The Power Paradox: Why We Crave Rules and How Authority Changes Us

From our earliest moments, we learn that most relationships in our world are built on a framework of subordination. Even when on equal footing, we instinctively adapt to the norms and expectations of others, hoping for the same courtesy in return. This raises a fundamental question: why are we so inclined to comply with requests and follow rules? What is the nature of power, and why does possessing it so often seem to alter the very fabric of a person's character?

The Comfort of Rules and the Pain of Freedom

In psychology, submission is more than just obedience or a personality trait. While it can manifest as conformity, suggestibility, or adopting social norms, its most crucial function is as a tool for self-discipline and self-regulation. This role is vital from our first days. For a child, a world with clear and reasonable rules is a world that feels stable and safe. It provides a bedrock of security for a child’s mind. In contrast, absolute freedom, especially during a crisis, can be a source of profound stress. Without the life experience to guide them, a child is not yet equipped to rely on their own judgments, and the weight of choice becomes a burden.

As we grow, we gather a collection of new social roles, each with its own set of unspoken rules. Our first major social role outside the family is that of a student. Success in this role demands listening to the teacher, adhering to a schedule, and completing assignments. Following these rules doesn't just contribute to academic success; it reinforces a child’s self-esteem. Later, we become a friend, a team member, a partner, an employee. With every life situation, we step into a social role, and our effectiveness often depends on how well we understand and perform it.

The famous experiments of psychologist Stanley Milgram starkly demonstrated this phenomenon. He showed that when guided by the rules of a social role—in his case, a "teacher" in a scientific experiment—most people are willing to perform actions that deeply conflict with their personal values.

The Hunger for Power: A Noble Cause or a Hidden Wound?

While some roles demand obedience, others involve control over people. Interestingly, our reactions to these positions of authority are deeply divided. Some people are terrified by the prospect of leadership, avoiding power at all costs. This is often rooted in a fear of responsibility or the discomfort of confronting conflict. For others, however, power is not only attractive but can become an all-consuming, almost maniacal pursuit.

Psychoanalyst Karen Horney offered a framework for understanding this drive, distinguishing between normative and neurotic striving for power. A normative ambition is typically driven by constructive motives: the desire to improve a process, create meaningful change, or tackle challenging goals. Neurotic striving, however, often serves as a mask. It is an attempt to compensate for a deep-seated inferiority complex, which may stem from feelings of self-hatred, anxiety, or perceived personal shortcomings.

Building on this, Alfred Adler's theory suggests that some individuals seek to overcome their feelings of inferiority by asserting power over others, thereby reinforcing their own value. This sense of self-worth is often forged in the fires of adolescence. During this turbulent period, every person navigates the difficult process of separating from their parents and establishing their own emotional independence. This struggle frequently manifests in rebellious behavior. If this natural adolescent rebellion is harshly suppressed by an authoritarian upbringing, the feeling of inferiority can fester. The suppressed desire for self-affirmation may then erupt later in life in unpredictable and sometimes pathological forms of obsessive domination.

Sometimes, a neurotic desire for power conceals a profound fear of being alone. The philosopher Erich Fromm wrote that this very fear motivates people to become leaders and orators. This intense need for the attention of a crowd, he argued, can hide a sadistic motive. Such leaders may begin to see others not as individuals, but as functions—tools to be controlled and made to serve their own interests.

The Anatomy of Power: Where Does Authority Come From?

In our daily lives, we often use the words "influence" and "power" interchangeably, but they have distinct meanings. Influence is a dynamic between people where one person can, with some probability, change the behavior of another. However, one can only truly influence others from a position of power. Power is the collection of resources and rights that allows someone to control the behavior of others. But what grants a person this power? There are several primary sources.

1. Resource Power: This is the most straightforward type. If you control resources that another person needs—such as money, equipment, or other material assets—your ability to influence them is significant.
2. Positional Power: Also known as formal authority, this power comes from a title or a position within a hierarchy. It grants formal permission to control others and is reinforced by the prescribed rules of social roles. Often, the authority of a high-ranking position extends beyond purely formal interactions.
3. Personal Power: Many of history’s most influential leaders possessed personal qualities that others found worthy of admiration and emulation. This charisma and integrity create a form of power where people willingly align with a leader's views because they respect them as a person.
4. Expert Power: It is far easier to lead if you are recognized as an expert in your field. Competence grants a unique form of authority, as people are naturally inclined to follow the guidance of someone who knows what they are doing.

In reality, these sources of power rarely exist in isolation. Effective leadership is almost always a blend of these types in varying proportions.

Does Power Always Corrupt?

The old adage that "power corrupts" is a familiar one, and modern psychological research has found startling evidence to support it. Power seems to fundamentally alter an individual's psychology in a few key ways.

First, people with power tend to develop a contempt for common norms. In one study, researcher Adam Galinsky found that participants given a sense of power were far more likely than others to selfishly turn off an annoying fan, disregarding its effect on others in the room. Similarly, while most people have internal inhibitions against cheating, those who feel powerful find it easier to violate this barrier and act in whatever way benefits them most.

Second, power strengthens egocentrism—the tendency to prioritize one's own needs above all else. This has been observed in real-world financial behavior. For example, studies have shown that people earning less than $25,000 a year donate, on average, 4.2% of their income to charity, while those earning over $150,000 donate only 2.7%.

In a telling experiment at Columbia University, participants were assigned the role of either a "boss" or a "subordinate." Before the main task, each person was asked to take some candies, either for themselves or for another participant. The results were clear: the "bosses" consistently took significantly more candy for themselves than for others. In contrast, the "subordinates" tended to take more candy for others than for themselves. This suggests that even a temporary and artificial sense of power can inflate a person’s sense of self-importance relative to others.

Of course, these are averaged results. It would be a mistake to claim that power corrupts every individual in the same way. Power does seem to liberate a person from social constraints and amplify their focus on themselves. However, the actions that result from this liberation depend heavily on that person’s core qualities—their pre-existing level of empathy, their moral compass, and their capacity to think beyond their immediate gratification.

So, does power inevitably corrupt, or is it possible to wield it with integrity? The answer may lie not in the power itself, but in the character of the person who holds it.

References

• Fromm, E. (1941). Escape from Freedom. Farrar & Rinehart.

  This classic work explores the psychological paradox of freedom, arguing that with freedom comes isolation and anxiety. Fromm posits that to escape this loneliness, some individuals are driven to seek authoritarian structures, either by submitting to a powerful figure or by becoming one themselves. This directly supports the article's discussion of the fear of loneliness as a motivation for a neurotic desire for power and domination.

• Horney, K. (1937). The Neurotic Personality of Our Time. W. W. Norton & Company.

  Horney's work provides the foundation for the article's distinction between healthy and unhealthy drives for power. She describes how neurotic needs—for affection, approval, or power—develop as a way to cope with basic anxiety and feelings of helplessness. The pursuit of power, in this context, is not a sign of strength but a "neurotic trend" used to compensate for a fragile sense of self, as detailed on pages 162-171.

• Piff, P. K., Stancato, D. M., Côté, S., Mendoza-Denton, R., & Keltner, D. (2012). Higher social class predicts increased unethical behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(11), 4086–4091.

  This series of studies provides empirical evidence for the idea that power corrupts. The researchers found that individuals from higher social classes (a proxy for power and resources) were more likely to break the law while driving, exhibit unethical decision-making, take valued goods from others, lie in negotiations, and endorse unethical behavior at work. This research directly supports the article's claims about power reinforcing egocentrism and leading to a disregard for norms.