💾 Archived View for gmi.noulin.net › mobileNews › 5854.gmi captured on 2023-12-28 at 18:27:27. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2023-01-29)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
2016-02-25 11:03:41
Angus HildrethCameron Anderson
February 24, 2016
All too commonly, we see groups of leaders fail to accomplish their goals
legislators who cannot agree on a bill, heads of state who cannot broker
meaningful peace deals, or boards of directors who make disastrous decisions
for their companies. Why do powerful people, when working together, fail as
often as they do?
This question is particularly vexing because researchers have long found power
to boost individual performance in a variety of ways. When people work alone,
feeling powerful helps them process information more effectively, think more
creatively, and focus for longer stretches of time. If power enhances
individual performance, then by extension one would assume that groups
comprising high-power individuals would perform particularly well. But our
research found the opposite: power hampers the ability of leaders to work with
other leaders.
In a series of experiments, we brought more than a thousand participants
students and executives into our laboratory and videotaped their behavior as
they worked on a variety of tasks on their own or in groups. The tasks were
designed to mimic those that leaders might face in their day-to-day work: some
tasks tested creativity and persistence while others tested decision-making and
the ability to reach agreement in complex negotiations.
In one experiment, we randomly assigned students to the roles of either a
leader, worker, or a control condition. In the first phase of the experiment,
each leader was given power over a worker evaluating the worker s performance
and deciding how much money the worker would receive for completing a task.
Control participants simply worked together as peers with equal power. In the
next phase of the experiment, we reorganized participants into groups of three
and had them work on a creativity task in which they designed a new product.
Leaders worked with leaders, workers with workers, and control participants
with other control participants. Which groups were the most creative?
Independent judges rated groups of leaders to be the least creative of all
groups. Their product ideas were the least innovative and the most uninspired.
Particularly striking is that this effect emerged even though power makes
people more creative when working alone.
This pattern emerged consistently across studies. When more powerful
individuals worked alone or on tasks that required less coordination with
others, they performed better than anyone else; but when they worked together
on tasks that required more coordination with others, those same powerful
individuals performed worse than others.
In another study, we brought executives into the laboratory and assigned them
to groups of four, based on their actual power in their organization. The four
most powerful executives were assigned to the first group, the next four most
powerful executives to the second group, and so on. This time we had the
executives take part in a negotiation where they were tasked with reaching
agreement on which of four candidates should be hired for a senior management
position. Again, we found that groups of the most powerful executives
underperformed relative to groups of less powerful executives: only 46% of
groups comprising the most powerful executives reached agreement. In contrast
86% of groups comprising the least powerful executives reached agreement.
W160216_HILDRETH_POWERUNDERMINES
Why did groups of leaders fail so consistently? Videotapes of the group members
interactions revealed some fascinating answers. Across studies, groups of
leaders performed worse in part because their members fought over who should
have higher status than others in the group who should get to call the shots,
who should have more influence over the group s decisions, and who should
command more respect than others. In essence, leaders fought over who should be
top dog in the group, and this conflict over status harmed their ability to
work together effectively.
Videotapes also showed that groups of leaders were less focused on the task and
shared information less effectively with each other than did members of other
groups. Again, this pattern is particularly ironic because power tends to make
people more task-focused and efficient when working on tasks alone. When
working together therefore, leaders status concerns be they jockeying for
position or avoiding the potential loss of face that might result from sharing
ideas that could be judged harshly appears to distract them from the task at
hand.
So while the possession and experience of power can make leaders more capable
than others on individual tasks, that same power appears to undermine their
ability to get along and work with other leaders on collaborative tasks.
Interaction among leaders who are accustomed to possessing power is vulnerable
to conflict and miscommunication, which undermines their collective
performance.
Angus Hildreth is a doctoral candidate in the Management of Organizations Group
at the Haas School of Business, University of California, Berkeley.
Cameron Anderson is the Lorraine Tyson Mitchell Chair in Leadership &
Communication II at the Haas School of Business, University of California,
Berkeley.