The Legitimacy of Power and the Sense of Entitlement
It is a truism of government ethics that a sense of entitlement is an
important cause of unethical conduct. People who feel entitled to the
power they wield feel they have the right to deviate from ethical norms
in ways others do not (see <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/100" target="”_blank”">my blog post</a> on this
topic). Now there is research that supports this view.<br>
<br>
According to <a href="http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/galinsky/Power%20Hypocrisy%…; target="”_blank”">a new
paper</a> based on research by Joris Lammers, Diederik A. Stapel, and
Adam D. Galinsky, people who see themselves as powerful are more likely
to condemn other people's unethical conduct while themselves engaging
in unethical conduct more than others. An important factor in this
sort of hypocrisy is how legitimate they feel their power is. The more
legitimate they consider their power, the more likely they are to feel
entitled to engage in conduct they condemn in others. The less
legitimate they consider their power, the more likely they are to
condemn their own conduct even more than others', what the authors call
"hypercrisy."<br>
<br>
The authors also look at other recent research, which provides valuable
related conclusions. For example, the idea that "feelings of power make
people more likely to judge others and be more strict in their moral judgments
when doing so—is strengthened by Lammers and Stapel’s (2009)
demonstration that the powerful tend to be more focused on rules and
less willing to make exceptions to those rules."<br>
<br>
This is what I have often found: in
conflict situations, officials and government attorneys focus on the
provisions and the language of ethics codes to the exclusion of the spirit and goals of
these codes.<br>
<br>
Also, "according to Keltner, Gruenfeld, and Anderson’s (2003)
approach/inhibition theory of power, the powerful are more focused on
the potential rewards of any action and therefore tend to follow their
self-interest more compared to the powerless." It's not just that
government officials have more opportunities than most people to use
their positions to benefit themselves and their families, but when they
act, they focus on these benefits more than most people do when they
act. In other words, those who feel powerful tend to be primed to
benefit themselves in ways others are not.<br>
<br>
A third group of studies deals with the other end of unethical
conduct: social disapproval. "Normally, social disapproval acts
as a check against self-interest (Batson et al., 1997; Gilbert &
Jones, 1986), but feelings of power reduce sensitivity to social
disapproval (Emerson, 1962; Thibaut & Kelley, 1959)."<br>
<br>
Yes, elected officials care about getting re-elected, but they are less
likely than other people to care about social disapproval that does not rise
to the level of outright rejection. And they are usually not in a good
position to determine what conduct, even when it becomes public, would
lead to serious disapproval, because they are protected by strong egos and a
circle of yesmen and yeswomen.<br>
<br>
God only knows what validity these experiments have, that is, how
well they transfer to the real world (read <a href="http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/galinsky/Power%20Hypocrisy%…; target="”_blank”">the 15-page paper</a> for
details of the experiments), but the authors' conclusions certainly
seem to fit the reality I've seen.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---