CHAPTER 3

How Power Differentials Give Smart People Laryngitis

Despite all the research on what powerful people do, there has been much less about the impact on the less powerful, and especially on the consequences for the powerful of the reactions. Yet we believe that it is the systemic interactions that make a big difference in organizations.

If, as we’ve determined, too much power blinds people, too little tends to silence them or cause other, potentially self-defeating behavior. Furthermore, those who believe they have too little power often end up hurting those with more power—which in turn inhibits the entire organization. If you are going to be influential from a relatively low-power position (which is a lot better strategy than waiting to act for sudden enlightenment of the powerful!), you must understand this dynamic. Understanding the following three core concepts can help you avoid the disadvantages associated with a low-power position:

Let’s look at each of these concepts in more detail, so that we can begin to show how to overcome the bad effects of large power differentials.

Actual versus Virtual Power

In Chapter 2 we discussed the bases of power—access to information, resources, and people—that give some people more clout than others. Occasionally, however, individuals obtain power for the sole reason that lower-level people hand it over to them. The mere appearance of being powerful can be enough to cause others to treat the apparently powerful as capable of forcing (or enforcing) behavior, whether or not that is truly the case. Power grows because everyone knows that people with actual power can either help them or punish them. So when people believe that someone has power, they won’t test that belief—thereby making that person or group powerful without having to demonstrate it. The Wizard of Oz was quite powerful—even feared—until the curtain was pulled, revealing a little old man.

Lower-level people give away power in the following ways:

• They believe and act on myths that exist in almost every company. For example, Allan was one of the original Work Out consultants at General Electric, where he helped a team formed by the one business’s vice president (VP) of research and development come up with an innovative organizational recommendation. But a team member who was a trusted lieutenant of the VP warned the team that they could not offer their idea: “You know that at GE you can’t tell the truth, so we can’t present this!” The VP had asked for the recommendation, and Work Out had been invented to encourage people below to speak up. However, this didn’t matter at all.
• They remember a historic incident—accurately or not—and take it as a lesson. Allan challenged the lieutenant in the GE incident, who insisted, “I remember when ‘Joe Fisher’ stood up at a meeting and disagreed with the general manager in this division. He was gone a week later.” Task force members fell silent. As it turned out, Joe had been underperforming for a long time, and his departure many years ago was totally coincidental. But the incident lived on, magnified in memory, and affected current employees’ behavior.
• They give inappropriate deference to authority. This is such a potent phenomenon that it has even been documented to cost lives. For example, several studies revealed that some airline accidents were caused by copilots refraining from correcting pilots in error, because they did not feel comfortable correcting “a superior.”
• They misinterpret ambiguous signals. A senior manager became aware of considerable anxiety in the ranks during a major organizational change, even though top management had guaranteed that there would be no layoffs. Hoping to relieve some of this concern, the senior manager told employees, “I visited [the other large company in the area] the other day, and their senior vice president told me, ‘everybody around here is so worried about the economy that they think that they are all toast. Can you imagine them being so worried?’” Several days later, the senior manager discovered—to his horror—that the story he had intended to be a stress reducer had made some people even more anxious. It had also angered others who thought he was saying they were “toast.”
• They set up self-fulfilling prophecies. This can take several forms. One is to offer up watered-down or indirect suggestions and, when the more powerful leap in with clarifications, ideas, directions, or orders, conclude that they had already made up their mind. A variation is to raise their concerns in question form, which the higher-power person takes at face value and responds “Yes, I have given it considerable thought.” The timid questioner then concludes that the powerful one can’t be influenced, rather than recognizing his role in inducing that person’s response.
• They fall into the trap of previous success. We call this the curse of the powerful, because one of the ways the powerful have gained power is by being insightful. Therefore, it wouldn’t make sense for them to stop making valuable contributions, but the more often they are on target, the greater the temptation for those below to go along even when they aren’t certain. This can be costly because strong leaders need strong followers to oppose them when they are going astray. The problem is that the smarter high-power people are, the more readily lower-power people give in to them—even when they should resist.

For all these reasons, the lower-power person jumps to conclusions about powerful executives without bothering to check whether they are true. This reluctance can be based on fear of retaliation or on fear of making a career-limiting move (CLM), but can also be due to the perception that the victim role provides a degree of safety: “I would really speak up, but I am helpless because of those oppressive bosses.”

When employees fear negative reactions—criticism, loss of privilege, even firing—they’re simply too scared to even test taking a stand. No one is eager to make a CLM; if this seems even remotely possible, many people prefer to simply assume the worst. Many individuals live by “better safe than sorry” rather than “nothing ventured, nothing gained.”

As two excellent researchers, Amy Edmonson and James Detert, argue:

Fear of speaking up is over-determined by both [human nature] and the modern economy’s specific realities. . . . We’re hard-wired to overestimate rather than underestimate certain types of risk—it was better (for survival) to “flee” . . . from threats that weren’t really there than to not flee the one time there was a significant risk. So, we’ve inherited emotional and cognitive mechanisms that motivate us to avoid perceived risks . . .

[Most people today] depend on hierarchical organizations and their agents (i.e., bosses) to meet basic needs for economic support and human relationships. Thus, fear of offending those above us is both natural and widespread.1

Organizations everywhere have lower-power people who are afraid to offer, in a direct, impactful way, the relevant information or their unvarnished views of the situation. This kind of “laryngitis” does not serve the organization as a whole, nor does it benefit those in high-power positions or those below—everybody loses. People might be willing to speak up if they knew that there would be no retaliation even when the news was not welcome, but in the absence of certainty about what might happen, voices are muted. When is the last time you witnessed—or were part of—that kind of loss of voice? It happens so often that some people consider it inevitable, and give up hope that there can be genuine openness.

The Danger of a Dysfunctional Dance

The action of a high-power person moving in and taking over and the behavior of the low-power person holding back are interrelated in that each triggers the other. It doesn’t matter who was the first mover. Was it the direct report who wasn’t sufficiently thorough in the analysis or was it the manager who went over the report, yet again, with a fine-tooth comb? So the manager makes some corrections and additions. The employee doesn’t think these are all that significant but (silently) concludes that “the boss has to show how smart he is,” and next time the employee leaves out a few minor points so that the boss can contribute. The manager sees that the work is incomplete so examines the new report in even more detail and the escalation continues.

Of course, each party blames the other. “If I really had competent people, I wouldn’t have to waste my time doing their job for them,” says the boss. “My micromanaging manager takes away all the motivation to do the quality work I want to do” is the conclusion of the employee. This cycle confirms what high-power people tend to think already: that they shouldn’t listen to or trust lower-power individuals and groups, and that they need to supervise them closely. It doesn’t matter where in the organization the dysfunctional behavior originates; once the cycle begins, it perpetuates itself. Each side’s behavior “confirms” to the other that their assumptions are correct—and that they should continue behaving as they have been.

Even though either party can start this dysfunctional dance, the good news is that either can also end it. This escalating cycle can only continue if it is not discussed. As we will show throughout the book, it is possible for the lower-power person to change the game, often by addressing the issue. We can offer no guarantees that pointing out the “dance” always works, but using the approaches that we will explore in subsequent chapters can significantly reduce the risk and increase the probability of success.

The Costs to Both Parties

In Chapter 2 we discussed the need of high-power people for those below to tell the truth. No matter how competent leaders are, they are bound to have ideas that don’t work and can cause damage. It is a gift to be warned that driving the organization in the present direction might take it over a cliff or prevent seizing new opportunities. Furthermore, being surrounded by sycophants increases the danger that leaders start to believe their infallibility. Inspiring laryngitis in those below—who often are closer to the problems and opportunities—can be disastrous. It is best to be told when one is not wearing any clothes.

We also discussed that leaders need strong employees both to implement decisions and to take initiative on their own. In our previous work on leadership, we argued that excellence comes when full use is made of everybody’s abilities, which doesn’t occur when those below feel they are being ignored and not heard.

Another cost of a large power gap is that it forces the employee into a dependent role; but healthy individuals resist dependency. They tend to respond by (a) reducing the powerful party’s power, (b) leaving the playing field, or (c) going passive (or passive-aggressive).

If (overt or covert) rebellion is too dangerous and it is not possible to leave, the highly dependent may go passive—or even more damaging—passive-aggressive. One way in which lower-power people may attempt to inhibit powerful people’s sway is by sabotaging them. The classic approach is to “work to rules” by doing exactly—and only—what he or she has been instructed to do. This works because almost no high-powered person can imagine all the possible contingencies to any complex action. When the lower-power person follows directions in an inflexible way, a major problem is likely to arise, which can be met with, “but I did exactly what you said.” Another form of sabotage is to withhold crucial information, “forgetting” to inform. Sabotage, of course, can be even more destructive. In the old days this could be something like dropping a handful of bolts into a panel while assembling a car, thus insuring a permanent rattle. Currently it can be done by programming a so-called Easter egg (nasty surprise) into software, by “leaking” private material on purpose, or even by going so far as to spread malicious rumors in an attempt to harm reputations.

Some low-power people do what amounts to basically retiring while still on the job. Today’s fast changing world requires high member initiative for organizations to succeed. But everybody has probably had coworkers who just shuffle papers.

On the other hand, in the presence of powerful people and authority, a fraction of people feel compelled to test that power all the time. These people are generally perceived as a royal pain in the butt. Although their lack of fear of speaking up might be a positive attribute at times, they go too far, and powerful people usually avoid them—unless they win and become one of the more powerful themselves.

Finally, some people prefer to unite or become dependent on others. These are the organizational “yes men” who work very hard to get on powerful people’s good side. This is easier, of course, if they happen to agree with the powerful people; but even if they don’t, they will do their best to make it seem as though they do. One interesting study found that skill at concealing flattery was positively correlated with senior executives receiving appointments to other companies’ boards; however, flattery that was perceived as attempted flattery did not work well at all.2

In general, low-power people have an incentive to make high-power people think that they support them. They assume that it is better not to get on their bad side.

Some, of course, get so fed up or so uncomfortable with the unexpressed feelings they accumulate that they put all their energy into getting transferred to another part of the organization where they think they will be treated better, or quit outright. These are people who won’t even tell the truth about their disaffection in exit interviews (“you never know who this could get back to”), and if they do, it comes out sounding petty because they are so upset.

None of these coping styles helps the organization or the high-power person, and it certainly does no good for those with little power. It prevents truth from being told, real issues from being raised, and those below from showing and growing their competence.

Conditions for Altering Power Relationships and Narrowing the Gap

The rest of this book will address the various ways to overcome the barriers to influencing powerful people. First we want to provide a brief overview of the dimensions of the process.

The first step is to start with yourself. Unfortunately, the cartoon character Pogo was right when he said, “We have met the enemy and they is us!” Do you hold self-limiting beliefs such as always assuming the worst in ambiguous situations? We are all products of our experiences, and we all have unique lenses through which we see our current situations. Mark Twain said, “A cat doesn’t sit on a hot stove twice—but doesn’t sit on a cold stove either.” Were you “burnt” in the past by raising a disagreement with a boss and vowed never to do that again? Everyone who works for an organization has experienced power differentials in many forms, and these differentials exist even within families, schools, and social activities. Have your experiences with these distorted your interpretations and reactions to others’ actions?

Where are you in dealing with authority? Do you tend to prematurely defer or “take up arms” at the first sign of leader imperfection? Does your attitude interfere with your ability to take a partnership orientation in dealing with those farther up the hierarchy? Can you raise dissenting views with those of much higher power? Are you generally overconfident so behave in inordinately risky ways, or do you lack self-confidence so too readily give away power? Do you underestimate the power you have, thereby increasing the power gap? A striking number of people do not use all the power or influence at their disposal.

Understanding the dynamics of power can help you see that much of the annoying behavior of those farther up, including their reaction to your low-power behavior, is due to the situation they are in. Recognizing this will make you less likely to demonize them.

Many—if not most—people have complex feelings about power in others and in themselves—something that makes it difficult to tell who really has power, and how much. This is why it’s crucial to understand oneself well enough to be able to accurately assess both the powerful and one’s own position in relation to them. Lower-power people must be able to estimate how much power another person actually has in order to change their relationship. To understand another person’s power, you have to know several things: who they are connected with and their relative influence with each, the resources they control or can access, and the information they possess or can readily obtain. You can figure out some of this via observation, some by reputation, and some by investigation.

Having that external knowledge provides the basis of influence. The more you understand what concerns senior managers, the better chance you have of determining how to get their attention and gain their cooperation. You have influence insofar as you can speak to the other’s needs and concerns. That allows you to act like a true partner in setting up win-win exchanges.

The chapters to come will provide you with ways to increase your relative power so that you can have the influence that will allow you—and powerful people—to be their most effective. This doesn’t include taking power from the powerful, because that would reduce their needed ability to lead—and organizations led by powerless people don’t do very well. Rather, it’s about learning to increase the total amount of power in the system, making both yourself and the powerful more able to do great work. The object is to help relatively powerful people use the talent that helped them become powerful, and help relatively less powerful make fuller contributions.

For now, we will mention that senior people in larger organizations may be less accessible than they are in medium to smaller organizations. So when influencing outsiders or people in larger organizations, you might need to spend a lot of time and energy on figuring out how to gain access. The larger the organization, the more removed senior people are likely to be from lower-power people—and therefore the more likely they are to manifest some of the worst aspects of power differential. But even in entrepreneurial start-ups without many employees or layers, founders may overvalue their own expertise, and undervalue that of others—which was the case with Chandran Menon, as we saw in Chapter 2. Regardless of the size of your organization, we will help you figure out how to gain the necessary access.

It would be irresponsible if we didn’t fully acknowledge that it takes a certain amount of courage to put the lessons you will learn in this book into practice. The most skillful individuals and organization players can’t get it right all the time, and aren’t likely to get anywhere if they don’t take risks. Careful analysis and skillful execution can reduce risk to some degree. But you need to be brave to try to influence people who are, by definition, more powerful than you are. Take heart; others have done it and you can too. That is the focus of this book.

The next two chapters introduce the steps required to influence powerful people, then Chapter 6 takes a closer look at the partnership mind-set. Subsequent chapters add to your understanding and knowledge of how to gain the influence you desire.

Nothing we can say will totally remove the risk, and there are certainly situations that are indeed hopeless. But in a world where adding value is the only protection for continued employment—and where the cooperation of powerful people is always critical—giving up before you start is perhaps the riskiest choice of all.

Notes

1. Amy Edmonson and James Detert, HBS interview and working paper, 2011, discussing J. R. Detert and Amy C. Edmondson, “Implicit Voice Theories: Taken-for-Granted Rules of Self-Censorship at Work,” Academy of Management Journal 54, no. 3 (June 2011).

2. Ithai Stern and James D. Westphal, “Stealthy Footsteps to the Boardroom: Executives’ Backgrounds, Sophisticated Interpersonal Influence Behavior, and Board Appointments,” Administrative Science Quarterly 55, no. 2 (2010): 278–319.