Contrary to popular opinion, the best managers are the ones who like power—and use it. MOTIVATING PEOPLE JANUARY 2003, BEST OF HBR 1976 Power Is the Great Motivator by David C. McClelland and David H. Burnham Most HBR articles on motivation speak to managers about the people whose ‘work they oversee. Curiously, the writers assume that the motivation of manag- ers themselves —that is to say, of our readers~is so well aligned with organiza: tional goals that it needs no examination. David McClelland and his colleague David Burnham knew better. ‘They found that managers fall into three motivational groups. Those in the first, affiiative managers, need to be liked more than they need to get, things done, Their decisions are aimed at increasing their own popular- ity rather than promoting the goals of the organization. Managers moti- vated by the need to achieve~the second group ~aren't worried about what people think of them. They focus on setting goals and reaching them, but they put their own achievement and recognition first. Those in the third group-institutional managers—are interested above all in power. Recogniz- ing that you get things done inside organizations only if you can influence the people around you, they focus on building power through influence rather than through their own individual achievement. People in this third group are the most effective, and their direct reports have a greater sense of responsibility, see organizational goals more clearly, and exhibit more team spirit. WHAT MAKES OR MOTIVATES a good manager? The question is enormous in scope. Some people might say that ‘a good manager is one who is success- ful-and by now most business research- ers and businesspeople know what mo- tivates people who successfully run their own small businesses. The key to their success has tuned out to be what psychologists call the need for achieve- ‘ment, the desire to do something better or more efficiently than it has been done before. Any number of books and articles summarize research studies ex- plaining how the achievement motive is necessary for a person to atain success. But what has achievement motiva- tion got to do with good management? ‘There is no reason on theoretical grounds why a person who hasa strong need to be more efficient should make a good manager. While it sounds as if everyone ought to have the need to achieve, in fact, as psychologists define and measure achievement motivation, the need to achieve leads people to be- have in ways that do not necessarily en- gender good management. u7BEST OF HBR For one thing, because they focus on personal improvement, achievement- motivated people want to do things themselves. For another, they want con- ‘rete short-term feedback on their per- formance so that they can tell how well they are doing, Yet managers, particu- larly in large, complex organizations, ‘cannot perform by themselves all the tasks necessary for success. They must ‘manage others to perform for the orga- nization. And they must be willing to do without immediate and personal feed- back since tasks are spread among many people. ‘The manager's job seems to call more for someone who can influence people than for someone who does things bet- ter alone. In motivational terms, then, ‘we might expect the successful manager to have a greater need for power than ‘a need to achieve. But there must be other qualities besides the need for Power that go into the makeup of a ‘good manager. We will discuss here just what these qualities are and how they interrelate. ‘To measure the motivations of man- agers, we studied a number of individu- als in different large U.S. corporations ‘who were participating in management workshops designed to improve thei ‘managerial effectiveness. (See the side- bar “Workshop Techniques”) We con- cluded that the top manager of a com- pany must possess a high need for ower-thatis,a concern for influencing people. However, this need must be dis- ciplined and controlled so that it is di rected toward the benefit of the institu- tion as a whole and not toward the ‘The late David C. McClelland was a pro- _fessor of psychology at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, in 1976 when this article frst appeared. David H. Burnham was at that time the president ‘and chief executive officer of McBer & Company, a behavioral science consulting Jfirm. He is currently a principal of the Burnham Rosen Group, a strategic con- sulting and leadership-training firm in Boston. 118 ‘manager's personal aggrandizement. Moreover, the top manager’s need for power ought to be greater than his or her need to be liked. Measuring Managerial Effectiveness ‘What does it mean when we say that a good manager has a greater need for power than for achievement? Consider the case of Ken Briggs, a sales manager in a large U.S. corporation who joined (one of our managerial workshops. (The names and details ofall the cases that follow have been disguised.) About six years ago, Ken Briggs was promoted to ‘a managerial position at headquarters, where he was responsible for sales- people who serviced his company’s largest accounts. In filling out his questionnaire at the ‘workshop, Ken showed that he correctly perceived what his job required of him-namely, that he should influence others’ success more than achieve new goals himself or socialize with his sub- ordinates. However, when asked, with other members of the workshop, to write a story depicting a managerial situation, Ken unwittingly revealed through his fiction that he did not share ‘those concerns. Indeed, he discovered that his need for achievement was very high~in fact, higher than the goth per- centile—and his need for power was very Jow, in about the a5th percentile. Ken's high need to achieve was no surprise ~ after all, he had been a very successful salesman—but obviously his desire to in- fluence others was much less than his job required. Ken was a little disturbed >but thought that perhaps the measuring instruments were not accurate and that the gap between the ideal and his score was not as great as it seemed. ‘Then came the real shocker. Ken's subordinates confirmed what his sto- ries revealed: He was a poor manager, having little positive impact on those who worked for him. They felt that little responsibility had been delegated to them. He never rewarded them but only criticized them. And the office was poorly organized, confused, and cha- otic. On all those scales, his office rated inthe tenth toxsth percentile relative to national norms. As Ken talked the results ofthe survey over privately with a workshop leader, he became more and more upset. He finally agreed, however, that the results confirmed feelings he had been afraid to admit to himself or others. For years, he had been miserable in his manage- rial role. He now knew the reason: He simply did not want, and he had not Do our findings suggest that the good manager is one who cares for power and is not at all concerned about the needs of other people? Not quite. been able, to influence or manage oth- ers, As he thought back, he realized he had failed every time he had tried to influence his staff, and he felt worse than ever. Ken had responded to failure by set- ting very high standards ~ his office scored in the 98th percentile on this scale —and by trying to do most things himself, which was close to impossible. His own activity and lack of delegation consequently left his staff demoralized. Ken’s experience is typical of those who have a strong need to achieve but little desire for power. They may become very successful salespeople and, as a conse quence, may be promoted into mana~ gerial jobs for which they, ironically, are unsuited. Ifthe need to achieve does not make ‘a good manager, what motive does? It isnot enough to suspect that power mo- tivation may be important; one needs hard evidence that people who are better managers than Ken Briggs is are in fact more highly motivated by power and perhaps score higher in other HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEWPowe: Workshop Techniques We derived the case studies and data used in this article from a number of work- ‘shops we conducted, during which exec- utives learned about their managerial styles and abiliti ‘change them. The workshops also pro- vided an opportunity for us to study which ‘motivation patterns in people make for the best managers. ‘At the workshops and in this article, we use the tech- nical terms “need for achievement/"*need for affiliation?” and “need for power" The terms refer to measurable fac- tors indicating motivation in groups and individuals. Briefly, those characteristics are measured by coding ‘managers’ spontaneous responses relating to how often they think about doing something better or more ef- ficiently than before (need for achievement), about es- tablishing or maintaining friendly relations with oth- ers (need for affiliation), or about having an impact on others (need for power). When we talk about power, we are not talking about dictatorial power but about the need to be strong and influential. When the managers first arrived at the workshops, they were asked to fill ut a questionnaire about their jobs. Each participant analyzed his or her job, explaining what he or she thought it required. The managers were asked to write a number of stories about pictures of vari ‘ous work situations we showed them. The stories were coded according to how concerned an individual was with achievement, affiliation, or power, as well as for the amount of inhibition or self-control they revealed. We then compared the results against national norms. The differences between a person's job requirements and, his or her motivational patterns can often help assess whether the person is in the right job, is a candidate for promotion to another job, or is likely to be able to adjust tofitthe present position. ‘To find out what kind of managerial style the partici pants had, we then gave them another questionnaire in which they had to choose how they would handle various realistic work situations in office settings. We divided their answers into six management styles, or ways of dealing with work situations. The styles were “demo- cratic*afliative;*pacesetting"“coaching,"“coercive? ss, a5 well as how to MOTIVATING PEOPLE JANUARY 2003, and “authoritarian” The managers were asked to comment on the effectiveness ‘of each style and to name the style they preferred ‘One way to determine how effective ‘managers are isto ask the people who work for them. Thus, to isolate the char- acteristics that good managers have, We asked at least three subordinates of each man: ager at the workshop questions about their work situa- tions that revealed characteristics oftheir supervisors according to six riteria:1) the amount of conformity to rules the supervisor requires, 2) the amount of responsi bility they feel they are given, 3) the emphasis the depart- ‘ment places on standards of performance, 4) the degree ‘to which rewards are given for good work compared with Punishment when something goes wrong, 5) the degree of organizational clarity in the office, and 6) its team spirit.! The managers who received the highest morale scores (organizational clarity plus team spirit) from their subordinates were considered to be the best managers, possessing the most desirable motive patterns. We also surveyed the subordinates six months later to see if morale scores rose after managers completed the workshop. ‘We measured participants on one other characteristic deemed important for good management: maturity. By coding the stories that the managers wrote, which re- vealed their attitudes toward authority and the kinds of emotions displayed over specific issues, we were able to Pinpoint managers at one of four stages in their progress toward maturity. People in stage 1 are dependent on oth- er for guidance and strength, Those in stage 2 are inter- ested primarily in autonomy. In stage 3, people want to manipulate others. In stage 4, they lose their egotistic de- sires and wish to serve others selflessly? The conclusions we present in this article are based ‘on workshops attended by more than 500 managers from some 25 US. corporations. We drew the examples in the charts from one of those companies. 1. Based on George H. Litwin and Robert A. Stringe’s Motivation ond. (rgarzotional Chmae Harvard University Press, 198). 2 Based on workby Abigal Stewarts reported in David. Melons Power: The Inner Experience (ivington Publishers, 3979) Is the Great Motivator 19