Communal and Agentic Interpersonal and Intergroup Motives Predict Preferences for Status Versus Power

Cynical people desire power but rarely acquire it: Exploring the role of cynicism in leadership attainment

Do cynical individuals have a stronger desire for power and are they more likely to acquire power at work? The negative consequences of cynicism-for cynics themselves and the people around them-render the examination of these questions particularly important. We first examined the role of cynicism in power motives. Results showed that more cynical individuals have a greater desire for power to avoid exploitation by others (and less so to exploit others; Study 1) and score higher on dominance (but not prestige or leadership) motives (Study 2). The subsequent two studies examined the role of cynicism in power attainment at work. A study of virtual teams (Study 3) showed that more cynical individuals were less likely to emerge as group leaders, and a prospective study of ~9000 employees followed for up to 10 years (Study 4) showed that cynicism predicted a lower likelihood of attaining a leadership position in organizations. Taken together, more (vs. less) cynical individuals have a stronger power-in particular, dominance-motive but they are not more successful at power acquisition. These findings inform the literature on cynicism and power and highlight the importance of cynical worldviews for leadership attainment.

Power Values and Power Distance Moderate the Relationship Between Workplace Supervisory Power and Job Satisfaction

Abstract. Person–job (or needs–supplies) discrepancy/fit theories posit that job satisfaction depends on work supplying what employees want and thus expect associations between having supervisory power and job satisfaction to be more positive in individuals who value power and in societies that endorse power values and power distance (e.g., respecting/obeying superiors). Using multilevel modeling on 30,683 European Social Survey respondents from 31 countries revealed that overseeing supervisees was positively associated with job satisfaction, and as hypothesized, this association was stronger among individuals with stronger power values and in nations with greater levels of power values or power distance. The results suggest that workplace power can have a meaningful impact on job satisfaction, especially over time in individuals or societies that esteem power.

Social power and the self

Separate literatures exist on social power, status, and hierarchy on the one hand, and the self on the other, but important points of intersection have emerged over the past several decades. This paper reviews recent developments at the interface between social power (and related constructs) and the self. These developments orbit around two broad questions. First, how does social power influence self-expression (e.g. does power enhance or diminish subjective feelings of authenticity)? And second, does social power shift one's orientation toward the self or toward others (e.g. does power lead people to construe the self in more independent or interdependent terms)? I conclude by suggesting possible future directions on the link between social power and self-related processes and phenomena.

Power and status across cultures

This article synthesizes recent psychological research at the intersection of power, status, and culture. Our review shows that culture affects how status and power are conceptualized, who attains them, and what their consequences are. In individualistic cultures (and particularly vertical ones that emphasize hierarchical arrangements), power is conceptualized in personalized terms (i.e. focus on self-benefits), competence drives status attainment, norm violations increase power, and individuals strive primarily for power, approve of powerholders that behave equitably, and feel happy when they have personal power. In contrast, in collectivistic cultures (and particularly horizontal ones that promote egalitarianism), power is conceptualized in socialized terms (i.e. focus on benefitting others), warmth and competence drive status attainment, norm adherence increases power, and individuals strive primarily for status, approve of powerholders that behave compassionately, and feel happy when they have socialized power. We discuss what remains unknown as a mechanism for guiding future work.

Motives relate to cooperation in social dilemmas but have an inconsistent association with leadership evaluation

A common assumption is that good leaders are driven by a power motive that motivates them to influence others. However, leaders need to restrain themselves in social dilemmas where cooperation maximizes collective outcomes. We theorize that in social dilemmas, a desire for positive relationships (affiliation motive) is more beneficial than a power motive because it draws attention away from short-term self-interest towards understanding others. In a game of Settlers of Catan in the laboratory, we find that a functional variant of the affiliation motive relates to verbal encouragement of cooperation, to fewer occurrences of oil spills, to higher ratings of transformational leadership and, in a field survey, to fewer selfish business decisions. Furthermore, a dysfunctional variant of the power motive relates to two of three indicators of selfishness. Group members perceive selfish individuals as assuming leadership roles which indirectly relates to slightly higher ratings of transformational leadership. This pattern of evaluation may privilege men who, on average, show more selfish behaviour which can be partially attributed to their motives. Mere awareness of gender-based discrimination does not enable raters to circumvent this pattern of evaluation. This work suggests a need for interventions that increase appreciation of cooperative leaders.

Agentic and communal interaction goals in conflictual intergroup relations

Members of conflicting groups experience threats to different identity dimensions, resulting in the need to restore the aspect of identity that was threatened. Do these needs translate into specific goals in social interactions? In the present research, we examined the hypotheses that (1) experiencing one’s ingroup as illegitimately disadvantaged or victimized arouses agentic goals (to act and appear assertive and confident) when interacting with the advantaged or victimizing group, while (2) experiencing one’s ingroup as illegitimately advantaged or perpetrating transgressions arouses communal goals (to act and appear warm and trustworthy) when interacting with the disadvantaged or victimized group. Study 1 (N = 391) generally supported both hypotheses across diverse intergroup contexts involving gender, national/ethnic, and consumer identities. Study 2 (N = 122) replicated this pattern in a context of occupational identities. Study 2 further showed that the effect of ingroup role on agentic and communal intergroup goals was not moderated by participants’ general dispositional preferences for agentic and communal goals in interpersonal interactions, thus demonstrating how ingroup role exerts a distinct and robust influence on goals for interactions with other groups. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.