Hm, this is not a bad view. I too have seen analyses societies where there are multiple status ladders (e.g. rich businesspeople feel honored if starving poets accept their invitation) are better off.
Yet. The power ladder is crushing when the power distance is high and the leadership style authoritarian. But I think amongst people who use first-name terms, don’t make employees report standing before a huge imposing oak desk etc. the power distance / authoritarianism ust be low.
But I think amongst people who use first-name terms, don’t make employees report standing before a huge imposing oak desk etc. the power distance / authoritarianism ust be low.
I think you’re confusing the actual power distance with how much does it get shoved into your face (aka politeness).
Stupid question: what else is actual power for, beside enjoying rubbing it into people’s faces? I mean, power is an annoying thing you have because it multiplies your mistakes and you have to take responsibility for everything and must decide things you totally don’t know how to decide and captains feel lonely on the bridge and so on. If there is no power-trip in the social sense, why would people crave power at all? It would feel like a terrible burden, a duty taken for the sake of others. It would precisely be being the Universal Scapegoat. The CEO’s predicament: if every VP and department leader succesfully excuses themselves from blame, then you are to blame. Even if it is a black swan. Blame, like energy, gets conserved, any any amount of blame not succesfully sticked lower down gets sticked on captains.
I’ve always thought being allowed to rub power in people’s faces is a compensation for this terrible burden.
How about people who genuinely want to have something done? For example, if my dream is to create a great computer game… and I happen to be a boss of a company that succeeds to make a great computer game… I don’t think I would need an opportunity to rub my power in people’s faces to be happy. I would be simply happy that my dream became true.
Obviously this does not work for people to whom “being the boss” is the real goal. But that explains why they do it, not why I should desire to work in an environment optimized for them. (I work in such environments simply because I do not have the necessary skills to create my own environment, and all the environments I know are optimized for this type of people, usually because they are the ones who designed them.)
But how is that sort of power crushing? In your example, every employee with the same dream likes you having that kind of power, most people are indifferent, and maybe some cometitors are pissed. You are thinking more among the lines of boss and employees sharing the passion but would make it differently (say turn-based vs. real-time strategy), and power can be crushing in the sense of employees seeing their dreams thwarted?
This may seem like a small difference, but in some companies employers can give inputs into the process, and in other companies they are just told to shut up… or maybe they are asked to voice their opinion, but then their opinion is completely ignored in a completely obvious manner.
I am talking here about autonomy, as one of the conditions for “flow”. Some workplaces have it, some don’t.
For example, as the boss of the computer game company, I could be micromanaging my employees and on a random whim override their best work with my half-baked ideas for no good reason… or I could be not doing this. Like, I make the decision about whether we are making a first-person shooter or a turn-based strategy, but my graphic people decide how long teeth will the ogres in the game have, because that is their competence.
The crushing form of power is if I start walking around, ask my graphic people to show me the pictures they made, and (despite having zero graphical talent) tell them to make this or that random change, throwing their ideas out of the window, wasting a lot of their work, ruining the consistency of the style, etc., simply because I am the boss and I can show them how little their opinions, skill, and lifelong experience matter in face of the power structure.
(Is this similar to what you called “rubbing the power in people’s faces”, or did you imagine something completely different?)
Hmmm… is it sure autonomy is a condition for that? It seems to me Zen monks train for something like the flow all the time and they don’t have much of it.
Also, there is the personal kind of autonomy of doing your own work without others bothering you, and the democratic kind of autonomy when having input into what the company as a whole does, the project as a whole, and I think this second cannot really be relevant to it → the boss will not distrupt flow if he makes all those decisions alone, and leaves autonomy for people to work out the details in the bits and pieces they work with.
No, I meant something far worse than that by rubbing. Intimidation, status symbols, belittling, inequal titles (i.e. calling employees on first name terms but expect to be called back on surname terms) and so on. But yes, this also sounds kinda bad too. This is only bad if employees care about their work and not working just because they must. The other kind of bad is always bad.
Stupid question: what else is actual power for, beside enjoying rubbing it into people’s faces?
To accomplish things in reality.
See, your problem is that you lack motivation and don’t have goals you’re passionate about chasing. But that is not true for a lot of people. A lot of people want—really want—specific results and outcomes in the real world and power is very useful for making this happen.
OK, reformulating: for all those people why is power problematic ? Why would Viliam think it can be still crushing when wielded politely? (You are not Viliam, obviously, and I am not asking you to explain someone else’s thoughts, I am just trying to illustrate my point.)
I mean, suppose Romeo and John manages to get MealSquares into every grocery store in the world. That fits this definition of power, but why would that bother anyone who is not a competitor (or perhaps a customer who dislike his favorite foods losing shelf space, but this is not exactly zero-sum, if a small number of people want a product really strongly, that is sort of an ideal setup for a webshop, they will probably not lose their supply).
I don’t understand the question. Why is somebody else’s power problematic for an individual? Because of safety, status, and competition. Why is power problematic socially? Well, there is a lot of literature written on the topic and I’m sure you’re aware of it.
Hm, this is not a bad view. I too have seen analyses societies where there are multiple status ladders (e.g. rich businesspeople feel honored if starving poets accept their invitation) are better off.
Yet. The power ladder is crushing when the power distance is high and the leadership style authoritarian. But I think amongst people who use first-name terms, don’t make employees report standing before a huge imposing oak desk etc. the power distance / authoritarianism ust be low.
I think you’re confusing the actual power distance with how much does it get shoved into your face (aka politeness).
Stupid question: what else is actual power for, beside enjoying rubbing it into people’s faces? I mean, power is an annoying thing you have because it multiplies your mistakes and you have to take responsibility for everything and must decide things you totally don’t know how to decide and captains feel lonely on the bridge and so on. If there is no power-trip in the social sense, why would people crave power at all? It would feel like a terrible burden, a duty taken for the sake of others. It would precisely be being the Universal Scapegoat. The CEO’s predicament: if every VP and department leader succesfully excuses themselves from blame, then you are to blame. Even if it is a black swan. Blame, like energy, gets conserved, any any amount of blame not succesfully sticked lower down gets sticked on captains.
I’ve always thought being allowed to rub power in people’s faces is a compensation for this terrible burden.
How about people who genuinely want to have something done? For example, if my dream is to create a great computer game… and I happen to be a boss of a company that succeeds to make a great computer game… I don’t think I would need an opportunity to rub my power in people’s faces to be happy. I would be simply happy that my dream became true.
Obviously this does not work for people to whom “being the boss” is the real goal. But that explains why they do it, not why I should desire to work in an environment optimized for them. (I work in such environments simply because I do not have the necessary skills to create my own environment, and all the environments I know are optimized for this type of people, usually because they are the ones who designed them.)
But how is that sort of power crushing? In your example, every employee with the same dream likes you having that kind of power, most people are indifferent, and maybe some cometitors are pissed. You are thinking more among the lines of boss and employees sharing the passion but would make it differently (say turn-based vs. real-time strategy), and power can be crushing in the sense of employees seeing their dreams thwarted?
This may seem like a small difference, but in some companies employers can give inputs into the process, and in other companies they are just told to shut up… or maybe they are asked to voice their opinion, but then their opinion is completely ignored in a completely obvious manner.
I am talking here about autonomy, as one of the conditions for “flow”. Some workplaces have it, some don’t.
For example, as the boss of the computer game company, I could be micromanaging my employees and on a random whim override their best work with my half-baked ideas for no good reason… or I could be not doing this. Like, I make the decision about whether we are making a first-person shooter or a turn-based strategy, but my graphic people decide how long teeth will the ogres in the game have, because that is their competence.
The crushing form of power is if I start walking around, ask my graphic people to show me the pictures they made, and (despite having zero graphical talent) tell them to make this or that random change, throwing their ideas out of the window, wasting a lot of their work, ruining the consistency of the style, etc., simply because I am the boss and I can show them how little their opinions, skill, and lifelong experience matter in face of the power structure.
(Is this similar to what you called “rubbing the power in people’s faces”, or did you imagine something completely different?)
Hmmm… is it sure autonomy is a condition for that? It seems to me Zen monks train for something like the flow all the time and they don’t have much of it.
Also, there is the personal kind of autonomy of doing your own work without others bothering you, and the democratic kind of autonomy when having input into what the company as a whole does, the project as a whole, and I think this second cannot really be relevant to it → the boss will not distrupt flow if he makes all those decisions alone, and leaves autonomy for people to work out the details in the bits and pieces they work with.
No, I meant something far worse than that by rubbing. Intimidation, status symbols, belittling, inequal titles (i.e. calling employees on first name terms but expect to be called back on surname terms) and so on. But yes, this also sounds kinda bad too. This is only bad if employees care about their work and not working just because they must. The other kind of bad is always bad.
To accomplish things in reality.
See, your problem is that you lack motivation and don’t have goals you’re passionate about chasing. But that is not true for a lot of people. A lot of people want—really want—specific results and outcomes in the real world and power is very useful for making this happen.
OK, reformulating: for all those people why is power problematic ? Why would Viliam think it can be still crushing when wielded politely? (You are not Viliam, obviously, and I am not asking you to explain someone else’s thoughts, I am just trying to illustrate my point.)
I mean, suppose Romeo and John manages to get MealSquares into every grocery store in the world. That fits this definition of power, but why would that bother anyone who is not a competitor (or perhaps a customer who dislike his favorite foods losing shelf space, but this is not exactly zero-sum, if a small number of people want a product really strongly, that is sort of an ideal setup for a webshop, they will probably not lose their supply).
I don’t understand the question. Why is somebody else’s power problematic for an individual? Because of safety, status, and competition. Why is power problematic socially? Well, there is a lot of literature written on the topic and I’m sure you’re aware of it.