Predicting who will use or abuse authority is not as easy as you think.
You may see shades of Napoleon in your boss, even if his behavior is more docile than despotic. Greg J. Gold, Ph.D., an assistant psychology professor at Humboldt State University in California, found that subordinates over-predict supervisors use of "harsh" power tactics, such as coercion, as opposed to "soft" or rewarding incentives.
Gold randomly assigned 133 subjects to high- or low-status positions, then asked them whether they'd employ harsh or soft tactics to influence those at the opposite end of the spectrum. He also asked 141 college freshmen and seniors which tactics they'd use and which tactics freshmen expected seniors to use, to persuade the opposite group to lend them class notes. Gold's results were presented at an American Psychological Association meeting.
"Common wisdom has taught us that people self-select into leadership or subordinate roles based on their personality style," says Gold. "The belief is that those who seek higher status positions also favor harsh influence tactics."
But his findings belie these long-held assumptions. People selected tactics based more on their role as either high or low status rather than on their personality style. In fact, college freshmen significantly over-predicted the use of harsh tactics on the part of seniors. Both groups favored either the "soft" strategy of supplying information or convincing others by the strength of argument. And while high status individuals did use coercion, for example threatening, "You won't get a raise or promotion," they offered personal rewards just as frequently.
So why does everyone complain about their superiors? Gold attributes this to the "confirmation bias" theory, or a preconceived notion of what will happen, thus biasing employees against even the most benevolent boss.
