Power Corrupts

Consensual and authoritarian hierarchies

As discussed in previous articles, hierarchies are necessary for the co-ordination of the activities of any group of people. They appear in all organisations from a small club, through a business, to a nation. Hierarchies can take one of two extreme forms, consensual or authoritarian, but most lie somewhere on a scale between the two.

Consensual hierarchies are those in which higher-status individuals display leadership qualities, compete positively for status, and are concerned for the welfare of subordinates and other stakeholders. Such higher status-individuals are voluntarily supported by the latter and able to direct the resources of the organisation with their co-operation.

Authoritarian hierarchies are those in which higher-status individuals display autocratic qualities, compete negatively for status, are self-interested rather than concerned for the welfare of subordinates and stakeholders, and if necessary use coercion to direct the use of the organisation’s resources.

Transition from a consensual to an authoritarian hierarchy

Authoritarian hierarchies can exist from day one if they are established by self-interested individuals who negotiate the support of self-interested followers. However, most hierarchies begin as consensual ones established to organise us in a common and worthwhile endeavour. For example, charities, essential services such as healthcare, food supply, water supply, and even some religions.

However, it is possible for consensual hierarchies to morph into authoritarian ones. This is not necessarily because the higher status members have a dark personality. Rather it is due to the fundamental human trait of trying to achieve our objectives efficiently, i.e., with a minimum use of personal resources. As the British historian, Lord Acton 1834 – 1902, said, “All power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely”.

Even in entirely altruistic organisations, higher status members generally enjoy greater benefits in the form of salaries, bonuses, and perks than lower status ones. They also have greater control over and access to the resources of the organisation. Once a degree of power is obtained, then, if an organisation’s institutions and culture permit, it can become easier to acquire personal resources by simply taking them rather than trading with others for them. However, the potential benefits do not end there. Once established as the leader of an organisation an individual can use the hierarchy they control, together with techniques such as rationalisation, to direct its resources towards the satisfaction of his, her, or their associates’ needs. Power can be misused in many ways depending on the needs of the individual who wields it. For example, in nations where there is little control over corruption, power held within an organisation can literally be sold for personal financial gain. It can also be used to trade for further advancement.

The transition from a consensual to an authoritarian hierarchy is caused by a vicious circle or feedback loop. Initially, higher status individuals may be supported voluntarily by lower status ones. However, the former can become dependent on the rewards that their status brings. Furthermore, they are in a stronger position to exploit the resources of the organisation for personal gain, and can become dependent on that too. This leads to a loss of voluntary support. In turn, this leads to the use of coercive power to maintain the hierarchy on which the leader depends. Also, if the culture and institutions of the organisation permit, it is easier to impose commands rather than negotiate the co-operation of subordinates. Thus, those in power begin to find themselves in a trap of their own making. They cannot give up power, initially because of their dependency on its rewards, but ultimately for fear of being held to account for their misdemeanors by those who replace them. So, to retain their power, they become ever more autocratic and corrupt, and thus, ever more trapped.

Once autocratic leadership is established, it becomes self-sustaining and difficult to rectify. This is because of the following:

1. The culture of an organisation is established by its leadership, and lower status individuals who wish to remain a part of it must comply. So, the organisation’s members become “trained” to accept autocracy as the norm.
2. Individuals are attracted to established organisations that appear to satisfy their needs, and so, those who pursue power, or any other benefits offered by autocracy, will be attracted to an authoritarian organisation.
3. Those who do give an autocratic leader their voluntary support are likely to be those who would gain similar benefits by doing so. For example, when leadership changes, they are in a position to assume the mantle.
4. The institutions established by an autocrat remain after their departure and can act as temptations even to a replacement with good intentions.
5. There is a feedback process in which authoritarian leaders alter culture and culture makes authoritarian leadership more acceptable. Russia, which has a history of authoritarian leadership including the Tsars, communism, and present day Putinism, is an example.

Strategies to disguise the transition to an authoritarian hierarchy

As the transition to autocracy takes place, those involved tend, at first, to disguise it using the following strategies.

1. Propaganda. This comprises lies, misinformation, and the denial of access to more reliable sources. Its purpose is to persuade followers that the leader is acting in the communal interest, when this is not necessarily the case.
2. Credible deniability. If pressure is applied to subordinates by, for example, suggesting potential promotion, setting targets, etc., then the more competitive among them will often “cheat” by breaking social norms or laws to achieve an outcome desired by the higher strata. Cheating can take the form of the manipulation of statistics, the misreporting of accounts, behaving unethically, etc. Often, those in the higher strata are aware that this will occur and use it as a way of achieving their ends whilst avoiding personal liability. If no records of the pressure exist, then they will be able to claim that they did not instruct their subordinates or know of their activities.
3. Secrecy can be used to keep the knowledge of any disproportionately high benefits from other stakeholders. Also, a strategy for acquiring and maintaining power in an organisation is to acquire valuable knowledge and keep it to oneself rather than share it. Data protection legislation and commercial sensitivity are examples of rationales used to justify this practice. Secrecy can hide many misdeeds, and a high level of secrecy by an individual or organisation is an indicator that this may be the case.