Mapping inspiration in human resources: A systematic review of themes and approaches

Background: This study was motivated by the need to invigorate research on inspiration, especially within the domain of management. The authors' objective was to devise a unifying structure for theory building and provide an overview of emergent constructs on inspiration research. Thus, the incremental contribution of the study is that the authors reviewed extant relevant literature and enhanced the focus on research on inspiration in management. Methods:  We performed a literature search on empirical studies on inspiration from 15 June to 31 August 2022. We retrieved English articles published between 2003 and 2022. The information sources were Ebscohost, ProQuest, Science Direct, and Scopus.  Risk of bias was assessed regarding review methods and the relevance of review to the research questions. We developed a data extraction sheet for the data collection process, considering the systematic review goals to ensure that all the pertinent data was retrieved. Results: Six out of 224 articles were identified for the final review. The excluded articles did not meet the either one or all of the inclusion criteria. The results revealed that there is a vast knowledge gap awaiting empirical research which can have a far-reaching impact on society and management; for instance, the impact of inspiration on performance and the role of moderators such as spirituality, visioning capability, gender variation, and linguistic proficiency. Conclusion:  This study recommends that research on inspiration focuses to crystallize inspiration as a construct, identify various dimensions of inspiration, and then firm up a general theory of inspiration with robust empirical evidence. There is a need to expand the scope of the IS by developing and trying out newer competing scales.

It’s All About Power

Abstract. The present research was aimed at providing a German version of the Personal Sense of Power Scale (GPSPS; Anderson et al., 2012 ) and testing its psychometric properties. A personal sense of power describes the perception of one’s ability to influence others. Probably every human relationship can be characterized by differences in power, which means that the measurement of experienced power is highly relevant. The availability of appropriate measures in different languages will help improve research and cross-cultural comparisons. Five studies were conducted. Internal consistency was high across all studies. Stability across 6 and 12 weeks was also high. A good fit was observed for a 6-item unidimensional version. Correlations with a variety of psychological and sociodemographic variables were in the expected directions, supporting nomological and criterion validity (Study 1). Measurement invariance across gender was demonstrated. In support of construct validity, a clinical sample scored significantly lower than others. Finally, two studies showed the sensitivity of a state version of the scale. We encourage researchers to use this scale as a reliable and valid instrument for assessing trait and state power.

Responsible power-holders: when and for what the powerful may assume responsibility

Being in power means that one's actions impact others' situation. Accordingly, power can be seen as opportunity to 'make things happen', which often leads to selfish behavior among the powerful. Yet, power-holders at times also assume responsibility towards others, treating those with low power with more care. Multiple findings support these two sides of power. The present paper adds that power-holders may also take responsibility for the tasks at hand (taking care of organizational success and tasks associated with their role). As such, many findings that power facilitates goal-directedness can be interpreted either in a way that the powerful 'selfishly' make use of opportunities-or rather that they assume task responsibility and make sure to reach (task) goals. Doing so allows to connect power and leadership, gaining a deeper understanding of what power-holders may feel responsible for and how their (social and task) responsibility may contribute to the functioning of hierarchies.

Power, approach, and inhibition: empirical advances of a theory

The approach-inhibition theory of power proposed that elevated power (which relates to increased rewards and freedom) activates approach-related tendencies, whereas reduced power (which relates to increased threat, punishment, and social constraint) activates inhibition-related tendencies Keltner et al. (2003). In the current article, we review the empirical advances - over the past 16 years - regarding four main propositions of the approach-inhibition theory of power: (a) positive affect versus negative affect, (b) attention to rewards versus attention to threats, (c) automatic cognition versus systematic/controlled cognition, and (d) disinhibited and state/trait driven behavior versus inhibited and situationally constrained behavior. By revealing robust empirical support for, and imaginative extensions of, the four propositions, this review invites future studies of power to further build upon and revise the early claims of approach-inhibition theory.

Power and social distance

Magee and Smith (2013) theorized that asymmetric dependence creates asymmetric social distance in power relations, and that high-power individuals feel more distant than their low-power counterparts. I review research consistent with, and in some cases possibly inspired by, the social distance theory of power. Four findings emerge from the review. First, in dyadic relationships, the goals of the high-power partner are privileged over those of the low-power partner. Second, higher power reduces attunement and attention to others and also increases the tendency to objectify and dehumanize others. Third, power increases expressions of interpersonal dominance and aggression, particularly when the level of situational power diverges from expectations or norms. Fourth, greater power reduces the harmful psychological effects of social rejection. I conclude that social distance continues to be a useful factor to consider in making predictions and explaining the psychological effects of power.

When those who know do share: Group goals facilitate information sharing, but social power does not undermine it

Good team decisions require that team members share information with each other. Yet, members often tend to selfishly withhold important information. Does this tendency depend on their power within the team? Power-holders frequently act more selfishly (than the powerless)—accordingly, they might be tempted to withhold information. We predicted that given a task goal to ‘solve a task’, power-holders would selfishly share less information than the powerless. However, a group goal to ‘solve the task together’ would compensate for this selfishness, heightening particularly power-holders’ information sharing. In parallel, an individual goal to ‘solve the task alone’ may heighten selfishness and lower information sharing (even) among the powerless. We report five experiments (N = 1305), comprising all studies conducted in their original order. Analyses yielded weak to no evidence for these predictions; the findings rather supported the beneficial role of a group goal to ensure information sharing for both the powerful and the powerless.

The Power of Projection for Powerless and Powerful People

Past social projection research has mainly focused on target characteristics as a moderator of projective effects. The current research considers the power of the perceiver and how it affects projection of competence and warmth. In three studies, participants first rated themselves on a list of traits/preferences, then performed a power manipulation task, and, finally, rated a target person on the same list. Studies 1 and 2 reveal that the effect of power on social projection is moderated by dimension of judgment: high-power/low-power participants project more on competence/warmth than low-power/high-power participants. A meta-analysis conducted on Studies 1, 2, 3, and two additional studies confirmed those results. Study 3 additionally shows that high power increases the salience of competence, whereas low power increases the salience of warmth. Implications for both the power and the social perception literatures are discussed.

Highly identified power-holders feel responsible: The interplay between social identification and social power within groups

Power relations affect dynamics within groups. Power-holders' decisions not only determine their personal outcomes, but also the outcomes of others in the group that they control. Yet, power-holders often tend to overlook this responsibility to take care of collective interests. The present research investigated how social identification - with the group to which both the powerful and the powerless belong - alters perceived responsibility among power-holders (and the powerless). Combining research on social power and social identity, we argue that power-holders perceive more responsibility than the powerless when strongly (rather than when weakly) identifying with the group. A study among leaders and an experiment supported this, highlighting that although power-holders are often primarily concerned about personal outcomes, they do feel responsible for considering others' interests when these others are included in the (social) self.

Social Power Increases Interoceptive Accuracy

Building on recent psychological research showing that power increases self-focused attention, we propose that having power increases accuracy in perception of bodily signals, a phenomenon known as interoceptive accuracy. Consistent with our proposition, participants in a high-power experimental condition outperformed those in the control and low-power conditions in the Schandry heartbeat-detection task. We demonstrate that the effect of power on interoceptive accuracy is not explained by participants’ physiological arousal, affective state, or general intention for accuracy. Rather, consistent with our reasoning that experiencing power shifts attentional resources inward, we show that the effect of power on interoceptive accuracy is dependent on individuals’ chronic tendency to focus on their internal sensations. Moreover, we demonstrate that individuals’ chronic sense of power also predicts interoceptive accuracy similar to, and independent of, how their situationally induced feeling of power does. We therefore provide further support on the relation between power and enhanced perception of bodily signals. Our findings offer a novel perspective–a psychophysiological account–on how power might affect judgments and behavior. We highlight and discuss some of these intriguing possibilities for future research.

Poisoned Praise

High-power people frequently receive compliments from subordinates, yet little is known about how high-power people respond to praise. The current research addresses this gap in the empirical literature by testing the primary hypothesis that high-power people discount others’ praise more than equal- and low-power people. Secondary hypotheses also tested whether high-power people’s tendency to discount positive feedback would paradoxically heighten negative perceptions of others. Evidence from two experiments (one preregistered) reveals that high-power participants discounted feedback from others more than low- and equal-power participants. However, high-power people’s tendency to discount feedback only produced negative partner perceptions when positive feedback, but not neutral feedback, was discounted. These results suggest that compliments may sometimes backfire and lead high-power people to discount praise and form negative impressions of subordinates.

Power and Autistic Traits

Autistic traits can help people gain and sustain power, and has probably done so throughout history, says the present paper. A number of testable claims follow from this assumption. First, the powerful should have more autistic traits than others - which they do appear to have. Among other things, powerful people, and those with many autistic traits, tend to prefer solitary activities and are often aloof. Moreover, they are often rigid and socially insensitive, low on empathy and with low scores on the trait of agreeableness - and as a rule they do not have many friends. Both groups are also more self-centered than others, more honest, less submissive, more sensitive to slights, and with a stronger tendency to engage in abstract thinking. They tend to behave in bossy or dominant ways, and their moral judgment is more based on rules than on feelings. In addition to experimental evidence, I cite biographies showing that a surprising number of presidents, prime ministers and other powerful people seem to have had traits like those in question - and interestingly, in animals, leaders are often rigid and insensitive to group members' needs and feelings, mostly acting the way they are themselves inclined to, not responding much to others. Problem solving is important in leadership, and people with many autistic traits appear often to be better thinkers than typical subjects with similar IQs. However, these and other congruities could be coincidences. Hence the question of whether traits the two groups have in common also have a common cause constitutes a strong test of the paper's thesis - and a common cause does appear to exist, in the form of testosterone's effects on the central nervous system. Finally, there is evidence that, other things equal, powerful men have more reproductive success than others. If men wielding power do indeed have more autistic traits than those less powerful, this will lead to, other things equal, such traits becoming more common - which can help explain the prevalence of autistic traits.