Suppose you enter a company meeting and there is one person who is the CEO and another who is a recently hired employee. Even before either of them speaks, the atmosphere is already different. The employee will probably be closely watching the CEO’s tone, expressions and reactions, thinking about whether they are leaving a good impression. The CEO, on the other hand, might not pay as much attention to the employee. What is the reason for this?
We see power influencing the way we interact every day, not just in the workplace but also in schools, families, friendships, and romantic relationships. It is, however, frequently misinterpreted. Several people consider power to mean domination or abuse, while others believe that dominance always involves aggression.
Psychology gives a more detailed account of the matter. Power merely means the ability to influence people, while dominance is one method of exercising that influence. Whether or not these qualities turn out to be tools for effective leadership or are used for harmful control depends on the way in which they are employed. By understanding the psychology of power, we are able to see not only how people influence others but also how power affects the individual who possesses it.
Power: More Than Just Authority
Power refers to the capacity to affect another person’s thoughts, emotions, decisions or behaviour (French & Raven, 1959). Although authority is one source of power, it by no means is the only one. People gain influence through different means, including:
- Legitimate power: the authority that is associated with a position.
- Expert power: consists of specialised knowledge or skills.
- The ability to give benefits is what is known as reward power.
- Coercive power is the capacity to bring about consequences.
- Referent power consists of the trust, respect or admiration that people have for you.
For instance, a manager might have formal authority, but an experienced employee can still influence significant decisions simply based on their expertise. In a similar way, a teacher can affect their students’ attitudes not because of their position but because they are respected and trusted.
Read More: God, Gender, and Power: How Women Reclaim Spiritual Authority and Challenge Religious Patriarchy
Dominance: Taking Charge or Taking Control?
Dominance is one of the ways in which power can be exercised; it consists of taking the lead, directing other people or influencing circumstances by means of assertiveness and confidence. Contrary to common belief, dominance is not always aggressive. When there is an emergency, a firefighter who is in charge of organising an evacuation or a surgeon who is leading an operating team shows strong leadership. The confidence they display enables the rest of the people to react quickly and effectively. People may seek dominance for several reasons:
- To achieve status or recognition.
- To reduce uncertainty.
- To feel safe and in control.
This was because earlier experiences had paid off when controlling behaviour was displayed (Bandura, 1977). Dominance turns harmful when the influence it exerts changes from one of guiding people to one of controlling them by means of fear, intimidation or coercion.
Read More: When Religion Becomes Social Control: The Psychology of Authority Bias and Patriarchy
Why does dependence matter in the context of social power?
Power turns into social power when it is present within relationships. Emerson’s Power-Dependence Theory (1962) states that power arises out of dependence; the more a person depends on another, the less power they have in relation to that other person.
This situation does not end with the workplace. In a family, a young child places great reliance on their parents, and this makes the parents more influential; in a romantic relationship, a partner who feels emotionally dependent on the other will have less influence over important decisions. In a similar way, a sibling who takes control of the family’s finances or looks after an elderly parent may exercise greater decision-making power since the rest of the family relies on them.
That is why social power is generally unseen. Someone who controls valuable resources, opportunities, financial assistance or emotional support can have a great deal of influence even if they never seem to be in a dominant position.
How does power change the human mind?
Power affects not only the way we interact with others but also the way we think, behave, and see the people around us. Psychological research conducted over many decades has demonstrated that whether one has more or less power influences attention, behaviour, and social perception (Fiske, 1993; Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, 2003).
What is it that causes hierarchies and leadership to exist?
Human societies tend to establish hierarchies since somebody has to make decisions when dealing with uncertainty. Think about an emergency in a hospital or a natural disaster; there is usually no time available for long discussions before taking action. Individuals who seem confident, decisive and competent tend to become leaders since these qualities enable groups to organise quickly (Anderson & Brown, 2010). Just because someone is dominant does not mean that they can be an effective leader. Sustainable leadership also requires:
- Competence
- Emotional intelligence
- Empathy
- Accountability
- Fairness
- Respect for others
Leadership would then tend to turn into domination.
When does dominance start to cause harm?
A problem arises when influence shifts into a desire to control people rather than to guide them. Warning signs include Intimidation, Manipulation, Coercion, Aggression, Humiliation, Suppression of dissent and exploiting power differences. The actual problem isn’t concerned with the existence of power but rather with whether that power respects the autonomy of another person. Leadership enables people while domination controls them.
Personality and The Use of Power
Personality has an effect on the way that people use power, even though it is only one part of the whole story. For example, extraversion usually leads to confidence and assertiveness. People who have narcissistic traits might end up wanting more admiration and status. Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) shows a preference for hierarchical arrangements among groups (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999).
Context is just as important; accountability, the organisation’s culture and social norms can promote responsible leadership or contribute to the improper use of power. Power also takes on special interest in the case where a person’s status is threatened. If authority is challenged, a defensive response may occur, resulting in increased dominance or aggression, not because it is necessary to defend an argument, but to protect one’s position.
The Power Paradox
One of the most fascinating ideas in psychology is the Power Paradox.
Power gives people more freedom and independence. However, since powerful individuals have to rely on others to a lesser extent, they may eventually begin to pay less attention to other people’s points of view. As a result, this decreased tendency to consider other people’s perspectives can lead to a weakening of empathy and to a breakdown of trust (Keltner, 2016). The cycle often looks like this:
Power → Greater freedom → Less dependence → Reduced perspective-taking → Lower empathy → Loss of trust
It is not necessary that this result should occur; self-awareness, a sense of accountability and constructive feedback all assist leaders in staying connected with the people they affect.
Conclusion
Power is an inevitable element in human relationships, though it is neither inherently good nor inherently bad. Psychology defines power as the ability to influence people, whereas dominance is one method of exercising that influence. When power is used responsibly, it promotes cooperation, confidence and effective leadership; but if it is used without accountability, it can result in manipulation, coercion and abuse.
Power does more than influence the way other people behave; it alters the way they think, perceive and make decisions. By understanding these psychological effects, we can become more thoughtful leaders, colleagues, partners, family members and friends, as well as citizens. The actual question then is not just who has power, but rather how they decide to use it.
References +
- Anderson, C., & Jennifer, B. L. (2002). The experience of power: Examining the effects of power on approach and inhibition tendencies.
- Cheng, J. T., & Tracy, J. (2020). Why social status is essential (but sometimes insufficient) for leadership.
- Cheng, J. T. (2014). The psychology of social status.
- Guinote, A. (2013). Social power and cognition.
- Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition.
- Magee, J. C., & Smith, P. K. (2011). What drives the psychological effects of power? A comparison of the approach/inhibition and social distance theories.
- Maner, J. K. (2017). Dominance and prestige: A tale of two hierarchies.
- Moskowitz, D. S. (2004). Does elevated power lead to approach and reduced power to inhibition? Comment on Keltner, Gruenfeld, and Anderson (2003).
- Overall, N. C., et al. (2022). Actor and partner power are distinct and have differential effects on social behaviour.
- Price, M. E., & Van Vugt, M. (2015). The service-for-prestige theory of leader–follower relations: A review of the evolutionary.
- Ronay, R., Oostrom, J., Asbach, S., & Maner, J. K. (2019). Two ways to the top, one way down: Dominance-based leaders inspire reverse dominance hierarchies.
- Simpson, J. A., Farrell, A. K., Oriña, M. M., & Rothman, A. J. (2015). Power and social influence in relationships.
- Smith, P. K., et al. (2019). Antecedents and consequences of dominance and prestige paths to social rank.
- Sivanathan, N., et al. (2017). Explaining the global rise of “dominance” leadership.
- Witkower, Z., et al. (2020). Dominance and prestige: When are they used, how are they communicated, and when are they preferred?
- Graham, K. A., Mawritz, M. E., Dust, S. B., & Ziegert, J. C. (2018). Dominance incompatibility, relationship conflict, and subsequent abusive supervision.
- Gormley, B., et al. (2010). Correlates of psychological abuse perpetration in college dating relationships.
- Ong, C. W., Roberts, R., Woodman, T., & Arthur, C. (2021). The leadership was destined to sink: An examination of dominance and prestige on the rise and fall of the narcissistic leader.
- Wee, E. X. M., et al. (2013). Power-dependency dynamics and abusive supervision.
- Zerwas, F. K., et al. (2022). Individual differences in social power: Links with beliefs about emotion and emotion regulation.
