Stephan Polomski is director human resources, coach and trainer

Last week when I attended an HR conference in Frankfurt we had dinner in one of the in-places of town. Coincidentally one of Frankfurt´s private banking houses was celebrating Christmas there as well. Listening to speeches and talks, one assumes that power, wealth, and prestige are the most influential motivation drivers managers follow during their career. And as seen in the restaurant, these drivers create a huge number of social privileges bringing along social recognition and status.

At the same time power, wealth and prestige are considered the most austere barriers for organizational change as Christof Schenk of the University of Augsburg claims.

Why?

As power grants status almost everybody is striving for status within social hierarchy.

In the animal kingdom a high position in hierarchy guarantees access to the two most important life functions: food and pairing – and herewith: survival. Status in nature means vitality, energy, intelligence. However, in the realm of nature nobody possesses power.

In human societies power comes with position, wealth, and prestige through a social and economic structure, once you fought your way through to the top with your intelligence and education. Here, power creates status. And status helps to repress a lack of emotion, of self-esteem and contact to reality – especially for those who work more than 40 hours a week.

In order to stabilize and retain individual status economic and organizational structures, values, and behavioral patterns will of course not be changed by those in power. Therefore, it is useless to replace leaders expecting that a replacement will foster change for example towards topics like gender diversity or a self-balanced organization. It will not. The wheel that continuously confirms the leaders´ power and status will continue to turn around as long as people follow their ego-driven nature.

So far, it seems we face a vicious circle.

“Growth, power, prestige, and wealth are not only the basic motivational drivers of most men in leading positions. They are also the main objectives of our economic system. Often life quality, health, social balance, and welfare – corporate social responsibility, corporate citizenship, sustainability – are subordinated to these objectives although – talking out of a humanistic perspective – they are superordinated.”

Growth, power, prestige, and wealth are not only the basic motivational drivers of most men in leading positions. They are also the main objectives of our economic system. Often life quality, health, social balance, and welfare – corporate social responsibility, corporate citizenship, sustainability – are subordinated to these objectives although – talking out of a humanistic perspective – they are superordinated.

So, how could there be a change?

And: should there be a change?

These questions bring us back to a discussion of values and the case how we want to deal with power?

Psychologists call the strict adherence to power and status a fixation causing a lack of flexibility in feeling, acting and thinking especially when personalities tend to be extremly ego-driven.

Gregory Bateson, world famous British anthropologist, does not think that power is corrupting, but the idea of power. The idea of power is in fact corrupting those, he says, who believe in it and who strive for it without any questioning. A democracy certainly leaves the access to power free for those who are starving for it and gives also room for withdrawal for the others, who do not want any power.

Power is a myth of mankind: this is why even the pure Frodo as the bearer of the ring of power in Tolkien´s “Lord of the Rings” almost failed to through it back or why Luke Skywalker in “Star Wars” by George Lucas is warned by this teacher Yoda of the dark side of power to which his father Anakin got addicted.

I think this is also why leaders in politics and in economy of our times become more and more target of sometimes severe critiques.

If power is a domain of mostly men it is a matter of creating awareness in this target group of leaders revising the social phenomenon of power and the personal approach to it. May be only if questioned by peril to life men might give up to play their power games.

The behavior of leaders after the peak of recession and the crisis of the banking system showed, that fear is effective feedback only as long as the own power as self assuring factor is questioned and in danger.

No lessons learned it seems. No motivating values which had been changed. This is reality, a simple reality sometimes shaken to the core by anarchy like WikiLeaks unmasking the manifold faces of established power and showing its double morale.

Certainly, as I said above, organizational (and sociological, cultural) change towards more space for self balanced and thus “free” activities will not take place by replacing one power with another, one system with another, one leader with another. Change will take place if this system, this leader, this organization learns to leave space for more freedom, individuality, and creativity – - and all that on a basis, which Arnold Mindell, founder of Process Oriented Psychology, suggested by creating the notion of Deep Democracy.

This also requires a new handling of human needs, says Christof Schneck whom this blog owes some basic ideas quoting Herbert Marcuse, German philosopher:

1.       Economy has to serve the optimal development of the single and all other human beings

2.       Using all material and intellectual resources the satisfaction of needs should not again lead to exhausting labor and poverty

And with these thoughts I wish you on behalf of TheCareGuys a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.