The detrimental effects of power on confidence, advice taking, and accuracy

See, Kelly E.; Morrison, Elizabeth Wolfe; Rothman, Naomi B.; Soll, Jack B.

doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.07.006

Cited by 278 publications

(248 citation statements)

References 66 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

228

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Our studies also extend past research on power and social influence in social psychology (e.g., Briñol, Petty, Valle, Rucker, & Becerra, 2007;Galinsky, Magee, Gruenfeld, Whitson, & Liljenquist, 2008;Guinote, 2008;See, Morrison, Rothman, & Soll, 2011;Tost, Gino, & Larrick, 2011) by being the first to test private self-focus as the explanation for the effect of power on individuals' susceptibility to social influence. Finally, our work may also inform practitioners in better understanding how to manage (un)ethical social processes in organizations.…”

supporting

confidence: 72%

“…For example, past research found that public self-focus, in contrast to private self-focus, makes individuals pay greater attention to standards of conduct (Fenigstein, 1979;Froming & Carver, 1981). It is possible that raising public self-consciousness could alleviate potential negative effects of power, such as the tendency to disregard ethical organizational standards (as documented in our Study 4) or ignore useful advice (See et al, 2011;Tost et al, 2011). Future research is needed to explore such possibilities.…”

Section: Theoretical Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 85%

Section: Power and Self-focus In Ethical Decision Makingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Past studies documented more situation-consistent behavior as a result of power when individuals had no personal preferences in the given situation and were instead motivated to act in accordance with the situational demands (Guinote, 2007a(Guinote, , 2008. In contrast, studies documented less susceptibility to social influence as a function of power in situations that were designed such that the powerful first formed some personal preferences (e.g., an attitude on an issue or an assessment of a problem) and were then exposed to others' input (Briñol et al, 2007;Galinsky et al, 2008;See et al, 2011;Tost et al, 2011).In the ethical decision-making context that is relevant to our research question, theory and studies in moral psychology suggest that when confronted with moral issues, individuals always have certain (un)ethical preferences affecting their decision making. These preferences are automatically activated (Cushman, Young, & Hauser, 2006;Haidt, 2001) and are even present irrespective of and prior to conscious responses and deliberation (Haidt, 2001;Haidt & Hersh, 2001).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Compliant Sinners, Obstinate Saints: How Power and Self-Focus Determine the Effectiveness of Social Influences in Ethical Decision Making

Pitesa

Thau

2013

AMJ

118

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effectiveness of Social Influences in Ethical Decision Making AbstractIn this research, we examine when and why organizational environments influence how employees respond to moral issues. Past research proposed that social influences in organizations affect employees' ethical decision making, but did not explain when and why some individuals are affected by the organizational environment and some disregard it. To address this problem, we drew on research on power to propose that power makes people more self-focused, which, in turn, makes them more likely to act upon their preferences and ignore (un)ethical social influences. Using both experimental and field methods, we tested our model across the three main paradigms of social influence: informational influence (Study 1 and 2), normative influence (Study 3), and compliance (Study 4). Results offer converging evidence for our theory. Word Count Abstract: 123Keywords: ethical decision making, power, social influences, self-focus POWER AND (UN)ETHICAL INFLUENCES 3Members of organizations are often faced with moral issues, defined as situations in which "a person's actions, when freely performed, may harm or benefit others" (Jones, 1991: 367). An employee might be tempted to exaggerate, rather than accurately report, time spent on a project to receive a larger bonus; another employee may have to decide whether to deceive the other party in a negotiation to secure a more favorable outcome. While deciding on moral issues, employees are exposed to social influences that can impact their ethical decision making. These social influences range from explicit organizational ethical standards to others' (un)ethical behavior as an indirect indicator of acceptable conduct in their organization (for a review, see Kish-Gephart, Harrison, & Treviño, 2010). Both ethical decision-making theory (Sonenshein, 2007;Treviño, 1986) and related studies (Gino, Ayal, & Ariely, 2009;Pierce & Snyder, 2008;Treviño, Butterfield, & McCabe, 1998) suggest that employees' ethical decision making will be consistent with the social influence they are exposed to. Those working in an organization with an ethical code of conduct are expected to make more ethical decisions (Treviño et al., 1998) whereas those working in organizations in which unethical behavior is widespread are more likely to make unethical decisions themselves (Pierce & Snyder, 2008).Although social influence has a powerful impact on individual decision making Turner, 1991), not all employees are swayed by their context when responding to moral issues. For example, news reports tell stories about cheating employees within organizations whose members typically do not cheat (Weisman, 2007). Similarly, there are employees who make ethical decisions while their coworkers follow their self-interest (Russell, 2011). This suggests that some employees ignore their social context and, for better or worse, follow their own preferences for ethical or unethical conduct. This phenomenon remains unexplained by past theories on ethical decision m...

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 72%

Section: Theoretical Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 85%

Section: Power and Self-focus In Ethical Decision Makingmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Compliant Sinners, Obstinate Saints: How Power and Self-Focus Determine the Effectiveness of Social Influences in Ethical Decision Making

Pitesa

Thau

2013

AMJ

118

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Those who feel more powerful tend to disregard others' perspectives (Galinsky et al 2006), overestimate the extent to which others are allied with them (Brion and Anderson 2013), increase their demands of others (Sivanathan, Pillutla and Murnighan 2008), and build coalitions with similar (Pfeffer and Fong 2005) and flattering others (Park, Westphal and Stern 2011). These behavioral changes occur in part because powerful people perceive greater social distance from less powerful others (Magee and Smith 2013), which leads the former to objectify (Gruenfeld et al 2008), disregard the advice of (See et al 2011), and inhibit the voice of the latter (Ferguson, Ormiston and Moon 12 2010). Insofar as these changes arising from the experience of power manifest in the sensitive period following entry to a new institutional setting, they will dampen a person's ability to learn how to work effectively with others.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

"Stamps of Power and Conflict: Imprinting and Influence in the U.S. Senate, 1973-2009"

Liu

Srivastava

2015

AMPROC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Gains in structural power are often assumed to lead to greater influence. Yet people vary in their ability to convert structural power into influence. We bring a temporal, historical perspective to account for this heterogeneity. We propose that-even when they have had considerable prior experience-people can acquire institution-specific imprints when they enter a new work setting and that these imprints can affect how influential they become when they later gain or lose power. In particular, we argue that those who enter the setting as part of a dominant coalition can be imprinted with a "stamp of power," which impairs their social learning and undermines their ability to translate downstream changes in power into influence. We evaluate and find support for this proposition in analyses of the U.S. Senate from 1973 to 2005.

show abstract

When strength is a weakness

Felson

2023

Aggressive Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In general, individuals with low levels of coercive power are at greater risk of victimization than those who are more powerful. However, in some circumstances, superior coercive power increases an individual's vulnerability. In this paper, I show how coercive power can increase vulnerability (offsetting its protective effect) by its effects on targeting and tactics. Individuals with greater coercive power can increase their risk of getting targeted because they tend to be less vigilant and more likely to behave in ways that provoke others. They generate more grievances and have more enemies because they are less compliant and more verbally aggressive and confrontational. Powerful parties are also at greater risk of being targeted by adversaries seeking to gain status. An attack on a strong adversary is more likely to enhance status than an attack on a weaker adversary since it is a greater achievement. Individuals with coercive power are also at greater risk because of the tactics used by their weaker adversaries. Weaker parties are more likely to engage in pre‐emptive attack and use weapons. They are better able to attract and rely on allies because of the norm of social responsibility, that is, the tendency to protect those in need. Finally, they are more likely to attempt to kill more power adversaries in order to incapacitate them and, thereby, avoid retaliation.

show abstract

The detrimental effects of power on confidence, advice taking, and accuracy

Cited by 278 publications

References 66 publications

Compliant Sinners, Obstinate Saints: How Power and Self-Focus Determine the Effectiveness of Social Influences in Ethical Decision Making

Compliant Sinners, Obstinate Saints: How Power and Self-Focus Determine the Effectiveness of Social Influences in Ethical Decision Making

"Stamps of Power and Conflict: Imprinting and Influence in the U.S. Senate, 1973-2009"

When strength is a weakness

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About