Tag: power

Categories
28. What is Power?

What is Power?

My previous article ended with a discussion of the unconstrained pursuit of power and I will now explore this concept in more detail.

Power can be defined as the control of satisfiers and contra-satisfiers for oneself and others. Satisfiers are those external things that increase the level of satisfaction of our needs. Contra-satisfiers, on the other hand, reduce that level of satisfaction. Money is not in itself power, but rather something that can be traded for more tangible satisfiers and contra-satisfiers. Thus, it can be regarded as an undefined or general satisfier. The control of money is therefore equivalent to the control of satisfiers and is a component of power. As a side issue, all satisfiers and contra-satisfiers can be said to have a monetary value that depends on what people are willing to pay for them.

Individual people give a weight, and thus, a priority to the deployment of satisfiers and contra-satisfiers. This weighting depends on our relatedness to the recipients and our personality traits. Normally, greatest weight is given to ourselves, i.e., the home holon, followed by close family, followed by more distant relatives, followed by those unrelated to us. The rate at which this weighting tapers off with distance depends on factors such as empathy and whether we have dark personality traits. Priorities for the deployment of contra-satisfiers are, of course in the reverse order, with greatest weight being given to people most remote. The same is true of larger co-operative groups of people such as nations and organisations. For example, a business with a “bottom line” culture gives a very high priority to the needs of the home holon and a very low priority to those of others.

The amount of power that we have lies on a scale, from total powerlessness at the bottom, to absolute power at the top. Because of the way we weight its deployment, there is a point at which our power is just sufficient for the satisfaction of our own needs and those of our dependents. I will refer to this as Type A. Above this point, power can be used to increase or reduce the satisfaction of the needs of others. I will refer to this as Type B. We do not normally refer to Type A as power, however. In its absence, we are in a state of   powerlessness and, in its presence, a state of freedom or independence. This use of words is an interesting indictment of present-day Western society.

Type B is excess power, i.e., more than is necessary to satisfy our own needs and those of our dependents. This excess power comprises the control of satisfiers and contra-satisfiers for others, and so, it can be used to control them. This control of others can become a need in its own right, and its satisfier is Type B power.

Type B power can be traded with others to yield a net benefit. That is, some can be delegated to others in return for support that brings with it greater power. To persuade others to trade in this way, it is necessary to demonstrate power by making overt displays of wealth. In this way, a hierarchy forms that is based on type B power and the control of others.

The control of others is an unsatisfiable need, because, in practice there is always another person or organisation with more power. As mentioned in my previous article, if we have people who prioritise their need for wealth or power and pursue it without restraint, then this will consume endless resources. However, the satisfiers that any cooperative can generate are finite. So, if cooperation were attempted with such people, then ultimately, we would face a situation in which the costs to us outweigh the benefits. Our share of the satisfiers would fall below the threshold necessary to satisfy our personal needs and those of our dependents. Thus, any cooperation would fail.

An unsatisfiable need for the control of others must, therefore, ultimately lead to attempts to coerce. Without resistance, coercion becomes the accepted norm. However, with resistance, attempts at coercion can fail, and the relationship remains one of cooperation. Alternatively, however, conflict can result.

The history of human society is largely one of the control of the many by an elite. In the past this has largely been through coercion. Fortunately, coercion is now largely illegal in the West. However, it remains possible to manipulate a culture, the needs of its members, and the priorities that we give to those needs through, for example, advertising. The needs, thus created, empower those who control the satisfiers for them, and so, sustain an elite. Resistance to such cultural manipulation is also needed, therefore.

Categories
06. Power Corrupts

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.
Categories
12. Power

Power

Leadership and power are two different aspects of social status, and there is a constant interplay between them. Leadership maintains group cohesion and purpose and enables us to adapt in a changing environment. Power, on the other hand, is the ability to direct the resources of sub-ordinates to some purpose.

Many people actively seek social status which, as well as holding leadership obligations, also conveys power. The reasons are diverse and vary from individual to individual. For example, it might be a consequence of lacking a feeling of safety, the influence of upbringing, or the influence of a role model. However, the principal motivators are thought to be:

  1. A desire to be in control of one’s own affairs and freedom from social demands. Power enables one to enjoy the benefits of a co-operative society without the associated effort of negotiating and compromising with large numbers of other people. Rather, it is easier to negotiate with just a few in a hierarchy. Those who seek power for this reason can often be identified by their retiring nature, e.g., living in homes surrounded by security fencing and avoiding the media.
  2. A desire for control over the affairs of others as a means of obtaining positive regard. Such seekers of power have a tendency towards narcissism and publicity seeking. They enjoy their status and having others look up to them.
  3. The pursuit of resources. When people believe that they have insufficient resources to satisfy, and sustain the satisfaction of their personal needs, they will attempt to control the resources of others: i.e., their time, physical effort, mental effort, and property. We seek to satisfy our needs as efficiently as possible. From a personal perspective it is more efficient to do so using the resources of others, rather than our own. Although communities rely on reciprocal trading for the equitable satisfaction of their members’ needs, some members will use strategies to tilt the balance of reciprocation in their favour. They will, therefore, benefit inequitably from the resources of the group.

The drive to acquire social status is a natural part of the human psyche and the consequence of millions of years of evolution. In the past, it has enabled us to survive and prosper. It is a part of human nature. Without it we would be less than human, and we certainly lack the skills to design a better psyche. However, one component of social status, the drive to acquire power, now poses a threat to the future of humanity. The answer, however, is not to attempt to remove it by technical or psychological means. Nor is the answer the replacement of one ideology by another. Nor is it the replacement of particular individuals or groups by others, e.g., men by women, or the elite by the working class. This is because we all seek power to a greater or lesser degree. Rather, the answer is to put in place social controls and attitudes which will ensure that power does not eclipse the other aspect of social status, leadership. In this way requisite hierarchy can be made to benefit all of humanity and life on earth.

Categories
10. Hierarchy Emergence - Introduction

Hierarchy Emergence – Introduction

A person’s social status in an organisation, from a club to a nation, is a measure of their attributes of leadership and power. Social status takes the form of a pyramidical hierarchy. Each level in the hierarchy is known as a stratum. Those in a higher stratum are normally fewer in number and have greater social status than those in a lower stratum. Such hierarchies are ubiquitous. Even organisations whose stated aims are socialist and progressive have hierarchies within them. The perception of relative status is important in determining how people interact with one another. Those of higher status will trade delegated status for the support of those of lower status, and vice versa. However, they will often compete with those of similar status.

An understanding of how status hierarchies arise can be gained by considering very small groups of individuals. In a group of just two people, the attributes of leadership and power in both are often similar. This leads to an equitable balance in social status. It is only where the attributes of one are greater than those of the other that differences emerge. For example, if person A clearly has more knowledge of how to tackle a situation than person B, then, in their mutual interest, B may defer to A. Similarly, if person B is more dominant through reasons of personality, physical strength, economic power, etc., then person A, in his own interest, may defer to B.

However, in a group of three, a hierarchy is almost inevitable. If person A clearly has greater attributes of leadership and power than B & C combined, then they will usually defer to him. However, if the attributes of A & C are roughly equal but greater than those of B, then there will be competition between A & C. Person B may acknowledge the higher status of both, but to avoid lowest status, may support whoever offers him greatest benefit in return, e.g., A. The attributes of an alliance of two are usually greater than those of one alone. The result is, therefore, that A gains highest status, followed by his supporter B, and C has lowest status. As a rule, the hierarchy ABC will offer greater benefit to every member than would be the case if each operated in isolation, and so, it may be accepted.

Another strategy for B is to remain neutral and encourage competition between A & C. B can then either wait for one of the others to negotiate with him, or alternatively, approach the person least confident of winning the competition.

Even at this very small scale, it is not necessarily the most competent leader who achieves highest status. Much depends on how highly the group members value competent leadership over personal interest. Unfortunately, it is also the case that power tends to trump leadership. A social hierarchy can, therefore, often be based on the former rather than the latter.

Although the interactions described above are between two or three individuals, they take place on a day-to-day basis between members of much larger organisations, the organisations themselves, and sub-organisations within them. Ultimately, a highest status individual, whose motives may or may not be the same as those of the organisation, either emerges from it or joins it.

However, hierarchies in very small groups can be dynamic, whilst those in larger groups are more entrenched. Small organisations tend to be informal and influenced by the character of particular individuals. Thus, when individuals or circumstances change, then so too does the nature of the hierarchy. However, as hierarchies become larger and more complex, they increasingly need a formal structure, with titles and reporting lines. These enable people to better understand their roles and co-operate. In formal hierarchies, roles and reporting lines are independent of individuals, who may change from time to time.

Categories
01. An Introduction to Organisations

An Introduction to Organisations

To carry out communal activities at any scale, we form what I will describe, generically, as “organisations”. These are formal or informal groups of individuals that have their own culture and purpose. They can be religious, political, economic, or have some other function.

All human organisations are self-maintaining systems. As an organisation comes into existence and develops, so too does a hierarchy within it. For the organisation to function efficiently and effectively, its members must specialise. This, in turn, requires the co-ordination of their activities. For example, a typical commercial enterprise comprises a managing director followed by directors, senior managers, middle managers, junior managers, and ordinary employees. A typical religion might be organised with a god at the top, followed by “his representative on earth”, and so on down to the lay population. Such hierarchies exist everywhere in society, albeit with different names for the various strata, and we take this for granted.

However, the type of hierarchy in an organisation depends on the extent to which it relies on leadership or power for control. A person with leadership attributes gains high status by virtue of skills in directing a group of individuals to an agreed common goal. Generally, these skills are recognised by the subordinates, and the leader’s status is held with their consent. On the other hand, a person with power attributes has skills in directing a group of individuals to a goal set by him, her or those above. He or she does not necessarily hold their status with their subordinates’ consent. Individuals in a hierarchy generally hold a combination of both attributes, each manifesting to a greater or lesser degree. Unfortunately, there has been a history of power masquerading as leadership, and the term “leader” is used to describe both those who exercise power and those who exercise genuine leadership. In this series of articles, I will, therefore, use the terms “highest status”, “high status”, “low status”, “lowest status”, “senior” and “junior” when referring to the members of a hierarchy.

Control and adaptation mechanisms in an organisation or sub-organisation depend on the highest status individuals receiving information from those of lower status and issuing instructions to them. The balance of leadership and power attributes can vary from organisation to organisation and from sub-organisation to sub-organisation. It is normally a reflection of the attributes of its highest status members and can become entrenched as a culture.

In the same way as systems, all organisations contain sub-organisations and are part of yet larger ones. A commercial organisation, for example, may comprise departments and teams. It may also belong to a sector, i.e., a group of commercial organisations with similar purpose. Thus, organisations are themselves structured hierarchically. An outline of this hierarchy from the top down is:

  • Earth’s Ecology
  • Global Human Organisation
  • Cultural Alliances of Nations
  • Individual Nations
  • National Elites
  • Sectors (both formal and informal)
  • Named Organisations
  • Departments
  • Teams
  • Individuals

The term “organisation” is used generically to describe any one of these.

Organisations exist to facilitate the co-operation of individuals for a common purpose. Usually, they are a means of satisfying the needs and avoiding the contra-needs of a group of individuals. However, their purpose can also be to satisfy the needs and avoid the contra-needs of one or more other organisations. It is also possible for organisations to come into being with the specific purpose of creating contra-satisfiers for others, or to obstruct their satisfiers. So, in the way that it impacts on others, an organisation can be a satisfier or contra-satisfier of a type described by Max Neef.

All organisations are open systems with inputs, processes, and outputs. They have needs and contra-needs. Their needs are to carry out their function and grow, and their contra-needs are an inability to do so. Satisfiers are the inputs and internal organisation necessary for them to carry out their processes. Contra-satisfiers are anything that prevents this.

Organisations interact with one another to provide inputs and outputs. When one organisation provides the outputs needed by another, it is a satisfier of the latter’s needs. However, it can also act as a contra-satisfier, either deliberately or unintentionally. Organisations will also compete with one another for the inputs or resources required to satisfy their needs. These interactions are not necessarily at the same level in the hierarchy of organisations. For example, an individual interacts with a commercial organisation for payment or other benefits in return for his labour. He also interacts with many organisations for products and services in return for money. In general, individuals and organisations will be attracted to organisations they believe will satisfy their needs. A form of risk-benefit-cost analysis is carried out and equitable reciprocation is expected.

Finally, all organisations come into existence, carry out their function for a time, and then either expire or alter their purpose. As I discuss organisations and hierarchies in more detail, I will follow this order.

Categories
06. Quality of Decision-making and Command (Part 2)

Quality of Decision-making and Command (Part 2)

For a command to be issued, opportunities and threats which provide motivators to the command component or the organisation and its stakeholders must exist.  Normally, there are several at any one time and the command component will grasp the opportunity or avoid the threat which yields greatest emotional benefit, leaving others for later. However, what is regarded as the highest priority opportunity or threat depends upon the command components traits as described in the previous article. For example, a self-serving attitude will favour personal opportunities and threats over organisational ones.

A potential solution is then identified, and the resources required for its implementation are compared with those available. As explained in a previous article, the use of resources has a negative emotional impact. However, the greater their availability, the less this impact.

The potential solution is also compared for compliance with the command component’s understanding of the culture in which the organisation operates, i.e., social values, norms, and beliefs. Understanding of this culture can vary from a full understanding to none at all, or it can be misinterpreted. Normally, the less compliant the proposed solution, the greater the disbenefits of acting on it. However, self-serving command components can have no cultural schema, a distorted one, or may simply ignore it.

The trustworthiness of the subordinate components or followers selected to implement the command is a risk that is also assessed. This will normally be based on feedback on their past performance and a perception of whether they share mutual interests with the command component or the organisation and its stakeholders. The more trustworthy the subordinates, the greater the benefits of implementing the proposed solution.

Other risks are also considered, for example, the failure of the proposed solution to deliver the benefits anticipated, or the use of greater resources than anticipated.

A risk/benefit/cost analysis is then carried out. If carried out by an individual, it is usually based entirely on emotional impacts. However, in larger organisations it can be a more formal process. Ultimately, however, even the most thorough formal analysis is founded on emotional impacts. The analysis yields an overall emotional benefit or disbenefit by adding together the positive emotional value of the benefits sought, the negative emotional value of the resources used, and the negative emotional value of any cultural non-compliance. The trustworthiness of the followers chosen to implement the solution and any other risk factors increase or decrease these individual values.

Based on this analysis, a decision is then taken on whether to implement the proposed solution. If the analysis shows a positive overall emotional benefit, then it will normally be implemented, and the command component will then consider the next highest priority opportunity or threat. However, if it has an overall emotional disbenefit, it will not. An alternative solution will be proposed, and the process will repeat until a satisfactory solution is found, or it is concluded that there is none. Thus, one of two feedback loops will occur, depending on this decision.

If it has been decided to proceed with a solution, then a command will normally be issued. Motivators, i.e., satisfiers, may also be offered to encourage the follower to implement the command. The resources required for these motivators will have been taken into account during the risk/benefit/cost analysis. However, if the follower has previously proven unwilling or if the use of resources can be reduced, then a coercive approach involving contra-satisfiers may be threatened.

Finally, if it has been decided to implement a course of action which does not comply with cultural values and norms, e.g., if the command component’s motives are entirely self-serving, then mitigation will be necessary. In the case of an individual leader, this can take the form of false displays of culturally acceptable motivation, explanations, rationales, distractions, etc. In the case of a business organisation, mitigation services are provided by public relations consultants, advertising consultants and business psychologists. As also stated by H.G. Wells, “Advertising is legitimised lying”. In the case of a political organisation, advice can be provided by spin doctors. In the extreme it can become propaganda and the silencing of dissenting voices. Again, the resources needed for this will have been taken into account in the risk/benefit/cost analysis. It is interesting to note that a surfeit of self-serving leaders leads to a surfeit of mitigation. This, in turn, leads to much social confusion regarding the truth, and thus, to mental ill health. Positive psychology and mindfulness merely treat the symptoms and not the cause. Furthermore, they distract us from dealing with the cause.

Categories
07. Anti-social Needs and Behaviour

Anti-social Needs & Behaviour

Our normal needs have an evolutionary basis and are those which, in the past, best enabled us to survive and procreate. They are the result of order brought about by life’s struggle against entropy and can be likened to the sandcastle described in my first article “Schrodinger’s Other Paradox”. They have a basis in both genetic and cultural evolution.

Unfortunately, due to the same evolutionary processes, some individuals have anti-social needs which cause behaviour that is a contra-satisfier resulting in harm to others. Note that I do not regard simple differences of opinion or personality as being anti-social. Nor do I regard outrage or disapproval as a harm. There must be a genuine impact on the contra-needs of others. Anti-social needs are the inevitable effect of entropy both on society and on the human genome, and can take many forms, most of which are harmful. Their existence can be likened to the many ways in which the sandcastle can begin to decay into a random heap of sand.

In practice, both normal needs, anti-social needs, and the behaviour they cause are defined by laws, norms, and consensus. These differ from nation to nation, culture to culture, and time to time. Generally, however, crime is subject to laws and punishment by the state, for example, imprisonment for theft. Violation of moral and religious codes has been regarded as punishable by God. Historically, for example, hell has been the ultimate fate of sinners. In some highly religious societies, the state can also intervene and, for example, impose punishment for blasphemy. Violation of social norms is punishable by the community by, for example, shunning. However, acts that cause mental stress or psychological damage to the victim often receive no censure.

Our contra-needs, or those harms that we wish to avoid, also have an evolutionary basis and are largely universal. Any behaviour which impinges on them will, therefore, be regarded by the recipient as unacceptable. If social controls favour normal needs, then the tendency will be towards orderly and healthy societies. However, if religious dogmas, political ideologies, corruption, or any combination of the three gain undue influence, especially control of the state, then incompatibilities can occur. This results in a society which can only be sustained through force, coercion, and repression.

Although normal needs are relatively universal and based on what has best enabled human beings to survive and procreate, disorder can occur in infinite ways. The causes of anti-social needs are, therefore, boundless. Examples include heredity, biological disfunction, drugs, upbringing, poverty, social, political, and economic factors, and so on. Criminologists recognise, for example, that the causes of crime are unique to each individual and that a combination of several factors may be in play.

It is impossible, therefore, to categorise anti-social needs. Furthermore, because an actor with anti-social needs will usually disguise them to avoid social controls, and will not be forthcoming with researchers, it is also extremely difficult to assess the priority that he or she gives to them and to anticipate when anti-social behaviour will occur.

Anti-social needs do, however, lie on a scale of type, which can vary from extreme psychological disorder, to exaggerated normal needs. Once a need is adequately satisfied, we usually move on to the satisfaction of others. However, for a variety of reasons, such as social influences, force of habit, or personality traits, it is possible to become trapped in the satisfaction of a particular need, to the extent that it is indulged in to harmful excess. For example, the pursuit of excessive wealth, power, or celebrity.

Anti-social needs also lie on a scale of harmful intent. At one extreme lie psychopathy, paedophilia, narcissism, etc., where the need is only satisfied by deliberately causing harm to others. At the other extreme lie antisocial behaviour and Schadenfreude or pleasure at the misfortune of others. Anti-social behaviour, as we presently understand it, is inconsiderate behaviour. It incudes, for example, vandalism, graffiti, littering, and dumping rubbish.

Finally, anti-social needs lie on a scale of effect which depends on the priority given by the victim to the relevant contra-need. Death, for example, would be high in the list of a victim’s contra-needs.

Life is a struggle against entropy, and it is inevitable, therefore, that we will always be faced with anti-social needs. However, this does not mean that we should just accept them. They are entropic in nature, and we are compelled by evolution to fight against them.

Most criminologists recognise that the best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour. It is also the case that people are attracted to institutions, organisations, and individuals who they feel will satisfy their needs. Knowing this, risk assessment, deterrence, prevention, and mitigation, based on the priority of the relevant contra-needs and the number of people affected, could be a practical approach. This would, for example, involve assessing the risk of an institution being steered in a harmful direction, and taking measures to reduce the risk that an individual with relevant anti-social needs can take its reins.