Power Corrupts, But It Doesn’t Have To

EBEN HARRELL: Welcome to the HBR IdeaCast from Harvard Business Review. I’m Eben Harrell, a senior editor. And I’m delighted to be joined today by Dacher Keltner, a professor of Psychology at the University of California at Berkeley. We’re going to discuss Dacher’s new book, The Power Paradox– How We Gain and Lose Influence in an article in the October 2016 edition of HBR titled “Don’t Let Power Corrupt You”. Dacher, thanks very much for joining us today.

DACHER KELTNER: It’s great to talk to you, Eben.

EBEN HARRELL: Dacher, there’s a famous quote– Lord Acton– our listeners are probably familiar with. Power corrupts. You’ve spent many years demonstrating that in experimental settings. Can you describe some of that research?

DACHER KELTNER: Sure. So if you look out in the world, it’s really easy to see examples of politicians and rock stars and famous athletes and the like abusing their power and doing kind of ridiculous things. But I think the key question is whether this idea of power corrupts applies to us all. And that’s why we do these studies. So over the past 25 years, we’ve been doing a lot of different research showing a couple of things. One is that power tends to lead us to be more impulsive, often in socially inappropriate ways.

So one of the studies we did early in this line of inquiry was we brought three people to the lab. We randomly assigned one individual to the position of management or power. They then proceeded to write policies for the university, which is kind of a mind-numbing task. And then, halfway into this study, we brought this plate of chocolate chip cookies into the lab. And said, hey, here’s a little treat. Enjoy yourselves. Everybody took one cookie.

And so, our first question was, who would take this last cookie on the plate? And, indeed, it was our person who was randomly assigned to a position of power. And then we spent some additional time coding their videotapes. And what we found is our powerful person– compared to the less powerful people– was eating with his or her mouth open, lips smacking, cookie crumbs falling onto their sweaters. So that tells us that even random assignments of power unleash these really impulsive tendencies.

EBEN HARRELL: Yeah. It’s all sorts of misbehavior, too. Right? I mean, you did a famous experiment watching what sort of cars obey traffic laws. Can you describe that?

DACHER KELTNER: Yeah. Yeah. I mean, once we publish this finding, a lot of investigators got into the act. And people started to show that people in senior positions in organizations are more likely to be rude. People with power more likely to behave in sexually inappropriate ways. We turned this thinking to the California roadways, which are often areas of aggression and moral consternation.

And so, what we did is really simple. Which is, we got a Berkeley undergraduate to stand at the edge of a pedestrian zone. In California, the pedestrian zones are these white striped strips on roads, where pedestrians have the right of way. And our undergrad was looking like they’re going to cross the pedestrian zone. We had other people hiding and coding what the cars did as they approached this pedestrian. And we coded the cars in terms of their power. Low power cars were like old, inexpensive Dodge Colts. High powered cars were Mercedes and BMW and the like.

And what we found is that the poor cars, the less powerful cars, 100% of the time they stopped. Whereas our drivers of high-powered cars, 46% of the time they blazed through the pedestrian zone, ignoring the law and the safety of the pedestrian.

EBEN HARRELL: It’s extraordinary research. But one of your arguments– and the reason that I think you titled your book The Power Paradox– is that you feel that the skills and behavioral traits that lead people to positions of power in the first place are actually the inverse of the misbehavior and impulsiveness and selfishness that you describe in the power corrupts research. Can you tell us a little bit about that?

DACHER KELTNER: Yeah. I mean, Eben, it was so striking. We were documenting all these abuses of power in ordinary citizens. Right? Randomly assigned to positions of power. You empathize less, you share less and so forth. Very familiar to probably many people in your audience, that power tends to make us behave at times in problematic ways. But what we also were starting to find in our research– and a lot of other investigators– is that the very opposite skills are what get us power in the first place. So studies we’re finding, for example– in our lab and Stephane Cote and others– that if I’m a great listener and I’m really empathetic and I ask great questions, studies are finding coming out of MIT I make my team perform better. I gain power and organization through empathetic tendencies.

We did a study of US senators and we coded their speeches for virtues, like do they show a sense of justice and courage and compassion? Or do they show more Machiavellian tendencies and sociopathic tendencies, where they disregard the suffering of others. And we found that when they were put into positions of power, they got more support for the bills they were promoting if they were showing virtue in their speech. So there are a lot of data that show that we rise in power through empathy, through expressions of gratitude, and even virtuous tendencies.

EBEN HARRELL: When you work with executives– and I know that you do executive workshops and coachings, et cetera, does this explanation of power and what leads to power surprise them? Do you think that the Machiavellian view of how to rise to power still dominates in business circles?

DACHER KELTNER: Well, it’s interesting. There are certain sectors where it’s probably more prominent. It may be in certain kinds of finance or certain kinds of sales or certain kinds of negotiations where Machiavellianism tends to prevail. But I have taught executives, leaders, leaders of government, leaders in biotech down at Google and the like. And they’ve noted what the science is showing is we’re in this big cultural shift away from 40 years ago. More coercive approaches to power. Manipulative, top down to more horizontal, collaborative forms of power.

And you see it in organizations. And the people that I teach recognize that we’re in this period of transition, where you need to be a little bit more collaborative, to get good teamwork done. But there are still the Machiavellians in the midst that can cause problems and sometimes be effective.

EBEN HARRELL: That’s very interesting. I think you’re absolutely right. I mean, open innovation is all the rage. This idea of tearing down walls and being more collaborative in the business world. Yet at the same time, the research you just described for us about the drivers of power cars would suggest that wealth and privilege is a proxy for the power that you see corrupting in laboratory settings. And so, you have attention there. On the one hand, business might be becoming more collaborative. But as a society, we’re seeing greater inequality. Can you discuss that tension a little bit?

DACHER KELTNER: Well, I think this is– in my 20 years working with leaders– I think this is one of the great tensions. Not only in organizational life but in our professional lives. Which is, people know. For example, I’ve been going down to Facebook for four years, working on really complex teams of data scientists, designers, engineers. Building things down at Facebook. And when we all collaborate– and when the product managers really have a collaborative spirit of asking great questions and expressing gratitude and shining a light on less powerful people– those efforts are more effective. And I see it in our work. And you see it in the science.

Yeah. Eben, what I see in the teaching that I do of leaders of different kinds is this really interesting regularity. Which is that people will tell me that certain individuals in organizations will do great work. They’ll be innovative. They’ll rise in the ranks. And then, once they’re put into positions of power, they lose those skills. The great listening, the great open-mindedness to other people’s ideas that got them power in the first place. And they lose their edge. They lose their ability to lead, in a sense.

EBEN HARRELL: Your article in the October edition of Harvard Business Review addresses individuals. The title is Don’t Let Power Corrupt You. And you discuss what you can do– when you’re newly granted status, authority, privilege, power– to really counteract power’s corrupting influence. Can you talk us through a little bit about what you coach people who want to make sure that they don’t fall into this trap?

DACHER KELTNER: Yeah. This was a fascinating challenge in my career. Because I’m a lab scientist, do these studies. And as I was teaching leaders, they would just come to me and say, well, what do I do? Right I’ve seen this in my own life, where once I’m in a position of management, I’m losing touch with the people I lead. I listen less carefully. And so, what was great to work with you on, Eben, in the article is really practical, actionable things you can do. That have a scientific basis to avoid the power paradox.

So one is just to be mindful and aware of your power. That we often underestimate how, once into positions of power, the effects we have another people. How much we can stress them out. And so, really be aware of that. The second thing– And there’s a lot of great data on this. Really practice your lunchtime exercise regime– or whatever you practice as a discipline– the art of empathetic listening. Right? We know that when we listen carefully, ask great questions, say thank you, show appreciation– and all of these tools of empathy that I write about in the article– the people around us and studies show they are more innovative. They’re less stressed out. They have fewer sick days at work. So really listen carefully.

And then the third. A lot of great leaders will turn to– And it’s almost this ethical commitment in their work, which is to really find gratitude in the work they do. And to express– outwardly– appreciation to others, to convey respect. Adam Grant is showing when managers just say thank you, the individuals they’re leading are more productive. Studies show if I show appreciation to another person, they’ll feel safe and innovative in that environment.

Ironically, these are the very simple skills of empathy and gratitude that power often takes away from us or makes it harder to practice. And so, you really have to– with intention– practice these things like empathy and gratitude.

EBEN HARRELL: I want to take you back to– So there’s three prongs. There’s awareness, empathy, gratitude. Awareness means what? Awareness means understanding the physical sensations that are aroused during periods of power? Is that what you mean?

DACHER KELTNER: Yeah. I think that one form of awareness is just– We’ve done a lot of research on, what is the feeling of power like? And, regrettably, it’s like a state of mania. Or it’s this rush of omnipotence, where you feel as though you can do anything. There are no risks that accompany your actions. That anything that you do is going to work out well. That other people will line up behind you. And those feelings, our studies show, get people into trouble. Right?

The feelings of power lead us to risky behaviors with other people’s money. The feelings of power lead us through inappropriate social behavior, where we may be offensive in our speech. And so, the first kind of awareness– like you said, Eben— is just to keep track of those feelings. And if you feel like you are the master of the universe, it probably is a time to take a step back and reflect on the perils of that feeling.

A second kind of awareness is– And it’s interesting. A lot of studies show that less powerful people are always attending to powerful people. They’re stressed out by their actions. They’re vigilant to what they do. And that challenges people in positions of power just to be aware of the magnitude of the effects of their actions on other people. Just to remember that other people are really attending carefully to what you do. They may over-interpret it. And so, that suggests we approach others with a little bit more gentleness and thoughtfulness. So be aware of your effects on others.

EBEN HARRELL: So, I’m sorry to keep bringing back Machiavelli up on you.

DACHER KELTNER: You’re not alone.

EBEN HARRELL: Does this style of leadership make you vulnerable to rivalry coups, subversion?

DACHER KELTNER: Yeah. That’s such a complex question. Because, in some sense, there are a couple of strategies to gain power. There’s this more virtuous kind that Aristotle wrote about, of practicing courage and justice and fairness and kindness and empathy. And then there’s this other strategy that’s crystallized in the 16th century by Niccolo Machiavelli of Machiavellianism. You take people down. You manipulate. You deceive. You use strategic violence.

I think there are going to be contexts where this more virtuous approach to leadership can get you into trouble. One shot negotiations. If you’re working in really adversarial– even violent– contexts or negotiations. And then, probably, in certain cultures. Machiavellianism probably prevails in Russia more so than the United States. But in general, what we’re seeing across different sectors is this move, this very gradual move towards more collaborative power. Where organizations prevent the Machiavellians from taking people down. And so, it is risky. But, for the most part, worth practicing.

EBEN HARRELL: Are there leaders or inspirational figures that you see as role models for their ability to resist the power paradox?

DACHER KELTNER: That was one of the most gratifying things to do, Eben, in writing this book. Is to engage in what biographers and historians do. Which is to really go deep, deeper than science, and ask, what are the lives like of the people who are great leaders? And what I kept seeing– And I read a lot about the great leaders, the great presidents. The other side of the equation, which is the dictators of the world. And you do see support for this thinking.

Two of my favorite exemplars of the more virtuous forms of positive power. Number one is Abraham Lincoln. Historians rate Lincoln with a great deal of consensus as probably our greatest president, in terms of lasting legacy. And the consensus is he didn’t have a lot of money behind him, he didn’t come out of the political establishment, but the guy was a phenomenal leader because of his empathy. As this journalist Thurlow Weed said, he hears all who come to speak to him and reads everything that is written to him. He just absorbed what people were thinking about around him to guide his leadership.

Another great example– and I’m more of an evolutionary scientist– is Charles Darwin, who is one of my heroes, if you will. And it’s just fascinating. I mean, Darwin, in many ways, was one of the most provocative revolutionaries in human thought in what he introduced to how we think about our species. But he was profoundly kind. And he lavished praise on young scientists around him. He was profoundly empathetic. He went to the working class pigeon breeders and learned about evolution through their wisdom. So there’s a lot of great examples.

And then, you see the Machiavellians out there, too. And they very often don’t have enduring forms of influence. People like Richard Nixon and others.

EBEN HARRELL: Well, I think there’s an elephant in the room that maybe we should address. Which is, you’re talking about these issues in the midst of a presidential campaign in which you have two candidates that have very close relationships with power. Trump seems to view power through a zero sum game lens. There’s killers and losers, etc. And then Clinton, who has just been around or in power for many, many years. When you talk about these issues as you promote the book, does the presidential campaign come up? And what are your thoughts about it.

DACHER KELTNER: It comes up in every conversation. Whether I’m talking to kindergartners or medical doctors. I mean, it’s so interesting to me, Eben, that I do think– And I talk about this in The Power Paradox, about how social collectives want to give power. And this even traces back to our hunter-gatherer predecessors, in conditions in which we evolved for 200,000 years. We, as social collectives– in social collectives– want to give power to people who are fair. Who have shown generosity. Who have risen. Who have shown virtue as they rise in the ranks.

And this is a very consistent principle in who rises, as we’ve been talking about. And I think that’s the challenge of this election. And, in a way, why our two candidates have such low likability ratings. Historically low. Trump, born in privilege. He’s like a walking embodiment of the power paradox in how he speaks and offends people and makes passes at people’s wives. And then, I think, Clinton’s is more subtle. But I think people are skeptical because she now travels in these circles of power. The Hamptons and the political establishment. And people want to see that expression of virtue that allows them to get behind them as leaders. So I think it’s a very poignant moment for the power paradox in this election.

EBEN HARRELL: Well, it’s interesting to talk about power’s corrupting influence in the context of American political system. Because it does make you realize how wise the founding fathers were in terms of setting a balance of power and making sure that power is checked, etc.

DACHER KELTNER: Yeah.

EBEN HARRELL: Was there a difference in your research in gender? Did men or women respond differently to power? Did you examine that?

DACHER KELTNER: Well, it’s really interesting. We have tended to find across studies that all of these abuses of power– empathy deficit, impulsive behavior, inappropriate sexual behavior, uncivil behavior in organizations– there tend not to be gender differences. That women and men are pretty vulnerable to the abuses of power in similar ways. And that makes sense to me. Because we have similar brains and the psychological effects of power will be similar. But what we’re starting to find is differences in how we rise in power.

And women tend to be a little bit more collaborative and horizontal. Men tend to be a little bit more assertive, even coercive. You’ll find more Machiavellians who are men than women, for example. So there are differences in how we gain power. Subtle, though. But not differences in the abuses of power, which is interesting.

EBEN HARRELL: How did you discover this line of research? You write in your book a little bit about your upbringing. What led you to decide to dedicate much of your working life focusing on power?

DACHER KELTNER: Yeah. Thanks for asking that, Eben. I had this really interesting experience as a kid, where I grew up– until I was nine– in a nice neighborhood in Los Angeles, Laurel Canyon. Good schools, everybody’s going to college, the kids are doing well. And then my parents, in 1970, moved us to a very poor town in the foothills of the Sierras in California. And I didn’t really think about it too deeply at the time, but the kids were really struggling. People on my road, this country lane, were dying young. In their 40s and 50s and physically suffering. And I just thought that was what happened in that setting.

And then, about 15, 20 years later, I was studying shame. And we’ve been learning in the science of shame that it’s really the most profoundly submissive emotion. That it really has toxic effects on your immune system, leading to the inflammation response in your body. And when I was studying shame, I kept thinking back to how my neighbors felt about their lives in our country. They felt disengaged. They felt disempowered. Work was tough. And their bodies were suffering, like we now know from states of powerlessness.

And social psychology, my field, just didn’t have a lot to say systematically about what power does to your mind, how it influences judgment, how it influences your immune system. And at that moment, I really dove in to try to figure out what is power and what does it do to us.

EBEN HARRELL: Well, Dacher, it’s research for our time. And I’m so pleased that you had the opportunity to share it with us today on IdeaCast.

DACHER KELTNER: Eben, it is always good to talk you. I really appreciate it.

EBEN HARRELL: That was Dr. Keltner of the University of California at Berkeley. The book is The Power Paradox– How We Gain and Lose Influence. And the article is in the October 2016 issue of HBR titled “Don’t Let Power Corrupt You”. For more of these great ideas, HBR.org.