— ADVERTISEMENT —
|
|||||
Power, we've been reminded, corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. But power itself is not the corruptive force. Power is neutral until two or more human beings decide to convert it into influence. Abusive uses of power, therefore, are reflections of abusive relationships between people, of conscious choices. Strong language or ivory tower stuff, you think? Let us explore just two of the ways we consciously collude to allow power to be "used wrongly or improperly" -- Webster's definition of abuse. The first has to do with the tyranny of large numbers. Consider the following universally replicated laboratory research findings: When confronted with two vertical lines -- A, which is 6 inches in length, and B, which is 4 inches in length -- thousands of diverse and representative individual subjects, viewing the two lines alone in a room, report being absolutely certain that A is the longer line. Now imagine other comparable subjects seated at the corner of a round table occupied by four other subjects, just like themselves -- they think. Unbeknownst to the one in the hot seat, of course, each of these paid stooges has been instructed to select B as the longer line. Video cameras focused on the hot seat capture a variety of quite funny gestures. Puzzled looks. Scratching heads. Removal and cleaning of glasses. Leaning forward for a clearer view. What is not the least bit funny is the fact that an average of 30 percent of those in the hot seat yield to the group pressure and report that B is the longer line. I'll leave it to your imagination to abstract from these "ivory tower" conditions to the boardroom conditions, where the stakes and consequences are absolutely opposite. As long as we are now at the boardroom table, let's add to the pressure to conform -- to "group think" -- the "small" factor of positional power because the seat at the head of the table is occupied by the boss. If you cringed even a bit at the "length of the line" research, be sure you're sitting when you look up an article entitled "Studies in Social Obedience" by Stanley Milgram. Imagine the following scene: A presumed academic expert on learning wearing a doctor's white coat in a room at a prestigious university -- Yale, Harvard, Pennsylvania, Columbia, to name four where the research was originally conducted. You are seated next to an electronic generator you absolutely believe can transfer 450 volts of electricity in 15 volt increments to a subject in another room you absolutely believe is hooked to your machine. The results? Absolutely 100 percent of those not reading this article would be blindly influenced by a combination of expert, referent, and positional power to flick all 30 switches (30 times 15 equals 450 volts) to deliver the fake electricity to the subject, because none of us reading this article are among the 50 percent who actually did. So, given that nothing gets accomplished without the exercise of power and influence, what can we do to guard against groupthink? Here are three "logical suggestions."
» Ask people just for the sake of argument to argue for the position opposite to the one they support.
But, of course, the bottom line when it comes to power and influence has absolutely nothing to do with logic. It has absolutely everything to do with having the courage to speak the truth to power.» Really listen to the minority voice vs. the perfunctory, "OK, speak your piece ... and then we'll move on." If it's a truly new idea, then the majority will not see it immediately. » Be sure feedback is immediate, face-to-face, and specific. If you have the positional power, be very suspicious if you've not gotten any constructive criticism lately. Because when we don't, we are colluding in ensuring that power becomes abusive.
Irwin Rubin is an author and president of Temenos Inc. of Honolulu, which specializes in executive leadership development. Reach him at temenos@lava.net.
EAST MEETS WEB
‘Online social networks’
|
— ADVERTISEMENTS —
— ADVERTISEMENTS —
|