power corrupts essay

Why Power Corrupts

New research digs deeper into the social science behind why power brings out the best in some people and the worst in others

Christopher Shea

“Power tends to corrupt,” said Lord Acton, the 19th-century British historian. “Absolute power corrupts absolutely.” His maxim has been vividly illustrated in psychological studies, notably the 1971 Stanford Prison Experiment, which was halted when one group of students arbitrarily assigned to serve as “prison guards” over another group began to abuse their wards.

But new scholarship is bringing fresh subtlety to psychologists’ understanding of when power leads people to take ethical shortcuts—and when it doesn’t. Indeed, for some people, power seems to bring out their best. After all, good people do win elective office, says Katherine A. DeCelles, a professor of management at the University of Toronto, and no few business executives want to do good while doing well. “When you give good people power,” DeCelles says she wondered, are they more able than others “to enact that moral identity, to do what’s right?”

In a study recently published in the Journal of Applied Psychology , DeCelles and her co-authors found that the answer is yes. People’s sense of “moral identity”—the degree to which they thought it was important to their sense of self to be “caring,” “compassionate,” “fair,” “generous” and so on—shaped their responses to feelings of power.

DeCelles and her colleagues developed moral identity scores for two groups, 173 working adults and 102 undergraduates, by asking the participants to rate how important those ethically related attributes were to them. The researchers had some participants write an essay recalling an incident in which they felt powerful, while others wrote about an ordinary day. Then the participants took part in lab experiments to probe how they balanced self-interest against the common good.

The undergraduates were told they shared a pool of 500 points with other people, and they could take between zero and ten points for themselves. The more points they took, the better their odds of winning a $100 lottery. But if they took too many—there was no way of knowing what that tipping point was—the pot would empty and the lottery would be called off.

The participants who had just written about an ordinary day each took roughly 6.5 points, regardless of their moral-identity score. But among those who had been primed to think of themselves as powerful, the people with low moral-identity scores grabbed 7.5 points—and those with high moral-identity scores took only about 5.5.

In surveys, the last group showed a greater understanding of how their actions would affect other people, which is the crucial mechanism, DeCelles says. Power led them to take a broader, more communally centered perspective.

The experiment involving the adults found a similar relationship between moral identity, ethical behavior and innate aggressiveness. Assertive people who scored low on the moral-identity scale were more likely to say they’d cheated their employer in the past week than more passive types with similar moral-identity scores. But among those with high moral-identity scores, the assertive people were less likely to have cheated.

In sum, the study found, power doesn’t corrupt; it heightens pre-existing ethical tendencies. Which brings to mind another maxim, from Abraham Lincoln: “Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.”

Get the latest Science stories in your inbox.

Boss says, Put that stuff over there. Photo by Ed Hidden/E+ via Getty Images. Model released.

Dacher Keltner Dacher Keltner

Leave your feedback

Copy URL https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/the-science-behind-why-power-corrupts-and-what-can-be-done-to-mitigate-it

The science behind why power corrupts and what can be done to mitigate it

Editor’s Note: For a recent Making Sen$e segment , economics correspondent Paul Solman spoke with Dacher Keltner, a professor of psychology at University of California, Berkeley known for his research on power. His new book is “The Power Paradox: How We Gain and Lose Influence.” In a previous post, Keltner and Paul discussed how people gain power and esteem in the eyes of their peers. Today, Keltner explains the paradox part — why once we gain power, we lose the very skills that got us there and take more than our fair share. You can watch the full report below.

— Kristen Doerer, Making Sen$e Editor

Dacher Keltner: Power, new studies in economics have shown, comes from sharing resources and bringing out the welfare of others. Power comes from a kind of humble language. There are actually new studies showing if you are humble and respectful, people respect you more. So that’s the rise to power. Here’s the problem: When we feel powerful, we have these surges of dopamine going through our brain. We feel like we could accomplish just about anything. That’s where the power paradox begins, which is that very sense of ourselves when feeling powerful leads to our demise, leads to the abuse of power.

Paul Solman: That’s Paul Piff’s experiment that I participated in playing Monopoly . I was simply designated the more powerful person, and I began to behave in relatively anti-social ways.

Dacher Keltner: You’re a special case, Paul…

Paul Solman: But it was true. He was calling me on it, saying, “Look how you’re talking.” I had a sense of that I was going to win the game and that I was stronger than he, all because I got $200 when I passed “Go” and he got $100. It absolutely affected my mood.

Dacher Keltner: This is what’s striking when you bring people into the lab, and you randomly give them power. You say, “You’re in charge,” or in that case with the monopoly game, “You have more money,” or perhaps you get to evaluate other people and allocate rewards. Just the random assignment of power, and all kinds of mischief ensues, and people will become impulsive. They eat more resources than is their fair share. They take more money. People become more unethical. They think unethical behavior is okay if they engage in it. People are more likely to stereotype. They’re more likely to stop attending to other people carefully. It’s just this paradoxical quality of power, which is the good in human nature gets us power, and then power leads to the bad in human nature.

Paul Solman: So power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely?

READ MORE: Why Those Who Feel They Have Less Give More

Dacher Keltner: Well, I think Lord Acton was on to something which is that there are dozens of studies showing who’s more likely to speak rudely within an organization? High power people or low power people? High power people. Who’s more likely to have sexual affairs? High power people or low power people? High power people. Who’s more likely to take more resources that aren’t theirs? High power people. You go down the list. It kind of looks like an absolute story.

Paul Solman: What kinds of studies show that people with more power take a lion’s share of the resources?

Dacher Keltner: That’s where I really began my studies of power, Paul. People have this deep sense of fairness. They really have a preference if people have roughly the same amount. And if you look out in the world, you can’t help but notice that people with power seem to be enjoying more resources right? Wealthy nations eat more of the world’s protein. A lot of people are really concerned about executive compensation. Why should this person make 10 million bucks a year and I make 12 bucks an hour?

And I was thinking about how we demonstrate this in the lab, and so we did this crazy study that gained a lot of traction and has come to be known as the “Cookie Monster Study.” We bring three people to the lab, and we randomly assign one person to the role of leader. We say you’re in charge, and then over the course of the experiment, these three students have to write policies for the university. They bring together facts, they write policies, they submit them, and we gather these written products. Half-way into the experiment, we bring a plate of five delicious chocolate chip cookies. We put them down and that’s actually where the experiment really begins. So everybody takes a cookie. They eat very happily and are grateful for it. All groups leave one cookie on the plate because they don’t like to take that last cookie, because you don’t want to be the person who takes the last piece of food. So the key question is who takes that fourth cookie, and indeed, it’s our person in the position of power who reaches out and grabs the cookie and says that’s mine.

Paul Solman: Is it every time that it’s the leader?

Dacher Keltner: Most of the time. Two-thirds of the time it’s our person in the position of power who unconsciously feels entitled to take more of the sweets. One of my grad student came to me and said, “You know, I’m convinced that they’re eating differently.” So we spent several months coding the videotapes of people eating, and we found our person in power is more likely to eat with their mouths open, limps smacking, crumbs falling down on their sweaters. And that set in motion this whole exploration. And it’s so fundamental. Humans are this balance of impulse and our ego, our sense of morality and our sense of what other people think of us, and power shifts this balance. Suddenly when I feel powerful, I can eat the cookies however I want to. I can swear at my colleagues. I can touch people in a way that feels good to me, but not necessarily worry about how it feels to them. That really set in motion this idea that power leads people to feel entitled to take more resources.

READ MORE: Why the secret to gaining power is different today

Paul Solman: Are there other examples?

Dacher Keltner: One really interesting area of research is work in organizations. We know you create a better team if as a leader you speak in a respectful way. You compliment. You bring out the best, you praise people. You ask good questions. And so researchers have been asking who is more likely to swear in a rude fashion at their work colleagues. And three out of the four acts of rudeness come from people in positions of power in organizations in different sectors. If you’re going to be told you’re an idiot, it’s going to probably come from people in positions of power.

Here’s one of my favorites. I could not believe this finding. Investigators were interested in who’s more likely to shoplift. Shoplifting costs America over $10 billion a year. So the question is who is likely to walk into the store and pocket something that they don’t pay for, and indeed, it is high power, wealthier people who are more likely to shoplift. There are famous car studies with Paul Piff that look at who’s more likely to blaze through a pedestrian zone on the road and think that their time is more important than the safety of the pedestrian? It’s people driving more high power, wealthier cars.

Everywhere you turn, you see this finding that power makes us feel entitled to more.

Watch the viral Making Sen$e report on Paul Piff’s famous car study above.

Paul Solman: So what do you do about it?

Dacher Keltner: I think that that’s the great question of societies. Studies are finding — and it’s very intuitive — that if you make people feel accountable, and you say, “Paul, a committee is evaluating how you allocate these resources,” and you’re in a position of power and now allocate the resources, you become more ethical in how you allocate resources.

Paul Solman: If I think somebody’s watching.

READ MORE: How do humans gain power? By sharing it

Dacher Keltner: Yeah, and the sense of accountability or the sense of being scrutinized is so powerful. All you have to do in studies now is actually place a geometric arrangement of dots, with two dots at the top and the little dot at the bottom, that kind of resembles the human face. If I am have sense of being watched, I become less greedy and less entitled in taking resources in positions of power. Accountability is really important.

Paul Solman: So if you’re the designated leader in some experiment and you’re beginning to lord it over the others, and there’s a picture that has four dots kind of in the array of a face in the room, you’re less likely to do so?

Dacher Keltner: Yes. Let’s say that I’m in an experiment and I have an opportunity to use resources to my benefit to the cost of other people. If I’m simply aware that other people are going to know of my actions, I act in a much more ethical fashion. I avoid the abuses of power. There are studies that show if I have a chance to take resources, and there’s this geometric arrangement of dots that looks like a human face, I take fewer of the resources for myself. I leave more for the public good. It’s very powerful.

There’s a concern right now that the wealthiest in our society are beyond scrutiny. No one even knows who they are, these people making $300 million a year. We don’t know where they live. We don’t know how their wealth generates, and that basic social condition spells trouble, and it spells a greater likelihood for the abuse of power.

As we think about inequality in the United States, one of the really interesting developments is the efforts that have sprung up to scrutinize the people with the most power. The journalist Michael Massing just wrote this nice essay about why there should be journalism about the one percent and what they’re really doing so that we as a country know what they’re doing with the resources and what we can make of it.

Paul Solman: So your belief is that to the extent that there’s journalism about the top 1 percent and how they behave, it will modify their behavior?

Dacher Keltner: Yes. This really interesting new literature shows that when I’m aware of what other people think of me, when I’m aware of my reputation, I cooperate more in economic gains. I am more likely to sign up for environmentally efficient services. I am more likely to pay taxes. Just this sense that my actions are being scrutinized and my reputation is at stake produces better behavior for the public good or the greater good. And I think that one of the ironies is that if we build up more awareness of the most powerful and the sense that their reputations are at stake, they’ll actually engage in more noble actions. They’ll be more giving to society. They’ll feel better about it. There’s a rich literature behind that, and so there are benefits for them as well.

READ MORE: Money can buy happiness, especially when you invest it in others

Dacher Keltner, Ph.D., is the founding director of the Greater Good Science Center and a professor of psychology at the University of California, Berkeley. He is the author of "The Power Paradox: How We Gain and Lose Influence" and "Born to Be Good" and a co-editor of "The Compassionate Instinct."

Support Provided By: Learn more

Educate your inbox

Subscribe to Here’s the Deal, our politics newsletter for analysis you won’t find anywhere else.

Thank you. Please check your inbox to confirm.

SUGGESTED TOPICS
The Magazine
Newsletters
Managing Yourself
Managing Teams
Work-life Balance
The Big Idea
Data & Visuals
Case Selections
HBR Learning
Topic Feeds
Account Settings
Email Preferences

Don’t Let Power Corrupt You

Dacher Keltner

How to rise to the top without losing the virtues that got you there

A paradox of power is that people gain it through virtuous behaviors such as collaboration, openness, fairness, and sharing, but once they enjoy a position of privilege, those finer qualities start to fade. Research shows that the powerful are more likely to engage in rude, selfish, and unethical behavior. This tarnishes their reputations, undermining their influence, and creates stress and anxiety among their colleagues, dragging down their teams’ engagement and performance.

Dacher Keltner, a psychology professor who has studied this phenomenon in a variety of professional settings, describes how executives can avoid succumbing to this syndrome. The first step is developing awareness: being attentive to the feelings that accompany a rise to leadership, practicing mindfulness, and looking for warning signals in your behavior. The second is to remember and try to practice the three ethics of good power—empathy, gratitude, and generosity—in your interactions, meetings, and communications every day.

In the behavioral research I’ve conducted over the past 20 years, I’ve uncovered a disturbing pattern: While people usually gain power through traits and actions that advance the interests of others, such as empathy, collaboration, openness, fairness, and sharing; when they start to feel powerful or enjoy a position of privilege, those qualities begin to fade. The powerful are more likely than other people to engage in rude, selfish, and unethical behavior. The 19th-century historian and politician Lord Acton got it right: Power does tend to corrupt.

Dacher Keltner is a professor of psychology at University of California, Berkeley, and the faculty director of the Greater Good Science Center. He is also the author of The Power Paradox: How We Gain and Lose Influence.

Partner Center

Strategian Science

Cogent – Curated – Updated || Since 1999 || Produced by humans

Corruption and power: the connection

Was Lord Acton right? “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Or, is it more as John Steinbeck described “Power does not corrupt. Fear corrupts… perhaps the fear of a loss of power”?

Is there a connection between having power (in politics, government, business, etc.) and becoming or being corrupt? There seem to be examples all around us and, yet, we also see prominent people who appear not to succumb.

And, what are the effects of power when it comes to recognizing corruption? What about those with little power personally, yet are part of an organization, political party, or other movement which is controlled and run on a power dynamic?

Once we achieve some level of power–whether personally in our lives or at a much higher level–are we destined to lose perspective and become inured or blind to the appearances and effects of corruption?

What does the research say?

** see the most current version of this bibliography at https://sciencebibliographies.strategian.com/corruption-and-power-the-connection/

How Power Corrupts the Mind

Pity the despot.

While at Columbia University, Andy J. Yap set up a simple experiment . After manipulating his subjects into powerful or weak states (in the lab, psychologists are the most powerful ones of all), Yap asked them to guess the height and weight of others both in person and from photographs.

"When people feel powerful or feel powerless, it influences their perception of others," said Yap, who is now a postdoctoral researcher at MIT. According to their understanding, w e judge the power of others relative to our own: When we feel powerful, others appear less so --and powerlessness and smallness often go together in our minds.

It is true that CEOs tend to be taller than the average person, and there are estimates that for each inch a person is above average height, they receive $789 more a year. Sure enough, in the study, the powerful people judged others to be shorter than they really are.

Yap's conclusion nicely illustrates what we've always known anecdotally: Power gets to our heads. A decade of research on power and behavior show there are some predictable ways people react to power, which can be simply defined as the ability to influence others. While power in governments and across the world can come at incredible costs, in a lab, it's surprisingly simple. Asking a person to recall a time he or she felt powerful can get them in the state of mind. There's also the aptly named "dictator game," in which a participant is made powerful by putting them charge of doling out the compensation for another participant.

Researchers have even found you can make someone feel power just by posing them in a dominant, expansive body position. Like athletes, for example: Arms outstretch , back arched . Even blind athletes have been known, upon victory, to strike the same pose . They didn't learn it by seeing anyone do it. There's something fundamental.

Power isn't corrupting; it's freeing, says Joe Magee, a power researcher and professor of management at New York University. "What power does is that it liberates the true self to emerge," he says. "More of us walk around with kinds of social norms; we work in groups that exert all pressures on us to conform. Once you get into a position of power, then you can be whoever you are."

This manifests in several different ways. For one, the powerful are seen to be less likely to take into account the perspective of others. In one experiment participants were primed to feel powerful or not, and then asked to draw the letter "e" on their foreheads. The letter can be drawn so it looks correct to others, or correct to the person drawing. In this case, high-powered people are two to three times more likely to draw an "e" that appears backwards to others. That is, they were more likely to draw a letter that could only be read by themselves.

Power lends the power holder many benefits. Powerful people are more likely to take decisive action. In one simple experiment , it was shown that people made to feel powerful were more likely to turn off an annoying fan humming in the room. Power reduces awareness of constraints and causes people act more quickly. Powerful people also tend to think more abstractly, favoring the bigger picture over smaller consequences. Powerful people are less likely to remember the constraints to a goal. They downplay risks, and enjoy higher levels of testosterone (a dominance hormone), and lower levels of cortisol (a stress hormone).

"People who are given more power in the lab, they see more choice," Magee says. "They see beyond what is objectively there, the amount of choice they have. More directions for what actions they can take. What it means to have power is to be free of the punishment that one could exert upon you for the thing you did." Which paves the way for another hallmark of the powerful--hypocrisy. Our guts are right about this one. On a survey , powerful study participants indicated that they were less tolerant of cheating than the less powerful. But then when given the opportunity to cheat and take more compensation for the experiment, the powerful caved in. The authors explain how these tendencies can actually perpetuate power structures in society:

This means that people with power not only take what they want because they can do so unpunished, but also because they intuitively feel they are entitled to do so. Conversely, people who lack power not only fail to get what they need because they are disallowed to take it, but also because they intuitively feel they are not entitled to it.

Where there's hypocrisy, infidelity seems to follow. While stories of politician infidelity are high profile and more therefore salient -- think Mark Sanford flying to South America to be with a lover while telling aides he was hiking the Appalachian trail, or Arnold Schwarzenegger's secret son -- there is evidence that the powerful are more likely to stray into an affair. In a survey of 1,500 professionals, people higher ranked on a corporate hierarchy were more likely to indicate things like "Would you ever consider cheating on your partner?" on a seven-point scale (this was found true for both men and women). Dishonesty and power go hand-in-hand. In his most recent research, Yap found that just by posing people in the outstretched, power position, they would more likely to take more money than entitled for their time. (Posing like this for two minutes was also found to increase testosterone and lower cortisol hormone levels. So if you want to feel powerful, make yourself big.)

Though it's not that the powerful are bad people. "There is a tendency for people to assume power holders are uncaring, they're cold, they don't care about the little people," says Pamela Smith, a power researcher at the University of California San Diego. But that's not always the case. It depends on who gets the power. "You put someone in an experiment, temporarily, in a high-powered role, and what you find is that people who say they have pro-social values, the more power they have, the more pro-social they are. The people who say they have more self-centered values tend to be more selfish the more power they have."

So what can the most powerful among us do with this information? The researchers I spoke with suggested that it could at least create self-awareness. If we realize, when in power, what it might be doing to our minds, perhaps we can correct ourselves. Perhaps.

About the Authors

Home — Essay Samples — Literature — Macbeth — Corruption Of Power In Macbeth

Corruption of Power in Macbeth

Categories: Macbeth Power

About this sample

Words: 506 |

Published: Mar 13, 2024

Words: 506 | Page: 1 | 3 min read

Cite this Essay

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:

Let us write you an essay from scratch

450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr Jacklynne

Verified writer

Expert in: Literature Life

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 591 words

2 pages / 933 words

4 pages / 1904 words

2 pages / 922 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Macbeth

From the moment Lady Macbeth enters the stage in Shakespeare's iconic play "Macbeth," she exudes a sense of diabolical control that is both mesmerizing and terrifying. With her sharp wit, manipulative tactics, and unflinching [...]

William Shakespeare’s Macbeth is a complex tragedy that explores themes of ambition, power, and the corrupting nature of unchecked desire. One of the most intriguing aspects of the play is the recurring motif of hallucinations [...]

In the realm of Shakespearean tragedies, Macbeth stands out as a quintessential example of a character plagued by flaws that ultimately lead to his downfall. The character of Macbeth is complex and multi-faceted, with a range of [...]

Sleep plays a crucial role in Shakespeare's tragedy, Macbeth. This recurring theme serves as a powerful symbol, highlighting the characters' guilt, redemption, and the consequences of their actions. By analyzing the significance [...]

The complex character of Macbeth, the protagonist in William Shakespeare's play, is a study in the psychology of power, ambition, and the struggle between good and evil. As he grapples with the prophecy of becoming king and the [...]

As the wise philosopher, Xun Kuang once said, “Human nature is evil, and goodness is caused by intentional activity.” This is perfectly exemplified in The Tragedy of Macbeth by William Shakespeare. It thoroughly examines [...]

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

Instructions Followed To The Letter
Deadlines Met At Every Stage
Unique And Plagiarism Free

24/7 writing help on your phone

To install StudyMoose App tap and then “Add to Home Screen”

Power Corrupts and Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely

Save to my list

Remove from my list

Power Corrupts and Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely. (2016, Oct 26). Retrieved from https://studymoose.com/power-corrupts-and-absolute-power-corrupts-absolutely-essay

"Power Corrupts and Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely." StudyMoose , 26 Oct 2016, https://studymoose.com/power-corrupts-and-absolute-power-corrupts-absolutely-essay

StudyMoose. (2016). Power Corrupts and Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely . [Online]. Available at: https://studymoose.com/power-corrupts-and-absolute-power-corrupts-absolutely-essay [Accessed: 13 Sep. 2024]

"Power Corrupts and Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely." StudyMoose, Oct 26, 2016. Accessed September 13, 2024. https://studymoose.com/power-corrupts-and-absolute-power-corrupts-absolutely-essay

"Power Corrupts and Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely," StudyMoose , 26-Oct-2016. [Online]. Available: https://studymoose.com/power-corrupts-and-absolute-power-corrupts-absolutely-essay. [Accessed: 13-Sep-2024]

Power Corrupts And Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely Politics Pages: 4 (1109 words)
Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely In Orwell's Novels Pages: 5 (1488 words)
The Differences Between an Absolute and a Non-Absolute Ruler and Whether a State Can Function Under Both Types of Rule Pages: 2 (575 words)
Figures Of Authority And Power Corrupts In The Crucible By Arthur Miller Pages: 4 (999 words)
We Have the Absolute Power Over any Animal Pages: 6 (1516 words)
Unveiling the Power Dynamics: Exploring Absolute Monarchy's Historical Legacy Pages: 2 (547 words)
Role Of Code-Switching in Mother Tongue And The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian Pages: 7 (1967 words)
The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian: Background and Main Characters Pages: 3 (687 words)
Arnold Spirit Jr Perfect Role Model And Guide In Sherman Alexie Young Adult Novel The Absolutely True Diary Of A Part-Time Indian, Pages: 4 (962 words)
The Absolutely True Diary Of a Part-Time Indian By Sherman Alexie: Depiction Of Native American Culture, Society, And History Pages: 5 (1247 words)

Power Corrupts and Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely essay

👋 Hi! I’m your smart assistant Amy!

Don’t know where to start? Type your requirements and I’ll connect you to an academic expert within 3 minutes.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
Commun Integr Biol
v.16(1); 2023
PMC10461512

On power and its corrupting effects: the effects of power on human behavior and the limits of accountability systems

Tobore onojighofia tobore.

Independent Scholar, Yardley, PA, USA

Power is an all-pervasive, and fundamental force in human relationships and plays a valuable role in social, political, and economic interactions. Power differences are important in social groups in enhancing group functioning. Most people want to have power and there are many benefits to having power. However, power is a corrupting force and this has been a topic of interest for centuries to scholars from Plato to Lord Acton. Even with increased knowledge of power’s corrupting effect and safeguards put in place to counteract such tendencies, power abuse remains rampant in society suggesting that the full extent of this effect is not well understood. In this paper, an effort is made to improve understanding of power’s corrupting effects on human behavior through an integrated and comprehensive synthesis of the neurological, sociological, physiological, and psychological literature on power. The structural limits of justice systems’ capability to hold powerful people accountable are also discussed.

1. Introduction

Scholars across different disciplines have tried to define power [ 1 ]. It has been defined as having the potential to influence others or having asymmetric dominion over valuable resources in a social relationship [ 2 , 3 ]. It has also been defined as the capacity of people to summon means and resources to achieve ends [ 1 ]. In addition, it has been described as having the disposition and means to asymmetrically impose one’s will over others and entities [ 4 ]. Taken together, power can be defined as being able to influence others due to asymmetric dominion of resources, the capability to summon means to achieve ends, and being able to impose one’s will over others and entities. Power is an all-pervasive and fundamental force in human relationships and plays a valuable role in social, political, and economic interactions [ 4 ]. It plays an important role in many aspects of human life, from the workplace, and romantic relationships, to the family [ 5 , 6 ]. Power is dynamic, and it resides in the social context, and should the social context change, power relations tend to change as well [ 1 ]. There are different types of power and their effective utility lies within a limited range [ 7 ].

Power differences within groups enhance group functioning by promoting cooperation [ 8 ], creating and maintaining order, and facilitating coordination [ 9 ]. Most people want to have power and there are many benefits to having power. People desire power to be masters of their own lives and to have greater autonomy over their fate [ 10 , 11 ]. Position in the dominance hierarchy is correlated with both general and mental health [ 12 ] and associated with reproductive access, grooming from others as well as preferential food and spaces [ 13 ]. Elevated power promotes authentic self-expression [ 14 ], reduced anger, greater happiness, and positive emotions/mood [ 5 ]. In contrast, low power is associated with negative emotions (discomfort and fear) [ 15–17 ], increased stress, and alcohol abuse [ 18 ].

Evolutionarily, dominance and perceptions of power cues are associated with body size. Indeed, social status can be attained through two pathways: prestige or dominance [ 13 ]. Height is positively related to dominant status [ 19 ]. High-status prestigious and dominant individuals tend to be judged as taller, and taller individuals as higher in prestige and dominance [ 20 ]. Also, dominant high-status people tend to be judged as more well-built, and more well built individuals as dominant [ 20 ]. Power and status (i.e., respect and admiration) represent different dimensions of social hierarchy but are positively correlated [ 21 ]. Power is causally connected to status because power can lead to the possession of status and status can result in the acquisition of power [ 21 ]. Power from social status is a central and omnipresent feature of human life and they are both correlated in terms of control of institutions, political influence, material resources, and access to essential commodities [ 22 , 23 ]. From an evolutionary perspective, high status is sought because reproductively relevant resources, including territory, food, mating opportunities, etc. tend to flow to those high in status compared to those low in status [ 24 ].

Having power affects the human body physiologically, neurologically, and psychologically. Power is linked with neurological alterations in the brain. Indeed, power triggers the behavioral approach system [ 2 , 25 ] while powerlessness undermines executive functioning [ 17 ]. Low social power state compared to high or neutral power is associated with significantly reduced left-frontal cortical activity [ 26 ]. Animals research suggests that dominance status modulates activities in dopaminergic neural pathways linked with motivation [ 27 , 28 ] and the amygdala and dopaminergic neurons play a major in responding to social rank (an individual’s social place as either subordinate or dominant in a group), and hierarchy signals [ 29 ]. Brain recordings indicate that loss of social status induces negative reward prediction error which via the lateral hypothalamus triggers the lateral habenula (anti-reward center), inhibiting the medial prefrontal cortex [ 30 ]. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), observing a powerful individual differentially engaged the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, regions related to the amygdala (emotional processing), medial prefrontal cortex (social cognition) indicating a neural processing of social ranking and status in humans [ 31 , 32 ]. Furthermore, using fMRI, perceived social status was found to differentially modulate ventral striatal responses when processing social rank cues or status-related information [ 33 ]. Results from fMRI indicate that low social status is associated with diminished gray matter size in the perigenual area of the anterior cingulate cortex, which is associated with adaptive physiological, emotional, and behavioral reactions to psychosocial and environmental stressors [ 34 ]. Approach related motivation is linked to increased left-sided frontal activity in the brain, and the neural evidence of the relationship between approach related motivation and power was confirmed using EEG, which found that elevated power is connected with increased left-frontal activity in the brain compared to low power [ 35 ].

Also, power is linked with endocrinal and physiological changes. Testosterone increases dominance and other status-seeking behaviors [ 36 , 37 ] and this effect of testosterone on dominant behavior may be modulated by psychological stress and cortisol [ 38 ]. High testosterone has been identified as a factor that promotes the development of the socially destructive component of narcissism in powerholders [ 39 ], and power interacts with testosterone in predicting corruption [ 40 ]. Posing in high-power nonverbal displays causes physiological changes including increased feelings of power, a decrease in cortisol, increases in testosterone, and increased tolerance for risk compared to low-power posers [ 41 ]. Animal studies indicate that low social rank or subordination promotes stress activating the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) and may modulate the brain’s dopaminergic function [ 42 ]. Multiple lines of evidence suggest that tryptophan enhances dominant behavior indicating that serotonin may promote dominance in humans [ 43 , 44 ]. Furthermore, results from experiments suggest that high social power elicits a benign cardiovascular response suggestive of a well-ordered cardiovascular pattern while low social power elicits a maladaptive cardiovascular response pattern which is suggestive of an inefficient cardiovascular pattern [ 45 ]. Power holders who may lose their privileged position displayed a maladaptive cardiovascular pattern, marked by low cardiac output (CO) and high total peripheral resistance which is suggestive of feeling threatened [ 46 ]. Evidence suggests that higher social status is associated with approach-type physiology compared to lower social status [ 47 ].

Power has a monumental effect on the behavior of the powerholder [ 2 , 48 ]. The corrupting effect of power is well known and has been a topic of interest for centuries to scholars. Plato advocated for the exclusion from office with consequential power, individuals who may misuse power for self-serving reasons, and only those with a well-developed sense of justice be allowed to wield power [ 49 ]. In recent decades, the corruption cases involving CEOs of large corporations, entrepreneurs, politicians, and autocrats/dictators have sparked both scholars’ and public interest in the corrupting effects of power [ 50–55 ] and this has triggered significant research into the effects of power on human behavior. Still, the full extent of power’s effect on behavior is not well understood. The monumental role that power plays in human interactions and life makes the need to better understand its effect on behavior both in powerholders and subordinates extremely important.

The objective of this paper is to elucidate the many corrupting effects of power or the need for power on human behavior as well as the structural limits of systems to hold powerholders accountable.

2. The corrupting effects of power or the need for power on human behavior

2.1. power is addictive.

There is evidence of addiction to the power derived from celebrity and fame [ 56 ]. The addictive effect on the powerholder promotes the need to engage in efforts to hold on to and accumulate power [ 57–59 ]. Aging, envy, and fear both conscious and unconscious of retaliation for previous acts may contribute to power’s addictiveness [ 58 ]. Efforts to hold on to power perpetually play a key in the practice of nepotism, factional struggle by powerful elites, cronyism, and dynastic succession [ 60–62 ].

Power abuse disorder has been coined as a neuropsychiatry condition connected to the addictive behavior of the power wielder [ 63 ]. Arguments have been made on the relationship between power addiction and dopaminergic alterations [ 63 ]. Indeed, changes in the dopaminergic system have been implicated in drug addiction [ 64 ] and research on animals suggests that dominance status modulates activity in dopaminergic neural pathways linked with motivation [ 27 , 28 ]. Evidence suggests that areas of the brain linked with addiction including the amygdala and dopaminergic neurons play a major in responding to social rank, and hierarchy signals [ 29 ]. Multiple lines of evidence from animal studies indicate that dopamine D2/D3 receptor density and availability is higher in the basal ganglia, including the nucleus accumbens, of animals with great social dominance compared to their subordinates [ 28 , 65 , 66 ]. Animal studies suggest that following forced loss of social rank, there is a craving for the privileges of status, leading to depressive-like symptoms which are reversed when social status is reinstated [ 30 , 67 ].

2.2. Power promotes self-righteousness, moral exceptionalism, and hypocrisy

Research indicates that powerful people are more likely to moralize, judge, and enforce strict moral standards on others while engaging in hypocritical or less strict moral behavior themselves [ 68 ]. In other words, powerful people often act and speak like they are sitting on the right hand of God to others especially subordinates while engaging in even worse unethical behavior. Being in a position of power with the discretion to apply punishment or reward to others allows the powerholder the freedom to do as they like or act inconsistently in so far as it serves their interests. This means powerholders are in a position to not necessarily practice what they preach with little or no consequences. Furthermore, being in a position to judge or take punitive action against others for their perceived moral failings may promote a false sense of moral superiority. This self-righteousness can create a misguided sense of probity and messianic zeal which can lead to poor decisions and outcomes. One takeaway from the relationship between power, self-righteousness, and hypocrisy is that power inhibits self-reflection or introspection.

This moral exceptionalism and hypocrisy also exist at the national and international levels. Powerful Western nations typically moralize and lecture about the rule of law, ethics, and democracy to other nations while hypocritically violating the same rules when it suits them or supporting allies that flagrantly violate the same rules [ 69–72 ].

Furthermore, mob action whether virtual or not is usually triggered by perceived injustice, a violation of societal norms, and unfair practices in the criminal justice system that undermine public institutional trust and confidence [ 73–76 ]. Placing wrongdoing on someone puts them (the wrongdoer) in a weaker power position socially which makes them vulnerable. With the power dynamics or balance tilted in the mob’s favor, the perceived injustice or wrongdoing envelopes the mob in an umbrella of sanctimony empowering them to act with impunity, and vigilantism by engaging in moral denunciations, bullying, destruction of property, and even lynching and other forms of violence toward the wrongdoer [ 77–79 ].

2.3. Power decreases empathy and compassion

Power decreases empathic concern [ 80 ] and is associated with reduced interpersonal sensitivity [ 81 ]. Research indicates that powerholders may experience less distress and less compassion as well as exhibit greater autonomic emotion regulation when faced with the pain of others [ 82 ]. Evidence indicates that elevated power impedes accurate understanding of other people’s emotional expressions [ 9 , 83 ] and is linked with poorer accuracy in emotional prosody identification than low power [ 84 ]. Elevated power is associated with heightened interest in rewards while low power is associated with increased attention to the interest of others [ 2 , 48 , 85 ].

Using transcranial magnetic stimulation, motor resonance which is the activation of similar brain pathways when acting and when observing someone act, implemented partly by the human mirror system was decreased in high-power holders relative to low-power holders [ 81 ]. Evidence suggests a linear relationship between the motor resonance system and power in which increasing accumulation of power is connected to decreasing levels of resonance [ 81 ]. This change might be one of the neural mechanisms that underlie power-induced asymmetries in social interactions [ 81 ].

Also, higher socioeconomic status is associated with reduced neural responses to the pain of others [ 86 , 87 ]. In contrast, a lower socioeconomic level is associated with higher compassion, being more attuned to the distress of others [ 88 , 89 ] and more empathically correct in evaluating the emotions of other people [ 90 ] compared to upper-socioeconomic class. High status is associated with exhibiting less communal and prosocial behavior and decreased likelihood of endorsing more egalitarian life goals and values compared with those with low status [ 91 ]. In addition, higher-class people are more likely to endorse the theory that social class is steeped in genetically based (heritable) innate differences than lower-class people and display reduced support for restorative justice [ 92 ].

2.4. Power promotes disinhibited behavior and overconfidence

Elevated power is associated with disinhibited behavior, increased freedom, and heightened interest in rewards while low power is associated with inhibited social behavior [ 2 , 48 , 85 ]. Power is associated with optimism and riskier behavior [ 93 ] and it enhances self-regulation and performance [ 94 ]. It energizes, speech, thought, and action and magnifies confidence, and enhances self-expression [ 14 , 25 ]. Power elevates self-esteem and impacts how people evaluate and view themselves in comparison to others [ 25 , 95 ]. Elevated power particularly in narcissistic individuals results in significant overconfidence compared to individuals in a low state of power [ 96 ].

Power increases the illusion of control over outcomes that are outside the reach of the powerholder [ 97 ]. It distorts impressions of physical size with the powerful exaggerating their height and feeling taller than they actually are [ 98 ], underestimating the size of others, and the powerless overestimating the size of others [ 99 ].

2.5. Power promotes unethical behavior and entitlement

Power promotes feelings of entitlement [ 100 ] and powerholders are not often cognizant of their violation of basic fairness principles [ 25 ]. Evidence from experiments using fMRI indicates that power promotes greed by increasing aversion to receiving less than others and reducing aversion to receiving more than others [ 101 ]. Powerholders, particularly pro-self-individuals, displayed decreased response in the right and left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, indicating a weaker restrain of self-interest when processing receiving more than others [ 101 ]. The need for power is significantly and positively correlated with narcissism [ 102 , 103 ]. Power amplifies the tendency of self-focused goals to result in self-interested behavior [ 104 ] and may cause people to act unethically in their self-interest [ 50–52 , 105 ]. Powerful people tend to move in the same circles, giving them access, and increased likelihood of having relationships with other powerful people and these relationships may foster unethical behaviors including quid pro quo, nepotism/favoritism, cronyism, mutual protection against threats, ignoring or bypassing of due process, conflict of interests and corruption.

Physical attractiveness influences people’s social evaluations of others and attractive people enjoy benefits in terms of perceived good health, power, economic advantage, confidence, trust, perceived intelligence, and popularity [ 106–112 ]. Research suggests that the power of perceived attractiveness is associated with increased self-interested behavior and psychological entitlement [ 113 ]. Furthermore, power gained from improved physical appearance/attractiveness, increased attention, improved self-image, and self-confidence following bariatric surgery weight loss is linked to increased separation/divorce [ 114–116 ]. This suggests that power from improved physical appearance and attention following bariatric surgery may promote entitlement, narcissism, and self-interested behavior.

Power makes powerholders feel special, invincible, and above the rules. Indeed, car cost predicts driver yielding to pedestrians with more expensive car drivers less likely to yield to pedestrians at a crosswalk [ 117 ]. While driving, individuals of higher-class are more likely to break the law compared to lower-class individuals and are more likely to cheat and lie and display unethical decision-making tendencies than lower-class individuals [ 118 ].

2.6. Power promotes aggressive and dehumanizing behavior

Power promotes dehumanization, which is the process of rejecting essential components of “humanness” in others and seeing them as animals or objects [ 119 , 120 ] while powerlessness leads to self-dehumanization [ 121 ]. Power promotes the objectification of others [ 122 ] and increases the tendency to disparage and engage in harmful behavior toward others including bullying, autocracy, and manipulation [ 123–125 ].

Also, elevated power is associated with manipulative and contemptuous behavior toward people with low power by devaluing their worth [ 126 ]. It is associated with demeaning, and dehumanizing behavior toward others with low power, with more power resulting in more demeaning behavior [ 127 , 128 ]. Notably, individuals in high power but lacking in status (e.g., prison guards, soldiers) display increased interpersonal conflict and demeaning behaviors [ 127 , 129 ]. Furthermore, research indicates that a powerholder’s threat assessment elicits escalation or confrontational behaviors toward subordinates and de-escalation or submissive behaviors toward higher-status or dominant superiors [ 130 ]. In defense of their ego, power coupled with feelings of incompetence can promote aggressive behavior [ 131 ].

One key reason for the emergence of this demeaning and dehumanizing behavior of powerful people is their false sense of superiority over individuals with low power. This is reinforced by the excessive praise and groveling of subordinates and the fact they are they have the authority to impose negative consequences on others, and few are bold enough to challenge them out of fear of retaliation. This feeling or sense of superiority is particularly more pronounced in an environment where there is little to no oversight over their behavior, and it can gradually divorce them from reality. Jokes that were once considered mundane or innocuous before they acquired power or accumulated more power are suddenly perceived as insults. Anyone who dares to argue for a different position, especially one that suggests incompetence, is perceived as a threat that needs to be eliminated.

Moreover, experimental evidence indicates that asymmetric power differences can promote extortionary [ 132 ] and exploitative behaviors [ 133 ]. The power asymmetry between human traffickers and the young, vulnerable people they exploit explains the sense of entrapment of survivors, why the traffickers can engage in dehumanizing and demeaning behavior, violence, and forced labor with impunity, without any sense of guilt, remorse, or regard for the welfare of the trafficked individuals [ 134–136 ]. The power asymmetry between police officers and vulnerable people in their community (e.g., sex workers, the homeless, marginalized people, and minorities) explains to some extent the increased likelihood of police abuse toward members of those communities [ 137–139 ]. There are many stories of seemingly normal people enslaving and using violence against their maids [ 140 , 141 ]. Usually, people who become trapped in these situations are foreigners with no legal documentation or with legal papers connected to their work for that employer. The significant asymmetric power difference between the employer and the maid makes the maid vulnerable to abuse. Anyone in the position of employer can easily become abusive toward the vulnerable maid in an environment where negative consequences for their actions are nonexistent.

This same power asymmetry which may lead to bullying, intimidation, and exploitation can be observed between nation-states. Just like individuals, as disparities in economic and military power widen between countries, the larger and more powerful states may engage in bullying neighboring states through trade and other means including threats of war if they act outside of ways the more powerful nations prefer.

2.7. Power sexualizes social interactions

Power is linked with sex [ 142 ]. It elicits romantic desire from individuals of the opposite sex [ 143 ] and may play an important role in sexual objectification [ 144 , 145 ]. Evidence suggests that subordinates view their leaders as significantly more physically attractive [ 146 ] and power increases expectations of sexual interest from subordinates biasing social judgment and sexualizing social interactions which might lead to sexual harassment [ 147 ].

Power is positively associated with sexual infidelity because of its disinhibiting effects on behavior and increased self-confidence to attract partners [ 148 , 149 ]. Its disinhibiting effect also amplifies the appetite for both normative or counter-normative forms of sexuality and makes powerful men seem more desirable and attractive which may increase their access to potential sexual opportunities [ 148 ]. Power asymmetry between educators and students increases the potential for sexual misconduct and abuse [ 150–153 ].

Boundary setting, vigilance, and regular training for teachers and organizational supervisors on the sexualizing effect of power on social interactions should be put in place to reduce the incidence of sexual harassment and inappropriate relationships.

2.8. Power hinders perspective taking and cooperation

Low power is associated with increased cooperation [ 154 ] while elevated power may hinder perspective-taking [ 83 ] and increase the preference for the preservation of psychological distance from people with low power [ 126 , 155 ]. An fMRI study showed that powerholders display reduced neural activation in regions associated with cognitive control and perspective-taking (frontal eye field and precuneus) [ 101 ]. Results from electroencephalogram (EEG) suggest that power taints balanced cooperation by reducing the power holder’s motivation to cooperate with subordinates [ 156 ]. Also, power reduces conformity to the opinion of others [ 9 , 157 ] and is associated with discounting advice, due to overconfidence [ 158–160 ] as well as being less trusting [ 161 ] and this can hamper cooperation.

2.9. Power, judgment bias, and selective information processing

Power promotes the need for less diagnostic information about others and increases vulnerability to using preconscious processing and stereotypical information about others [ 162–165 ]. It increases implicit prejudice (racial bias) and implicit stereotyping [ 166 , 167 ]. Evidence suggests that elevated power is associated with automatic information processing, while low power is associated with restrictive information processing [ 2 , 48 , 85 ]. Power modulates basic cognition by promoting selective attention to information and suppressing peripheral information [ 168 ]. Results from an experiment found that neural activity in the left inferior frontal gyrus, an area linked with cognitive interference, was diminished for individuals with elevated power relative to those with low power suggesting that elevated power may reduce cognitive interference [ 169 ].

Elevated power promotes social attentional bias toward low-power holders [ 170 ]. It also promotes self-anchoring attitudes, traits, and emotions which is the use of the self as the gold standard or reference point for evaluating or judging others [ 171 ]. In other words, for powerful people good or bad traits and attitudes are viewed using themselves as a reference without regard for the individuality of others. Power modulates the process of making tough decisions [ 172 ] and it is associated with excessive confidence in judgment which may turn out to be less accurate [ 158–160 ].

2.10. Power confers credibility

Credibility carries power and power confers credibility relative to those with less power [ 173 , 174 ]. The claims or assertions of a person with power or high status are typically treated with respect. In contrast, the claims of individuals at the lower end of the power structure are often doubted until investigated, and that is if anyone even bothers to investigate thoroughly and fairly. Consider the Filipino maid working in Kuala Lumpur, the Ethiopian or Indian lady working as a maid somewhere in the Middle East, or the young girl from Calabar working as a maid for a rich family in Lagos. Typically, maids depend on their employers not just for housing and food, but for their immigration status as well. Who will believe her if she accuses her boss of sexual assault or if her boss falsely accuses her of stealing? Similarly, if a police officer, particularly one with an unblemished record, plants drugs on an ex-convict, who is going to believe the ex-convict? The more he protests, the guiltier he appears.

In the workplace, the significant power asymmetry between an employee and their supervisor gives their supervisor significant credibility. A report from a supervisor, whether true or false, carries considerable weight because of the credibility they automatically have relative to their employee.Disturbingly, the supervisor’s powers do not end within the four walls of the organization; employers at other organizations may depend on the assessment and opinion of the supervisor to pass judgment on a person without any regard for the possibility of their prejudice.

2.11. Power and victimhood

Not all victims are after power but being a victim can come with significant power [ 175–179 ]. Victims are seen as socially and morally superior and deserving of social deference [ 180 , 181 ]. Victimhood proffers psychological and social benefits and allows one to achieve greater social or political status [ 181 , 182 ]. This makes victimhood attractive.

The need for power significantly predicts competitive victimhood, which is a tendency to see one’s group as having dealt with more adversity relative to an outgroup [ 177–179 ]. Victims, especially those who appear weak or who are lower in the power structure, are seen as needing protection. In contrast, the accused are seen as aggressive and dangerous. The power derived from victimhood can be misused, and many people employ it for retribution. Being a victim or feeling wronged may result in a sense of entitlement and selfish behavior [ 182 ].

While it is important to protect victims in all cases, care must be taken to ensure that negative consequences are not applied reactionarily to the accused. Negative actions taken against the accused before a fair and thorough investigation is conducted make the exploitation of victimhood attractive. Even if the allegations are proven to be false, public outrage and adverse opinion can lead to irreparable reputational damage and financial loss. The noble pursuit of an equal and fair society must never blind us to the dangers posed by the exploitation of the power of victimhood to elicit outrage and pursue retribution.

2.12. Power and gossip

Gossip tends to be negative, and people engage in it for many reasons including for socializing, to gain influence and power, due to perceptions of unfairness, feelings of envy, jealousy, and resentment, to get moral information, creation and maintenance of in-groups and out-groups, indirect aggression, and social control [ 183–186 ]. Gossip has self-evaluative and emotional consequences [ 187 ].

Spreading gossip can be an effort to exercise power [ 188 ]. Lateral gossip or gossip between peers of similar power can help people get information and support from others. However, upward gossip which is gossip with people in higher power who have formal control over resources and the means to take action may be used by those in lower power to inform and thereby gain or exert influence [ 189 ]. Reputation and gossip are intertwined, and gossip can be used for status enhancement and wielded as a weapon against others [ 190 ].

The need for power may cause people to engage in gossiping and a person with a listening and believing audience of one has the power to destroy another person’s reputation and adversely affect their life.

2.13. Power and ambition

Ambition, defined as the persistent or relentless striving for success, attainment, and accomplishment or a yearning desire for success that is committedly pursued [ 191 ], is crucial to success in diverse social contexts. Ambition is positively associated with educational attainment, high income, occupation prestige, and greater satisfaction with life [ 192 , 193 ]. Power and ambition are inextricably linked because people with power and those who aspire for power are typically very ambitious. Ambition is critical in acquiring, accumulating, and retaining power.

Ambition, while critical to being successful [ 193 , 194 ] and an immensely powerful motivator, can also be a potent self-destructive tool and a vice that may cause people to inflict suffering on others in the pursuit of personal glory and gains [ 191 ]. Overreaching ambition breeds greed and can quickly slip into dishonesty [ 195 , 196 ]. Ambition and greed encourage both destructive competition and acquisitiveness as a way to affirm superiority over others [ 197 ]. Excessive ambition can be a curse as it can lead to extremism due to obsessive passion [ 198 ] and make people feel dissatisfied even with their accomplishments because their desires are insatiable or can never be fully achieved [ 191 , 199 ]. Ambition can make a person falsely believe that they are special, destined for greatness, or cut from a different cloth. While this feeling can be helpful in the pursuit of seemingly challenging goals, it can lead to unethical behavior [ 195 , 200 ].

In efforts to retain power and status, ambition can make people abuse power and for those trying to acquire power, it can make them go to extra lengths without regard for the negative consequences. Indeed, excessive ambition in powerful people or excessive ambition for power, fame, and prestige can blur the lines of acceptable behavior, and when those lines are crossed, it can result in actions that are fraudulent, illegal, and catastrophic [ 53 , 201–204 ]. Ambition can cause a person to act recklessly by exaggerating both reality and possibilities, as well as by downplaying important risks that may prove fatal. When people begin to see the end goal as the only thing that matters, they cut corners, and lose sight of ethics and the monumental danger their actions pose to others. In line with the dangers of ambition, Machiavelli argued that ambition and greed are the causes of chaos and war [ 197 ].

3. Power, and the structural limits of accountability systems

In most social systems, people who are lower in the power structure can only get misconduct addressed by a third party that has some power to punish, hold accountable, or overturn the judgment imposed by the powerholder. For example, an employee with allegations of wrongdoing by their manager, who is the CEO or President of the organization may not be able to hold them accountable within the organization. Their case may be best addressed by the court system, a third party with the authority to hold the organization accountable. Seeking fair redress or accountability within the organization can be difficult or even impossible because those in power are not motivated to change their behavior. So, unless the employee is willing to take their case to court (or another authority with a similar power to hold the employer accountable, like the press), there may not be a way for them to seek redress. Unfortunately, a third party is often not present, and even if one exists, it may not be impartial or easily accessed by people lower in the power structure.

Furthermore, there is a limit to the number of third parties or higher authorities in any social system for seeking redress. At some point, there must be a supreme authority whose ruling is final and irreversible. In a nation-state, the final authority may be the apex or Supreme Court. In sports, a ruling body makes final decisions. In the global arena, international courts have the final say against individuals or nations that violate relevant laws. Importantly, if the judgment of the top authority is incorrect or unjust, the only option is to accept the ruling until the issue is revisited. Also, the higher you must go in efforts to seek redress for wrongdoing, the less accessible it is for people who are lower in the power structure, and the fewer cases that are worthy of being taken on. These obstacles mean that many cases of power abuse go unchecked, unfair judgments are often passed, and miscarriages of justice occur at all levels. In addition, falsehoods about people and events sanctioned or protected by the powerful are carried as truth into posterity.

So, the means for holding accountable or checking the actions of the powerful by those with low power are limited not just by corruption and problems of access but by the structural limits of accountability/justice systems.

4. Discussion

The role of power in our lives is all-pervasive, and complex, and its effects extend to both intentional and unintentional acts of the powerholder [ 4 ]. The current review is different from previous works and contributes significantly to our understanding of power because of its extensiveness and broad synthesis of the literature on power from a wide range of disciplines including biology, neuroscience, psychology, behavioral sciences, sociology, and anthropology. One key lesson from this work is that the effects of power extend beyond the behavioral changes that are visible as power interacts with the neurological, neuroendocrine, psychological, and physiological processes of the power holder.

As noted in Figure 1 , power can dramatically change ordinary people’s behavior causing them to abuse it thereby making cumulative small mistakes that reach a dangerous threshold or a single significant mistake that ultimately leads to their loss of power. The narcissist personality model described in Figure 2 is different from the classical Model (Non-narcissist). The grandiose narcissist is assertive and extraverted and distinguished by their sense of entitlement, overconfidence, high self-esteem, feelings of personal superiority, self-serving exploitative behavior, impulsivity, a need for admiration and dominance, and aggressive and hostile behavior when threatened or challenged [ 205–208 ]. Grandiose narcissists are more likely to seek and achieve positions of power in organizations [ 209–213 ], but they are more likely to abuse their power, pursue their interests at the expense of the organization [ 207 , 214–217 ], disregard expert advice causing them to make poor decisions [ 205 ].

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is KCIB_A_2246793_F0001_OC.jpg

Classical process of power corrupting behavior leading to power loss.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is KCIB_A_2246793_F0002_OC.jpg

Narcissist model of power corrupting behavior leading to power loss.

Another key takeaway from this paper is that no human being is completely immune to the corrupting effects of power. Results from a lab experiment suggest that power amplifies people’s dispositions in which powerful people with a firm moral identity are less likely to act in self-interest relative to those with a shaky moral identity [ 105 ]. One argument against the conclusions of this experiment is that power roles in lab experiments typically do not involve consequential outcomes or real decisions [ 4 ] and may not translate to power experiences in the real world [ 5 ]. Furthermore, the effects of power may change when it involves genuine interpersonal interactions compared to the arbitrary assignment into power groups, hypothetical scenarios, or anticipated interactions, as in a lab [ 5 ]. Another argument against this conclusion is the evidence that the virtue of honesty may not protect powerful people from the corruptive effect of power (Bendahan et al., 2015), Even with a strong moral identity, exposure to cash can provoke unethical intentions and behavior [ 218 ]. Even with a strong moral identity, it is still possible that in the presence of a threat to ego or power, seemingly good people with power can abuse power by acting aggressively [ 104 , 131 , 219 ]. Evidence suggests that in efforts to avoid a status or power loss powerful people may be willing to use coercion and go extra lengths even at others ‘expense [ 104 , 219 , 220 ]. Also, appetitive aggression, the nature of lust for violence, is an innate part of human behavior [ 221 ] and humans by nature have a high propensity for proactive aggression, a trait possessed in common with chimpanzees [ 222 ]. Indeed, human hands are evolved for improved manual dexterity and to be used as a club during fighting [ 223 ]. The neurobiology of human aggressive behavior has been extensively studied and includes alterations in brain regional volumes, metabolism, and connectivity in certain neural networks. Subregions of the prefrontal cortex, amygdala, insula, hippocampus, and basal ganglia play a critical role within these circuits and are linked to the biology of aggression [ 224 ]. So, while there are individual differences in propensity to abuse power including the use of violence and aggression [ 225 ], the monumentally corrupting effects of power can ensnare anyone. Taken together, when it comes to power, there are no good or bad people, there are only people.

Organizational social hierarchies play an important role in power abuse. Power hierarchies and pyramidal forms of leadership are integral aspects of social organizations to help create stability and order, but they attract narcissistic individuals [ 226 ] and can be harmful [ 227 ]. In many cases, these hierarchical structures can perpetuate power differences, creating bureaucratic conditions where there are strictly defined roles, with their distinction and importance overstressed. Being an individual with low power in such an environment can be challenging because of powerlessness and powerlessness can lead to self-dehumanization and feelings of worthlessness [ 121 ]. Such an environment can also stymie creativity, particularly for people with low power. Indeed, several lines of evidence indicate that power increases creativity [ 155 , 157 , 228 , 229 ]. However, when the power hierarchy is not fixed, people with low power display a flexible processing style and greater creativity [ 230 ]. So, organizations need to use a mixed model of classical hierarchy that incorporates flat hierarchy as much as possible to ensure that all members feel empowered and have a strong sense of belonging. Notably, an environment where people with low power feel empowered may result in decreased temporal discounting and increased lifetime savings [ 231 ]

It is important to note that there are some valid explanations for some of the behavior that powerholders display. Indeed, powerful people may pay less attention and be more vulnerable to stereotyping because they are attentionally overloaded leading to scarce cognitive resources [ 4 , 163 ]. Power is associated with a greater feeling of responsibility, and this may explain to some extent why it is associated with reduced social distance [ 5 ] Also, there are conflicting reports in the literature regarding the corrupting effect of power on behavior. Power used corruptly may play a vital role in maintaining cooperation in human society [ 8 , 232 ]. Power may not promote intransigence instead it can create internal conflict and dissonance leading to a change in attitude [ 157 ]. Instead of creating social distance, elevated power has been found to be associated with attentiveness in interacting with other people and greater feelings of being close to them relative to low power [ 5 ]. Experimental evidence suggests that high power is associated with more interpersonal sensitivity than low power [ 233 ]. Furthermore, high-status individuals have been found to display more prosocial behavior and to be more generous, trusting, and trustworthy compared to low-social-status individuals [ 234 ]. Power has been found to have no effects on attraction to rewards, which runs counter to the approach/inhibition theory that suggests that power enhances individuals’ interest in rewards [ 235 ]. Also, experimental evidence indicates that power under certain circumstances can result in less risky or more conservative behavior [ 236 ]. These findings indicate that more studies are needed to better understand the effects of power using better experiment designs with larger samples and more real-world studies. It also indicates that power abuse mitigating factors can play a critical role in curbing the corrupting effects of power.

The keys to maintaining and being effective with legitimate power are understanding its corrupting effects, continued relatability, collaboration, respect for peers and subordinates, and humility, which is predictive of positive outcomes [ 237 ]. The corrupting effect of power makes the need for checks and balances important to ensure the proper functioning and success of all individuals of a social group. One of the ways of mitigating power abuse is the consideration of predispositions, proper vetting to select ethical candidates, and training to increase social responsibility in people appointed to positions of power [ 25 ]. Organizational culture can play an important role in mitigating power abuse as it can shape and nurture power holders through values and culture that link power with being responsible [ 238 ]. Appropriate negative consequences must be put in place to deter the abuse of power. More must be done in the selection and training of individuals with power over highly vulnerable people with low power from abuse e.g., children, the institutionalized, etc. Physicians have power over patients in many respects [ 239 , 240 ] and the trend toward shared decision-making [ 241 ] must be strengthened using medical education training of physicians in the appropriate use of power and enactment of patient-centered therapeutic communications [ 242 ]. Boundary setting, vigilance, and regular training for teachers and organizational supervisors on the sexualizing effect of power on social interactions should be put in place to reduce the incidence of sexual harassment and inappropriate relationships. To mitigate the negative effects of the structural limits of accountability systems, allegations of wrongdoing by the powerful should be treated seriously and everyone particularly those in the lower power structure should be guaranteed access and resources to a fair and impartial higher authority for addressing wrongdoing without fear of retaliation. The allowance and development of a robust civil society that can leverage the power of peaceful protests to bring about change are crucial to pushing back on the excesses of power. The continued promotion of universal human rights and the creation of international institutions that hold powerful people accountable for blatant abuse of power is another important tool to deter and reduce the incidence of blatant abuses of power. In the international arena, laws and governing bodies must protect smaller nations from bullying, intimidation, and threats from larger and more powerful nations.

Finally, while intoxicating, power is fleeting, and it goes around. A person with immense power today may be lacking in power tomorrow. In the same vein, a person with little relevance today could ascend to a position of great power tomorrow. This should serve as a warning to everyone with power: always treat others with dignity, respect, and compassion, regardless of their current place in the power structure. As they say, the future is pregnant, and no one knows exactly what it will deliver.

Funding Statement

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Disclosure statement

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Greater Good Science Center • Magazine • In Action • In Education

The Power Paradox

“It is much safer to be feared than loved,” writes Niccolò Machiavelli in The Prince , his classic 16th-century treatise advocating manipulation and occasional cruelty as the best means to power. Almost 500 years later, Robert Greene’s national bestseller, The 48 Laws of Power , would have made Machiavelli’s chest swell with pride. Greene’s book, bedside reading of foreign policy analysts and hip-hop stars alike, is pure Machiavelli. Here are a few of his 48 laws:

Law 3, Conceal Your Intentions. Law 6, Court Attention at All Costs. Law 12, Use Selective Honesty and Generosity to Disarm Your Victims. Law 15, Crush Your Enemy Totally. Law 18, Keep Others in Suspended Terror.

You get the picture.

Guided by centuries of advice like Machiavelli’s and Greene’s, we tend to believe that attaining power requires force, deception, manipulation, and coercion. Indeed, we might even assume that positions of power demand this kind of conduct—that to run smoothly, society needs leaders who are willing and able to use power this way.

As seductive as these notions are, they are dead wrong. Instead, a new science of power has revealed that power is wielded most effectively when it’s used responsibly by people who are attuned to, and engaged with the needs and interests of others. Years of research suggests that empathy and social intelligence are vastly more important to acquiring and exercising power than are force, deception, or terror.

This research debunks longstanding myths about what constitutes true power, how people obtain it, and how they should use it. But studies also show that once people assume positions of power, they’re likely to act more selfishly, impulsively, and aggressively, and they have a harder time seeing the world from other people’s points of view. This presents us with the paradox of power: The skills most important to obtaining power and leading effectively are the very skills that deteriorate once we have power.

The power paradox requires that we be ever vigilant against the corruptive influences of power and its ability to distort the way we see ourselves and treat others. But this paradox also makes clear how important it is to challenge myths about power, which persuade us to choose the wrong kinds of leaders and to tolerate gross abuses of power. Instead of succumbing to the Machiavellian worldview—which unfortunately leads us to select Machiavellian leaders—we must promote a different model of power, one rooted in social intelligence, responsibility, and cooperation.

Myth number one: Power equals cash, votes, and muscle

The term “power” often evokes images of force and coercion. Many people assume that power is most evident on the floor of the United States Congress or in corporate boardrooms. Treatments of power in the social sciences have followed suit, zeroing in on clashes over cash (financial wealth), votes (participation in the political decision making process), and muscle (military might).

But there are innumerable exceptions to this definition of power: a penniless two year old pleading for (and getting) candy in the check-out line at the grocery store, one spouse manipulating another for sex, or the success of nonviolent political movements in places like India or South Africa. Viewing power as cash, votes, and muscle blinds us to the ways power pervades our daily lives.

New psychological research has redefined power, and this definition makes clear just how prevalent and integral power is in all of our lives. In psychological science, power is defined as one’s capacity to alter another person’s condition or state of mind by providing or withholding resources—such as food, money, knowledge, and affection—or administering punishments, such as physical harm, job termination, or social ostracism. This definition de-emphasizes how a person actually acts, and instead stresses the individual’s capacity to affect others. Perhaps most importantly, this definition applies across relationships, contexts, and cultures. It helps us understand how children can wield power over their parents from the time they’re born, or how someone—say, a religious leader—can be powerful in one context (on the pulpit during a Sunday sermon) but not another (on a mind numbingly slow line at the DMV come Monday morning). By this definition, one can be powerful without needing to try to control, coerce, or dominate. Indeed, when people resort to trying to control others, it’s often a sign that their power is slipping.

This definition complicates our understanding of power. Power is not something limited to power-hungry individuals or organizations; it is part of every social interaction where people have the capacity to influence one another’s states, which is really every moment of life. Claims that power is simply a product of male biology miss the degree to which women have obtained and wielded power in many social situations. In fact, studies I’ve conducted find that people grant power to women as readily as men, and in informal social hierarchies, women achieve similar levels of power as men.

So power is not something we should (or can) avoid, nor is it something that necessarily involves domination and submission. We are negotiating power every waking instant of our social lives (and in our dreams as well, Freud argued). When we seek equality, we are seeking an effective balance of power, not the absence of power. We use it to win consent and social cohesion, not just compliance. To be human is to be immersed in power dynamics.

Myth number two: Machiavellians win in the game of power

One of the central questions concerning power is who gets it. Researchers have confronted this question for years, and their results offer a sharp rebuke to the Machiavellian view of power. It is not the manipulative, strategic Machiavellian who rises in power. Instead, social science reveals that one’s ability to get or maintain power, even in small group situations, depends on one’s ability to understand and advance the goals of other group members. When it comes to power, social intelligence—reconciling conflicts, negotiating, smoothing over group tensions—prevails over social Darwinism.

For instance, highly detailed studies of “chimpanzee politics” have found that social power among nonhuman primates is based less on sheer strength, coercion, and the unbridled assertion of self-interest, and more on the ability to negotiate conflicts, to enforce group norms, and to allocate resources fairly. More often than not, this research shows, primates who try to wield their power by dominating others and prioritizing their own interests will find themselves challenged and, in time, deposed by subordinates. ( Christopher Boehm describes this research in greater length in his essay .)

In my own research on human social hierarchies, I have consistently found that it is the more dynamic, playful, engaging members of the group who quickly garner and maintain the respect of their peers. Such outgoing, energetic, socially engaged individuals quickly rise through the ranks of emerging hierarchies.

Why social intelligence? Because of our ultrasociability. We accomplish most tasks related to survival and reproduction socially, from caring for our children to producing food and shelter. We give power to those who can best serve the interests of the group.

Time and time again, empirical studies find that leaders who treat their subordinates with respect, share power, and generate a sense of camaraderie and trust are considered more just and fair.

Social intelligence is essential not only to rising to power, but to keeping it. My colleague Cameron Anderson and I have studied the structure of social hierarchies within college dormitories over the course of a year, examining who is at the top and remains there, who falls in status, and who is less well-respected by their peers. We’ve consistently found that it is the socially engaged individuals who keep their power over time. In more recent work, Cameron has made the remarkable discovery that modesty may be critical to maintaining power. Individuals who are modest about their own power actually rise in hierarchies and maintain the status and respect of their peers, while individuals with an inflated, grandiose sense of power quickly fall to the bottom rungs.

So what is the fate of Machiavellian group members, avid practitioners of Greene’s 48 laws, who are willing to deceive, backstab, intimidate, and undermine others in their pursuit of power? We’ve found that these individuals do not actually rise to positions of power. Instead, their peers quickly recognize that they will harm others in the pursuit of their own self-interest, and tag them with a reputation of being harmful to the group and not worthy of leadership.

Cooperation and modesty aren’t just ethical ways to use power, and they don’t only serve the interests of a group; they’re also valuable skills for people who seek positions of power and want to hold onto them.

Myth number three: Power is strategically acquired, not given

A major reason why Machiavellians fail is that they fall victim to a third myth about power. They mistakenly believe that power is acquired strategically in deceptive gamesmanship and by pitting others against one another. Here Machiavelli failed to appreciate an important fact in the evolution of human hierarchies: that with increasing social intelligence, subordinates can form powerful alliances and constrain the actions of those in power. Power increasingly has come to rest on the actions and judgments of other group members. A person’s power is only as strong as the status given to that person by others.

The sociologist Erving Goffman wrote with brilliant insight about deference—the manner in which we afford power to others with honorifics, formal prose, indirectness, and modest nonverbal displays of embarrassment. We can give power to others simply by being respectfully polite.

My own research has found that people instinctively identify individuals who might undermine the interests of the group, and prevent those people from rising in power, through what we call “reputational discourse.” In our research on different groups, we have asked group members to talk openly about other members’ reputations and to engage in gossip. We’ve found that Machiavellians quickly acquire reputations as individuals who act in ways that are inimical to the interests of others, and these reputations act like a glass ceiling, preventing their rise in power. In fact, this aspect of their behavior affected their reputations even more than their sexual morality, recreational habits, or their willingness to abide by group social conventions.

In The Prince, Machiavelli observes,

“Any man who tries to be good all the time is bound to come to ruin among the great number who are not good. Hence a prince who wants to keep his authority must learn how not to be good, and use that knowledge, or refrain from using it, as necessity requires.” He adds, “A prince ought, above all things, always to endeavor in every action to gain for himself the reputation of being a great and remarkable man.” By contrast, several Eastern traditions, such as Taoism and Confucianism , exalt the modest leader, one who engages with the followers and practices social intelligence. In the words of the Taoist philosopher Lao-tzu , “To lead the people, walk behind them.” Compare this advice to Machiavelli’s, and judge them both against years of scientific research. Science gives the nod to Lao-tzu.

The power paradox

“Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely,” said the British historian Lord Acton . Unfortunately, this is not entirely a myth, as the actions of Europe’s monarchs, Enron’s executives, and out-of- control pop stars reveal. A great deal of research—especially from social psychology—lends support to Acton’s claim, albeit with a twist: Power leads people to act in impulsive fashion, both good and bad, and to fail to understand other people’s feelings and desires.

For instance, studies have found that people given power in experiments are more likely to rely on stereotypes when judging others, and they pay less attention to the characteristics that define those other people as individuals. Predisposed to stereotype, they also judge others’ attitudes, interests, and needs less accurately. One survey found that high-power professors made less accurate judgments about the attitudes of low-power professors than those low-power professors made about the attitudes of their more powerful colleagues. Power imbalances may even help explain the finding that older siblings don’t perform as well as their younger siblings on theory-of-mind tasks, which assess one’s ability to construe the intentions and beliefs of others.

Power even prompts less complex legal reasoning in Supreme Court justices. A study led by Stanford psychologist Deborah Gruenfeld compared the decisions of U.S. Supreme Court justices when they wrote opinions endorsing either the position of a majority of justices on the bench—a position of power—or the position of the vanquished, less powerful minority. Sure enough, when Gruenfeld analyzed the complexity of justices’ opinions on a vast array of cases, she found that justices writing from a position of power crafted less complex arguments than those writing from a low-power position.

A great deal of research has also found that power encourages individuals to act on their own whims, desires, and impulses. When researchers give people power in scientific experiments, those people are more likely to physically touch others in potentially inappropriate ways, to flirt in more direct fashion, to make risky choices and gambles, to make first offers in negotiations, to speak their mind, and to eat cookies like the Cookie Monster, with crumbs all over their chins and chests.

Perhaps more unsettling is the wealth of evidence that having power makes people more likely to act like sociopaths. High-power individuals are more likely to interrupt others, to speak out of turn, and to fail to look at others who are speaking. They are also more likely to tease friends and colleagues in hostile, humiliating fashion. Surveys of organizations find that most rude behaviors—shouting, profanities, bald critiques—emanate from the offices and cubicles of individuals in positions of power.

My own research has found that people with power tend to behave like patients who have damaged their brain’s orbitofrontal lobes (the region of the frontal lobes right behind the eye sockets), a condition that seems to cause overly impulsive and insensitive behavior. Thus the experience of power might be thought of as having someone open up your skull and take out that part of your brain so critical to empathy and socially-appropriate behavior.

Power may induce more harmful forms of aggression as well. In the famed Stanford Prison Experiment , psychologist Philip Zimbardo randomly assigned Stanford undergraduates to act as prison guards or prisoners—an extreme kind of power relation. The prison guards quickly descended into the purest forms of power abuse, psychologically torturing their peers, the prisoners. Similarly, anthropologists have found that cultures where rape is prevalent and accepted tend to be cultures with deeply entrenched beliefs in the supremacy of men over women.

This leaves us with a power paradox. Power is given to those individuals, groups, or nations who advance the interests of the greater good in socially-intelligent fashion.

Yet unfortunately, having power renders many individuals as impulsive and poorly attuned to others as your garden-variety frontal lobe patient, making them prone to act abusively and lose the esteem of their peers. What people want from leaders—social intelligence—is what is damaged by the experience of power.

When we recognize this paradox and all the destructive behaviors that flow from it, we can appreciate the importance of promoting a more socially-intelligent model of power. Social behaviors are dictated by social expectations. As we debunk long-standing myths and misconceptions about power, we can better identify the qualities powerful people should have, and better understand how they should wield their power. As a result, we’ll have much less tolerance for people who lead by deception, coercion, or undue force. No longer will we expect these kinds of antisocial behaviors from our leaders and silently accept them when they come to pass.

We’ll also start to demand something more from our colleagues, our neighbors, and ourselves. When we appreciate the distinctions between responsible and irresponsible uses of power—and the importance of practicing the responsible, socially-intelligent form of it—we take a vital step toward promoting healthy marriages, peaceful playgrounds, and societies built on cooperation and trust.

About the Author

Dacher Keltner

Uc berkeley.

Dacher Keltner, Ph.D. , is the founding director of the Greater Good Science Center and a professor of psychology at the University of California, Berkeley. He is the author of The Power Paradox: How We Gain and Lose Influence and Born to Be Good , and a co-editor of The Compassionate Instinct .

You May Also Enjoy

Power Sickness

Burdens of Power

The psychology of power, little dictator.

Outstanding! I found this article thanks to Bob Sutton posting it on Twitter, and I’m glad I did. I would offer that even the “new” definition of power, “one’s capacity to alter another’s condition… by providing or withholding resources” still conflates power and force. I would offer that, particularly in the social interactions, power is indeed one’s ability to alter another’s condition, but it arises (as much of the article goes on to argue) almost entirely as the gift of the other.

The reason why bosses in particular go bad, in my opinion, is that they mistake the force that their position grants them as power granted them by their subordinates. Disaster follows, typically first for the subordinates.

Many thanks for this excellent article.

Jonathan Magid | 3:11 pm, September 18, 2010 | Link

Great, i am happy to know about this article, thanks to Dan Rockwell who post it on twitter.

Let me articulate the issue this way, I think Machiavellian leaders use the same definition of power you stated here, however the difference lies in the socially intelligent, respectful, high self esteem subordinates who will rank those leaders low once they discover their Machiavellian intentions, but by maintaining ignorant, low self esteem, irresponsible group of followers the Machiavellian leader maintains his/her position.

In the new organizations where leaders are chosen and expected to lead intelligent group, the Machiavellian leaders will not hold on long, the group power will change their position for the greater good of the ones who assigned them.

Perhapse, this is the reason why Machiavellian leaders survived, the solution lies in educating ourselves as you said not to accept them, not to tolerate their potential harm to the group.

Thanks a lot Dacher for the great article, Huda

Huda | 1:07 am, September 19, 2010 | Link

Brilliant insights Dacher. I’ve consistently found that power and leadership are best wielded by people who are self-aware and understand how to help others grow and succeed. When we let go of our need to appear a certain way or dominate others we can then focus on helping others shine. We then gain more respect and actual power (over ourselves and in collaboration with others). As you’ve so ably noted, the less we seek power the more we receive.

Guy Farmer | 2:28 pm, September 19, 2010 | Link

Great article! Thanks for the mindful insights.

Paul Rudolf Seebacher | 1:40 pm, October 5, 2010 | Link

I was wondered! You open my eyes. But is your article mean that power branch “searches” people who was damaged by the experience of power? Thank you Andrey Irkutsk (East Siberia)

Andrey | 8:51 am, October 19, 2010 | Link

Brilliantly put. Many of us waste our resources in the early stages of our career, forgetful that the race is won by the staying power of the runners! And succeed with staying power ones is required to have mastered socially-intelligent, humility and passion. Indeed what we you about the pursuit of power, particularly if you are thinking about power at the dictatorial level or becoming a leader, is that you have to have a clear, relentless focus, and you have got to stay focused and attending on your target for quite a long period of time. Yet much of the old research indicates that there is a very profound gender difference in the ability to maintain focus and concentration, to the extent that one gender clearly is unable to maintain focus and attention at the requisite level, which has led to some psychologists to say that one gender – perhaps should not be doing certain professions which require concentration and focus – a line of though which is very controversial idea indeed in society today! So Dr. Dacher, by inserting social intelligence at centre of power-play she has armed those seeking leadership with a perfect arsenal on how to best wield power in a manner that is more humane –helping other to grow and help themselves to succeed!

thanks for the article…..........

S. Luwemba Kawumi | 6:32 am, November 30, 2010 | Link

Not being armed with the data from the various studies, I found two glaring problems: 1- While I find the empathy argument interesting and likely true (plus strangely intuitive, which the author says it isn’t), this seems to have a scale component the author doesn’t acknowledge. The kind of empathy derived power acquisition only seems to work in the small scale. Go to a much larger scale, say nationally, then the Machiavellian model seems more operational. Take the Republican party; they get and keep power by getting people to vote against their own interests by all kinds of Machiavellian manipulations. Personally, I maintain this is the only way for them to hold power given their specific public policy advocacy. They have gotten the masses to abandon rationality, really brilliant, actually.

2- The author doesn’t mention how those in power can keep it in an information vacuum. I think of the City Council in my town of Emeryville and the lack of a newspaper here. The entrenched council majority seems to use both Machiavellian techniques and the more empathy centered ones in their day to day expression of power. This is how they depose challengers I’ve found but come election time, it’s the general population’s lack of information that works to their advantage.

Brian Donahue | 8:40 am, January 27, 2011 | Link

thanks for this great informative post i appreciate it.

xenki | 4:59 pm, February 21, 2011 | Link

The Stanford study has interesting implications about power abuse. It is no surprise when there is such a divergent power base as in this study between guards and inmates acted out by students how quickly the power paradox is acted out. Great article look forward to reading more in the future.

Carl | 8:17 pm, February 22, 2011 | Link

Upon a second reading, I think the author’s conceits suffer from a need to posit a new angle on this age old problem (hence it’s too academic). It seems to fill a need in the reader to see a greater justice; one levied by an invisible force, at play.

Brian Donahue | 11:08 pm, February 22, 2011 | Link

Ask the chinese people if lao tzu and confucianism proved to be more effective than a strong armed government body. Consider “the Ocean people” and all of their exploitation of the modest philosophy of the chinese rulers during the colonial periods. No, China is becoming a force on this planet again and I daresay it’s partly because they’ve pushed aside their confucian roots and become more machiavellian. Other than that small issue, great article. Really makes you think.

steve | 12:31 pm, December 18, 2011 | Link

The myths the author debunks and the alternatives he proposes may be the ideal, but in reality, power has largely been seized and maintained by the 5 laws listed at the beginning of the article. Even in the USA, the most powerful democratic country in the world, one may identify from the public record where presidents have used some or all of the “laws” at some point.

John Wong | 12:42 pm, July 12, 2012 | Link

My daughter was looking for some useful article for her school project. I referrred yourblog to her. She found it very useful.

Design Inspiration | 9:35 am, December 14, 2012 | Link

Writing Get your essay and assignment written from scratch by PhD expert

Rewriting: Paraphrase or rewrite your friend's essay with similar meaning at reduced cost

Editing: Proofread your work by experts and improve grade at Lowest cost

Enter phone no. to receive critical updates and urgent messages !

Error goes here

Please upload all relevant files for quick & complete assistance.

New User? Start here.

Absolute Power Corrupts Essay

Table of Contents

Introduction

Human beings are always after gaining power and getting recognitions. Power and authority give them the right to do things which they may not get permission for. People get power either by going after short cuts or by their own labour. The more a person becomes powerful, the more he or she loses moral senses. Although it is not true for most of the people, most of the powerful people of the world have the tendency of misusing their power. There are people who lose humanity and only live for their selfish needs after they gain power. Power makes a person blind to feelings.

Lord Acton who was a British politician said that “Absolute power corrupts absolutely” in the 19 th century. He gave this statement as he was inspired by several writers who shared this view before him. Previously, the world was ruled by the monarchs. They used to enjoy the absolute power and took power away from the people. Several Roman empires considered themselves gods. Similarly, there are several examples from around the world where rulers declared themselves as gods and treated the people according to their wishes. They were not accountable to the people for whatever they did. For them, gods do not have to explain their actions.

Lord Acton mentioned this opinion in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton in 1887. He wrote in the letter that power corrupted people and absolute power ensured that a person became a corrupt. Acton added that great tend to become bad men. Absolute power corrupts the mind of the people who have it. Such powerful people start to think that they are invincible and that no law or entity can stop them from doing whatever they want to do. They are very selfish and always prioritize their wishes and dreams before the others. These strong people can harm anyone for their selfish gains.

Slaves working under such powerful and corrupt leaders suffer the most. They are not given freedom and they are exploited beyond their potential. The slaves year for freedom and when they get it after years of struggle, they understand the value of true freedom. The quotation given by Sir Acton is not just a quotation but a reality which only rulers and the suppressed can understand. The feeling of having the absolute power makes people think that no one can harm them and take any action against them. These authoritative people think that no one can topple them. They like playing with the lives of everyone.

Lord Acton realized in the 19 th century that most of the time it was the political and religious leaders that became corrupt because of having absolute power. Therefore, in his letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton, he said that similar moral standards should be applicable on political and religious leaders. In the present world, it is the political and religious leaders who have the most following. They control their followers and have the capacity to influence them with their absolute power and make them do wrong things. These leaders use their followers to achieve their interests. They do not regret to spoil the lives of their followers.

In the letter which Lord Acton wrote to Bishop Mandell Creighton, he criticized a statement put out by him where he said that the Pope and the King should be treated differently from the general public. He said that people having absolute power must be held accountable for their actions. Acton was right as whatever takes place in the society it was because of some decisions taken by the people in authority. These authoritarian people implement their own wishes through these decisions. They do not use the power to serve the people but to serve themselves. These people cling on to their power by hook or crook.

Lord Acton mentions in the letter that people with absolute power must own their actions. He called for legal actions if the powerful do not come forward and own their actions if they have committed any mistake. However, this seldom happens as the powerful blame others for the mistakes they have committed. Acton says that great men are bad most of the time as they have the tendency of exercising their influence instead of authority. These powerful people get involved in corruption as they think that no action will be taken against them. They are not harmed as they are influential.

The society witnesses this phenomenon when the powerful get busy of setting a wrong example where the dignity of their offices are compromised. The corrupt actions of the powerful affect the teachings of Catholicism and the principles of Liberalism. Acton points out in his letter to the Bishop that common people get serious punishments for their crimes but these punishments are not given to the people who enjoy absolute power. It is only the people who are from the lower class who are punished because of their class background. That is why Acton speaks of maintaining equal moral standards around all the classes.

The letter was sent to the Bishop by Lord Acton because he was an influential religious leader who spoke in support of the rulers and the religious leaders. Urgent essay Writing service the letter to the Bishop was an honest effort by Lord Acton to show the real mirror to the Bishop. People who came across this letter endorsed the expressions put forward by Acton. People who want to change the system become politicians but later, too much power corrupts them and they become corrupt individuals. They stop talking about the power and instead get busy filling their coffers. This tendency was mentioned by Lord Acton in his letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton.

The corrupting influence of absolute power transcends centuries, evident in historical emperors viewing themselves as gods and modern leaders exploiting their authority for personal gain. An analysis essay delving into this enduring pattern sheds light on the inherent dangers of unchecked power. For assistance in crafting a compelling analysis essay, consider seeking specialized guidance, such as Analysis Essay Help , to navigate the complexities of power dynamics across different eras.

List Of Few Topics On Absolute Power Corrupts Essay

The concept of absolute power and its effects on individuals and society
The role of power in shaping human behavior and morality
The relationship between power and corruption
Examples of individuals who have been corrupted by absolute power
The psychological effects of holding absolute power
The historical origins of the concept of absolute power
The political implications of absolute power
The impact of absolute power on social structures and institutions
The dangers of concentrated power in the hands of a few individuals or groups
The role of checks and balances in preventing corruption caused by absolute power
The effects of absolute power on the economy
The consequences of unchecked power for the rule of law and justice
The relationship between power and accountability
The role of power in fostering or preventing social inequality
The impact of absolute power on human rights and civil liberties
The role of power in shaping public opinion and media
The role of power in shaping foreign policy and international relations
The psychological effects of being powerless in the face of absolute power
The impact of absolute power on the environment
The role of power in shaping cultural norms and values
The link between absolute power and totalitarianism
The effects of absolute power on individual decision making
The role of power in promoting or hindering social change
The role of power in shaping gender roles and relations
The impact of absolute power on personal relationships
The relationship between absolute power and violence
The role of power in promoting or hindling social mobility
The effects of absolute power on creativity and innovation

Hi, I am Mark, a Literature writer by profession. Fueled by a lifelong passion for Literature, story, and creative expression, I went on to get a PhD in creative writing. Over all these years, my passion has helped me manage a publication of my write ups in prominent websites and e-magazines. I have also been working part-time as a writing expert for myassignmenthelp.com for 5+ years now. It’s fun to guide students on academic write ups and bag those top grades like a pro. Apart from my professional life, I am a big-time foodie and travel enthusiast in my personal life. So, when I am not working, I am probably travelling places to try regional delicacies and sharing my experiences with people through my blog.

How to write an essay

Essay format

Essay structure

Essay structure guide
Essay outline
Essay title
Essay introduction
Topic sentence
Transition sentences
Essay conclusion
How to make an essay longer
Short essay
150 words essay
200 word essay
250 word essay
How many pages is 1000 words essay
1400 word essay
2000 word essay
5 paragraph essay
10 page essay
100 page essay

Essay topics

How to revise an essay, essay hooks.

Get original papers written according to your instructions and save time for what matters most.

Got a Scoop?
Arts & Entertainment
Santa Barbara Live Music Venues
Food & Drink
Real Estate
Indy Parenting
Cover Stories
Santa Barbara Green Guide
Classifieds
Create Event

Book Review | ‘Corruptible: Who Gets Power and How It Changes Us’ by Brian Klaas

A Study of Power Dynamics and What They Can Lead To and Why

Santa Barbara Doctor and Artist Collaborate on New Book

Book Review | ‘The Freaks Came Out to Write: The Definitive History of The Village Voice, the Radical Paper That Changed American Culture’ by Tricia Romano

Jenna Tico Survives Her Twenties

Recent News

Shelby Property Owners Sue City of Goleta over Right to Pursue Builder’s Remedy Housing Project

Former Teacher Charged with Child Molestation and Electronic Peeping Fails to Appear in Court

Santa Barbara Woman Identified in Recent Death at Stearns Wharf

Santa Barbara Driver in Fatal Cliff Drive Hit-and-Run Faces Felony Charges, Civil Suit

San Marcos High School Put on Lockdown over Suspected Gun Threat

Bishop Diego Cruises to Sweep of Cate in Tri-Valley League Opener

Kai Mault Explodes for Three Touchdowns in Santa Barbara’s 28-21 Victory Over Moorpark

Santa Barbara’s Soul Bites Looks to Raise $30,000 by Monday to Stay Open

‘The Doctrine of Recovery’ Set for Santa Barbara Premiere at the Marjorie Luke Theatre on September 15

How to Stagecoach

Get news in your inbox.

Please note this login is to submit events or press releases. Use this page here to login for your Independent subscription

Username or Email Address

Remember Me

Not a member? Sign up here.

Share full article

Supported by

Jamelle Bouie

What Really Matters Is How Presidents Think About Power

The Resolute desk, with an empty brown chair, in the Oval Office of the White House.

By Jamelle Bouie

Opinion Columnist

The American presidency is a strange office.

It is the most powerful elected position in the world. To hold the position is to lead a nation of more than 330 million people with a vast and intricate government that touches every aspect of daily life. You are responsible for trillions of dollars in spending, and you must manage the actions of countless civil servants, from your direct appointees — who number in the thousands — to their underlings. You wield the full might of the American military and have direct access to a device that could, with the press of a few keys, end life as we know it.

From the moment you open your eyes to begin a new day to the moment you close them for a few hours of slumber, your conscious mind is occupied by an endless storm of crises and concerns. You decide which need your direct attention and which can go to the relevant aide or secretary. You must find the time — your most precious resource — to plan, prioritize and categorize the problems and opportunities that come your way. And you will be judged for the success or failure of your administration on any number of issues — whether or not you were responsible, whether or not you had any control over them.

The buck, after all, has to stop somewhere.

But here is where it gets strange. All that power comes with limits so hard that it can feel, at times, like you don’t have any at all. You can spend only what Congress allows you to spend. You have discretion to execute the law, but that can be curbed, even erased, by a vote of the Supreme Court.

There are things you can do by fiat — otherwise known as executive orders — but those can be overturned by a court or reversed by the next administration or resisted outright by hostile state governments. Lasting change, if that’s what you want, requires a vote of the legislature, which is to say that you have to put your goals in the hands of people who may not have your interests in mind, whether or not you share the same party. You can be a towering figure abroad — leading the nations of the free world in a crusade against aggression — and a fumbling, even weak one at home. Our constitutional order may be unbalanced, with an executive and judiciary whose influence seems to outstrip that of the legislature, but the checks and balances that do exist can still stymie the plans of an ambitious president.

Those of us who observe and study American politics are more than aware of all this when we try to analyze and explain a given president. But rarely does the reality of the office ever factor into our quadrennial struggle over which man or woman will hold it.

Consider the most recent presidential debate . The moderators, David Muir and Linsey Davis of ABC News, pressed the candidates, Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, on a wide range of policy questions. Topics included the economy, inflation, immigration, border security, the war in Ukraine and Israel’s war in Gaza. The moderators — perhaps following the concerns of undecided voters who say they want more specificity — scrutinized the candidates on their plans and, when appropriate, asked for details.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber? Log in .

Want all of The Times? Subscribe .

IMAGES

Absolute power essay
(PDF) “Power corrupts“ revisited: The role of construal of power as
Power Corrupts and Absolute Power Corrupts Essay Example
Power and Corruption Essay plan
Power Corrupts And Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely Politics Free
Past years question

VIDEO

Redrum (THRASH) Power Corrupts
POWER CORRUPTS AND ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTELY
Power Corrupts: Tom's Journey from Hero to Villain 🐱👑

COMMENTS

Why Power Corrupts
"Power tends to corrupt," said Lord Acton, the 19th-century British historian. "Absolute power corrupts absolutely." ... The researchers had some participants write an essay recalling an ...
Power Corrupts Essay
Power Corrupts Essay. People want power because it gives them control and dominance over others. Power gives the person who has it the ability to do whatever they want, say whatever they want and make people do what they want. In the play The Crucible by Arthur Miller the whole plot revolves around the theme of power.
The science behind why power corrupts and what can be done to ...
Dacher Keltner: Power, new studies in economics have shown, comes from sharing resources and bringing out the welfare of others. Power comes from a kind of humble language. There are actually new ...
Don't Let Power Corrupt You
Don't Let Power Corrupt You. Summary. A paradox of power is that people gain it through virtuous behaviors such as collaboration, openness, fairness, and sharing, but once they enjoy a position ...
Does Power Corrupt?: [Essay Example], 594 words GradesFixer
One of the most famous examples of power corrupting is the case of Lord Acton's famous quote, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." This assertion suggests that as individuals or groups gain more power and face fewer constraints, their moral and ethical values may erode. They may become more inclined to engage in ...
Absolute Power Corrupts Essay
Absolute power corrupts absolutely in many ways. Firstly, having too much power could change your actions in many ways. Secondly, having a lot of power could also change your thoughts or ways of thinking.Thirdly, it can also get out of hand or out of control if you have too much power. Some people,with too much power, use it to do bad things.
On power and its corrupting effects: the effects of power on human
2.2. Power promotes self-righteousness, moral exceptionalism, and hypocrisy. Research indicates that powerful people are more likely to moralize, judge, and enforce strict moral standards on others while engaging in hypocritical or less strict moral behavior themselves [Citation 68].In other words, powerful people often act and speak like they are sitting on the right hand of God to others ...
Power Corrupts, but Control Does Not: What Stands Behind the Effects of
Nevertheless, holding a high position is associated not only with personal control but also with the ability to exert power over others, which tends to have negative effects on social relations. Interestingly, in Study 3, position seemed to more strongly predict perceptions of power than those of personal control.
Corruption and power: the connection
The personalized power concept relates to using power to pursue self‐centered goals for one's own benefit, whereas the socialized power concept relates to using power to pursue other‐focused goals for benefiting and helping others. Three studies were conducted to explore the effect of these two types of power concepts on corrupt intention ...
Essay On Power Corrupt Corruption
Essay On Power Corrupt Corruption. 989 Words4 Pages. Power Really Does Corrupt Those Who Have It Many use the word "corruption" but don't know what it means. Corruption is dishonest behavior by those in power, and this happens more than one would think. Power isn't a bad thing to have, most people want to have power, although when some ...
How Power Corrupts the Mind
Power reduces awareness of constraints and causes people act more quickly. Powerful people also tend to think more abstractly, favoring the bigger picture over smaller consequences. Powerful ...
Corruption Of Power In Macbeth: [Essay Example], 506 words
Corruption of Power in Macbeth. William Shakespeare's play, Macbeth, is a timeless exploration of the corrupting influence of power. Throughout the play, the main character, Macbeth, is consumed by his ambition and desire for power, leading him to commit heinous acts that ultimately result in his downfall. In this essay, we will examine the ...
Power Corrupts and Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely
Essay, Pages 6 (1487 words) Views. 2532. "Power damages and absolute power corrupts definitely." Over the centuries, this popular stating voiced by Lord Action has actually been evaluated and dissected various times by historians and thinkers. Some people state that power does not corrupt, it only attracts the corruptible.
Power Corrupts Essays
Animal Farm "Power Corrupts" Essay Throughout the history of mankind dominance is seen as power, however, when a person gains this power they tend to abuse it. This is boiled down into one basic concept, power corrupts. George Orwell's allegorical novel, "Animal Farm" published on August 7, 1945, is a perfect example of the corruption ...
Power Corrupts And Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely Politics Essay
Historian Lord Actons warned that power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This particular statement applies to individuals, institutions, and governments and is as applicable today as it was when he said it in 1887 (Aziz, 2011). The word power is often times defined as the possession of control or command over others ...
On power and its corrupting effects: the effects of power on human
2.1. Power is addictive. There is evidence of addiction to the power derived from celebrity and fame [].The addictive effect on the powerholder promotes the need to engage in efforts to hold on to and accumulate power [].Aging, envy, and fear both conscious and unconscious of retaliation for previous acts may contribute to power's addictiveness [].
Power Corrupts: A Biography of Lord Acton
Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." ... , The History of Freedom and Other Essays (1907), Historical Essays and Studies (1908) and Lectures on the French Revolution (1910), followed by Selections from the Correspondence of the First Lord Acton (1917). ...
Does Power Corrupt Everyone Equally?
While this is certainly a valuable lesson, I believe another crucial variable at play—rarely mentioned by commentators of the prison experiment or even in psychology textbooks—is the person. Yes, power corrupts. But power does not corrupt everyone equally. There's no way the small group of participants in the Stanford Prison Experiment ...
Power Corrupts Essays (Examples)
In Animal Farm, it is difficult to identify a single protagonist because both Snowball and Napoleon play a protagonist.... View our collection of power corrupts essays. Find inspiration for topics, titles, outlines, & craft impactful power corrupts papers. Read our power corrupts papers today!
The Power Paradox
The Power Paradox. True power requires modesty and empathy, not force and coercion, argues Dacher Keltner. But what people want from leaders—social intelligence—is what is damaged by the experience of power. By Dacher Keltner | December 1, 2007. "It is much safer to be feared than loved," writes Niccolò Machiavelli in The Prince, his ...
Absolute Power Corrupts Essay
For assistance in crafting a compelling analysis essay, consider seeking specialized guidance, such as Analysis Essay Help, to navigate the complexities of power dynamics across different eras. List Of Few Topics On Absolute Power Corrupts Essay. The concept of absolute power and its effects on individuals and society
Book Review
Brian Klaas, author of Corruptible: Who Gets Power And How It Changes Us, spent a decade studying the dynamics of power and why it leads some people to become tyrannical, cruel and corrupt. A political scientist and professor of global politics at University College London, Klaas criss-crossed the globe in search of answers to four main ...
What Does Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely Mean?
Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely Meaning. Definition: Having power corrupts a man, or lessens his morality, and the more power a man has, the more corrupted he will become. This idiom means that those in power often do not have the people's best interests in mind. They are primarily focused on their own benefits, and they may abuse their ...
How power corrupts essays
700 Words. When given power, many people use it in selfless manners because power tends to corrupt the people who posses it. These men and women may use their power to pull funds out of their respected countries that they rule in and use it for their personal welfare and finances instead of industrializing and advancing their nation.
What Really Matters Is How Presidents Think About Power
Those of us who observe and study American politics are more than aware of all this when we try to analyze and explain a given president. But rarely does the reality of the office ever factor into ...