The usual list of obstacles to social advancement contains a number of “isms” — classism, racism, sexism. But here’s one many don’t think about: communalism. In studies, people lower on the socioeconomic spectrum tend to express greater concern than those higher up about community needs rather than individual ones. For example, they’re more likely to react to chaos by volunteering for a community-building project. New research suggests that this desire for harmony reduces their wish to obtain power — at least as it’s normally understood.
Promoting greater social mobility, then, might rely on casting power as a tool for the greater good, so that those who don’t have it actually want it. When some people are reluctant to schmooze and scheme their way to the top, does that mean they lack drive — or is there a problem with how we conceive of advancement?
In a recent paper in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, two business school professors — Peter Belmi at the University of Virginia and Kristin Laurin at Stanford University — explored how class status affected desire for power.
Belmi and Laurin asked MBA students to list their preferred course electives, one of which was called “The Paths to Power.” Students also rated how disadvantaged their families were when they were growing up. (In their subsequent studies, class was measured by income, education, parental education, and where people saw themselves in the social hierarchy.) Those lowest in class were least interested in “The Paths to Power.”
What about that subject turns certain people off? Maybe it depends on the path. In another study, college students read about a consulting job and were told that moving up the ranks would require either hard work or political skill. They were also asked how high on the company ladder they hoped to climb. When advancement was described as requiring politics, lower-class people preferred less senior positions than higher-class people did. However, when advancement was described as requiring hard work, there was no difference in desire for power.
Advertisement
A third study dug into this distaste for schmoozing. Participants rated their willingness to engage in a list of 15 manipulative behaviors (kissing up, showing off, using others). They also answered questions assessing their personalities and values. Those lower in class were less narcissistic and more collectivistic, which reduced their willingness to politick, which lowered their desire for power.
A final study asked whether politicking might be more accepted as a means for prosocial ends. College students wrote about how having power in an organization could lead to personal gain, or about how it could also help their loved ones (through money or connections). When students thought of power as benefiting only themselves, lower-class participants had less desire for it, and less comfort with politicking to get it. But when power was considered as something that could help others, class made no difference.
To encourage people at the bottom of the hierarchy to move up, Belmi says, organizations should foster competition based on prestige or merit. Otherwise, he says, “you only have people remaining in the game who are willing to play in the game.” And those might not be the people you want in charge.
Matthew Hutson is a science writer and the author of “The 7 Laws of Magical Thinking.”
Advertisement