appreciate working for people who demonstrate the positive dimensions of power and who contain or avoid the negative tendencies of power.
Managing power in organisations
The famous Milgrim research is a sobering reminder to leaders of the power of their position. In 1974 Stanley Milgram conducted studies of positional power. One of his studies involved a ‘teacher’ administering electric shocks of increasing voltage to a ‘learner’ each time the learner made a mistake. The subjects, filling the role of teacher, believed that the experiment was a study of the effect of punishment on learning, when in fact it was a study of the influence of authority.
The individual subjects in the role of teacher were unaware that the learner subjects were actors who feigned the pain of the electric shocks. While the teachers hated what they were doing and pleaded with the researcher that they be allowed to stop, no teacher steadfastly refused to administer the shocks before the 300 volt level. Notwithstanding their anxiety, the teachers abided by the instruction to keep delivering the electric shocks. About two-thirds of the teachers pulled every one of the 30 shock switches up to the last switch (450 volts) until the researcher ended the experiment.
Milgrim explained that this was indicative of a deep-seated sense of duty that people have to those in authority and a reluctance not to defy the wishes of the boss.
Organisations with good cultures implement systems to constrain inappropriate use of power by managers. For ten years from the mid-80s I worked for IBM. Here was an organisation with effective systems to manage power. The systems constrained managers by equipping staff with ways to complain of alleged inappropriate use of power by leaders. The systems included open door reviews, anonymous ‘speak-ups’ and regular employee surveys. Leaders in the organisation knew that if they abused their power they would likely be found out and the issue addressed, including possibly being moved from their leadership role. There were consequences. Leaders were appropriately constrained.
Motivation to lead
A
