Recently, I read and reviewed Jeffrey Pfeffer’s book, 7 Rules of Power. I had mixed feelings about the book, because even though it provides practical advice about how to attain power within an organization, it is explicitly amoral when it came to the use of your power when you have it. The dominant standard is, do what works, because becoming powerful will excuse anything you did to get it, or what you do with it once you have it.
Ironically, one of the strongest counterpoints to Pfeffer’s argument comes from a book he recommended, by his Stanford colleague Deborah Gruenfeld, Acting with Power: Why We Are More Powerful than We Believe.
The book’s title contains a clue to its two key themes. The first is that leadership is a form of acting. The second is that it’s important not only to have power, but how you act with it once you have it.
Let’s cover the latter theme first: Gruenfeld reflects on those who seek power because:
“…they want to be associated with the brand, create a personal platform, build a resume, and become more visible as a mover and shaker. Many books on power will tell you this is the right way to think about power. I have always thought it was nonsense. Everyone knows when this happens. These people have not just lost the plot, they never cared about the plot to begin with. “
As she says, “…the measure of a person is not how much power a person has but what one uses power for.” In other words, it’s not just about accumulating power, but in using it effectively. Effectively, in this case, does not mean for selfish ends, but for a greater good: for the team, the organization, the community.
Gruenfeld’s exhortation to use power for the greater good is not merely preachy moralizing, it’s also practical, because it makes others more likely to follow you and support you if they know you have their best interests at heart.
Back to the first key theme: leadership is a form of acting. The essential insight is that power is not a personal attribute, but something that others confer on you because of the situation, because we can give or withhold something they need. So power derives from the role we play in concert with others.
That means that, like an actor, we have to play the role assigned to us in the truest possible way. Paradoxically, this does not mean being “authentic”. It means bringing out the best aspects of ourself that are most appropriate to the situation. For example, you could be the big boss at work and play a totally different role around your family, or your friends.
I call it calculated authenticity, Gruenfeld calls it playing a role, hence the title of the book. So, if you play the role properly, others will see you acting responsibly and thus deserving of the power they grant you.
Some people may have trouble buying into this idea, but I wholeheartedly agree, as I’ve written before. For example, if you’re suffering from imposter syndrome or stage fright, being authentic will only make it worse. So, acting with power means that sometimes you need to win the battle within yourself, which is another reason not to be “authentic”. Often, you might have to radiate outward confidence even when you’re boiling with anxiety inside, and there are a number of useful tips for doing so. Incidentally, the chapter on acting to play up your power would fit perfectly into a book on presentations; I especially like the advice to act as a host and not a guest.
Gruenfeld also rightly recognizes that it’s not always about playing the alpha dog. Sometimes the situation dictates that you play down your power. If you have a lot of power, you may need to tone it down to make others more comfortable. If you report to someone more powerful, you have to “ride shotgun” effectively.
Pfeffer tells us we don’t have a right to preach, so I won’t. I’ll just leave it with a simple question. If you had a choice of leaders, one who got there by following either Pfeffer’s or Gruenfeld’s advice, which would you choose?
