Week 4 Readings Summary

How to Overcome a Power Deficit (Bouquet and Barsoux)

PDE stands for Power Deficit Executives

Who’s at risk?
Anyone can experience being stuck with a power deficit. Many factors can leave executives
ignored or side-lined. Demographics (race, ethnicity, gender or age) can contribute to the
PDE’s predicament. So can inexperience, poor reputation, personality, background, training
or outlook. It can happen to people with high potential, and it can happen to executives
who are already high performer.

The Low-Power Tap

Research indicates that the typical PDE lacks one or more of the following power sources:
legitimacy, critical resources or networks. The high level of interaction between these three
sources of power means that a shortage in one can easily produce shortages in the other
two.

For example, the executive with more legitimacy in the eyes of the boss can expect to
receive preferential assignments and more material support, as well as additional
mentoring, supervision and feedback — key resources that all tend to enhance productivity
and creativity. Executives who lack legitimacy with the boss find it harder to be heard.

Overcome a Legitimacy Deficit

It difficult for executives to be heard when they lack legitimacy with the boss or fellow team
members. Lack of legitimacy may be based on a weak or unproven track record, but it may
also stem from a perceived lack of commitment, character or cultural fit. The problem with
unfavourable perceptions is that they tend to become self-fulfilling.
Research on leader-member exchange (LMX) indicates that the vast majority of bosses tend
to treat their direct reports as part of either an “in group” or an “out group.”4 Studies
suggest that, once someone has been unconsciously consigned to the “out group,” the
chances of entering the “in group” are limited. Members of the “in group” are successful
whereas members of the out group get lucky.

There are two types for the PDE to gain legitimacy: by meeting or exceeding the boss’s
expectations, or by redefining those expectations.

Play the game: What You Do in the Job

Aligning with the boss’s expectations is just part of the challenge. PDEs must also ensure
that the boss notices their efforts. Typically, this requires a certain amount of self-promotion
(to appear more competent) or ingratiation (to appear more likable).
Change the game: What you do With the Job
PDEs can also reconfigure their job descriptions to emphasize aspects at which they’re most
likely to excel. Changing the role to play to your strengths is an appealing prospect, but a
PDE taking this route should make sure he or she is not simply trying to hide from some
difficult issues.

Overcoming a Resource Deficit

In addition to legitimacy, controlling precious resources also confers power, because
resources can be exchanged (or withheld) to enhance the PDE’s influence within a team or
the larger organization. PDEs often lack resources because they don’t belong to the “in
group.” Consequently, PDEs are unlikely to receive the best people, assignments or sales
territories, and they will probably be granted smaller budgets and less decision-making
authority. This skewed allocation of resources makes it difficult for PDEs to compete on an
equal footing with more powerful fellow executives. The challenge for PDEs is to find ways
to gain control of resources that are highly prized by the people they most want to influence
while simultaneously reducing their own dependence on others for such resources. In
particular, they must try to accumulate resources that can serve as currencies for
reciprocity.

Play the Game: Collect Resources

Managers deprived of hierarchical support or material resources can focus instead on
obligation creation as a form of currency. Unfortunately, many PDEs tend to focus on their
limitations (and feel like victims of circumstance) even when these limitations create
opportunities that could enable them to break free of their constraints. PDEs should also
seek opportunities to accumulate credit for modest investments of time and energy. Helping
a senior executive solve a high-stress problem, for example, can yield a disproportionate
payoff.

Change the game: Turn Yourself into a Resource

Gaining special expertise is another way to make up a power deficit. One approach to
acquiring additional perceived expertise is to identify problems that nobody else has noticed
or that few people are capable of resolving (a form of gap analysis) and then work to
address them.

Cultivating specialized expertise carries certain risks — among them, the risk that the PDE
will get locked into the position. To avoid this fate, PDEs must walk the fine line between
controlling and sharing valuable knowledge.

Overcoming a Network Deficit

Executives who have high legitimacy and control scarce resources may still be vulnerable
unless they have built a strong network of their own. Without a strong network of their
own, executives may have to depend on their boss’s network. This can prove to be a severe
handicap.

Indeed, research suggests that a high-quality relationship with a poorly connected boss may
do more harm than good. PDE can enhance their network in two ways: by building
connections with central players in their current work environment, and by forging links
between unconnected cluster.

Play the Game: Reach UP

Connecting with a senior figure outside the direct line of authority can offer a private view
into the upper echelons of the organization and provide an ally to vouch for your character,
performance and accomplishments.

David Krackhardt’s analysis of power in a small entrepreneurial company revealed that

those in the company with the most accurate perception of the power distribution and
networks of influence had the most power.

This approach is designed to help PDE executive become a central player in an existing
network.

Change the Game: Reach Out

A more radical approach is to act as a link with other networks — in other words, to become
a play maker. PDEs can derive considerable power by playing a boundary-spanning role,
creating links between disconnected areas or constituencies. People whose networks span
the gaps between groups can reduce conflict and detect opportunities. This networking
activity expands their horizons, giving them earlier access to critical information, which, in
turn, allows them to adopt good ideas before their competitors.
Targeted boundary spanning is best achieved by determining what is scarce and then
bridging the gap.

Smart Strategies
To increase their influence within an organization, PDEs must first undertake a realistic
assessment of which power sources they lack. As in recipes, merely adding more of one
ingredient cannot compensate for the absence of another. Although it may be possible to
restart a career by drawing on a single power base, this is a risky strategy. Aligning yourself
fully with the boss, controlling a unique resource or networking like crazy may work for a
time, but in a turbulent environment, it can also leave you suddenly exposed. PDEs can
focus on a single tactic to provide momentum, but they should address all three sources of
power to cast off their PDE status.

1. Legitimacy: lacking legitimacy with your boss or colleagues can make it difficult to be
heard. Lack of legitimacy usually stems from unfavourable perceptions which can,
unfortunately, become self-fulfilling.
2. Resources: power-deficit executives are unlikely to receive critical resources such as
the best people, assignments or sales territories. They might also be granted smaller
budgets and less decision-making authority.
3. Network: even if executives do not suffer from a lack of the above, they may still be
vulnerable unless they have built a strong network of their own, independent of
their boss’s.

BUSINESS APPLICATION

Firstly, executives need to assess which power sources they may be lacking. Then, either by
‘playing the game’ more effectively, or changing the game, they can set about trying to
reverse their power deficits. Barsoux and Bouquet define these two strategies as what you
do in the job, and what you do with the job, respectively.

For example, if lack of legitimacy is the issue, try aligning yourself more with your boss’s
expectations, and ensure that he/she notices your efforts (i.e. play the game).

If a lack of resources is the problem, try turning yourself into a resource (i.e. change the
game). Gain special expertise to acquire more stature and security within your organization.
On the other hand, you may prefer to seek opportunities to help senior executives and
other powerful people, which will help them come to see you as a valuable ally (play the
game).

If a lack of your own network is your concern, try connecting with a senior figure outside
your direct line of authority (play the game); this can offer a private view into the upper
echelons of your organization, and they may even vouch for your character, performance
and accomplishments. Instead, you could try to act as a link with other networks (change
the game).

Ultimately, however, executives should avoid the inclination to focus on a single power
base; all three sources of power will need to be addressed to truly cast off a power deficit. 
Power and Persspective Not Taken Galinsky
The powerful are often accused of being predominantly concerned with their own desires
and well-being, of being in sensitive to the social implications of their behaviour, and of
being poor perspective takers. Indeed, perspective taking stepping outside of one’s own
experience and imagining the emotions, perception, and motivations of another individual
seems the antithesis of the self interested behaviour often displayed by the powerful: it has
been linked to moral reasoning.

Definitions and theories of power

Power is often defined as the capacity of influence to other people; it emerges from control
over valuable resources and the ability to administer rewards and punishments
(French&Raven, 1959; Keltner et al., 2003). The power-approach theory (Keltner et al.,2003)
suggests that power increases goal-directed activity. As a result, the powerful act more
(Galinsky, Gruenfeld, & Magee, 2003) and with greater variability (Guinote, Judd, & Brauer,
2002) than the nonpowerful. Although power is considered a structural variable, a property
of social relationships, its psychological properties can be activated by exposure to cues
related to power or by recalling past experiences with power; activating power through
these manipulations leads to the same effects as those obtained using structural and role-
based manipulations of power (Anderson & Galinsky, 2006; Chen, Lee-Chai, & Bargh, 2001;
Galinsky et al., 2003).

Power and Perspective Taking: Opposing Effects

There are number of reasons why power may diminish perspective taking
First, by definition, people in power have control over valuable resources and are therefore
less dependent on others. Thus, to accomplish their goals, the powerful do not need to rely
on an accurate, comprehensive understanding of others. Second, power is typically
associated with increased demands on attention, so that it is difficult for power holders to
take the perspective of everyone under their charge.

In addition, power and perspective taking affect a number of variables in opposite ways. For
example, whereas the perspective taker seems to be the consummate adapter who includes
the traits of other individuals in his or her own self-representation (Galinsky, Ku, &Wang,
2005), the high-power individual’s self-concept remains more rigid; individuals with more
power in their marriages resist the identities imposed on them by their less powerful
spouses (Cast, 2003), and when relationship partners become more emotionally similar, it is
the lower-power partner who has done the majority of the adapting (Anderson, Keltner, &
John, 2003).

Perspective taking is associated with increased similarity between the self and others,
whereas having power creates psychological distance from other people. People with more
power form less complex interpersonal impressions of others expectancies.
The opposing forces of perspective taking, and power have important social implications:
Perspective taking has been associated with altruism and helping behaviour (Batson, 1991),
whereas power has been linked with such malfeasant social behaviours as sexual
harassment (Bargh, Raymond, Pryor, & Strack, 1995).

Experiment Results
These findings support the prediction that power is associated with decreased accuracy in
emotion detection and suggest an additional consequence of diminished perspective taking:
greater difficulty in experiencing empathy.

Across four experiments, they found that power was associated with a reduced tendancy to
comprehend how other individuals see the world, think about the world, and feel about the
world. Priming power led participants to be less likely to spontaneously adopt another
person’s visual perspective, less likely to take into account that another rperosn did not
possess their privileged knowledge, and less accurate in detecting emotional states of other
people. We believe that power leads not to a conscious decision to ignore other individuals’
perspectives, but rather to a psychological state that makes perspective taking less likely.

Diminished perspective taking may connect to the finding that power is associated with
action and increased goal pursuit (galisnky et al., 2003). Although lack of perspective taking
may lead the powerful toward malfeasance, it can be an adaptive response to attentional
demands, one that allows for efficient navigation of social and organizational worlds.

The current results also indirectly support the idea that there is an integrated relationship
among power, perspective taking, and stereotyping: Perspective taking decreases
stereotyping (Galinsky & Moskowitz, 2000), power increases stereotyping (Fiske, 1993), and
power decreases perspective taking.

Failing to take others’ perspectives, objectifying others in a self-interested way, and

stereotyping others may all be part of the cognitive toolbox that power holders use to stay
in control. However, lack of perspective taking may also sew the seeds of power’s demise.
When disregard for the concerns, emotions, and individuality of others— their humanity—
persists, the powerful can inspire enmity, bitterness, and incipient rebellion. The inverse
relationship between power and perspective taking may allow the powerful to accomplish
short-term goals but lead to the long-term loss of power.

Eligibility of Perspective Taking

Although our studies demonstrate that power reduces perspective taking, we suspect this
relationship is not invariant. One important moderator might be the extent to which
accurate knowledge of another person’s perspective would increase the likelihood that a
power holder will achieve his or her goals. In addition, the degree of responsibility that high-
power individuals feel for their subordinates is likely to influence perspective taking
tendencies. Indeed, when the powerful feel a sense of responsibility, their behaviour
resembles that of the ideal perspective taker: They show increased generosity (Chen et al.,
2001) and more individuated impressions (Overbeck & Park, 2001). Similarly, increasing
accountability (the pressure to justify one’s decisions or view to other people; Tetlock et al.,
1989) may direct the attention of power holders to other people’s perspectives, checking
and balancing the cognitive effects of power. Finally, culture may be a critical variable in
determining when power leads to perspective taking and when it leads to egocentric self-
focus (Zhong, Magee, Maddux, & Galinsky, 2006).