Defending Your Power Against Subordinates
From the thread Definitive Dictionary of Power #118
Lucio: If you allow lower-power individuals to disempower you, people wonder if you've got the attitude and skills to deserve your current role and/or leadership position.
As an example, see Putin's recent video where he was forced to beat down on his reports simply to confirm that he's the leader:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvk5PAthNyI&feature=youtu.be
It's possible to go the other way around and over-react:
From what I read, the boy was singing some socialist anthem.
I think that was also why President Macron got angry.
Unfortunately, the media likes to sensationalise how a president over-reacts to a boy.
Then, there was Ray Dalio too overreacting to a published article in this thread.
The great thing about Putin is that he probably controls the media.
Maybe I can do a more detailed breakdown analysis of the mistakes of bosses defending their authority against subordinates.
My General Thoughts on How to Defend One's Power
When defending your power against lower-power individuals:
- Act high-power in general
- Expend the least amount of effort to defend your authority
- Act like you already have authority over decisions
Another approach is that if the subordinate brings about a good point and he's actually correct, then you can say
Good Point.
Thanks for bringing this up.
It's good for the team.
I remember John's supervisor said:
Thank you for correcting me.
Then continue talking about the agenda or context of the meeting.
Also, a good way for the boss to encourage input while showing he has the authority over decisions.
Common Mistakes
Let's use subordinate interchangeably with lower-power individuals for convenience.
I understand it matters quite a bit whether you have official authority over the person.
- Getting into an argument or discussion with the subordinate
- Attacking or over-lecturing the subordinate
- Not accepting the subordinate's point when he makes a good point
I find the dynamics of defending power as a leader to be challenging.
Why is it that in President Macron's case and in Ray Dalio's response to his critic, they both lost power when defending against authority challenges?
I suppose it's contextual.
In President Macron's and Ray Dalio's case,
- the remark didn't come from direct subordinates
- In President Macron's case, the boy was using the jester frame so President Macron looked like he overreacted
- Ray Dalio got too personal and argumentative
When Putin re-asserted his authority over the subordinate, he was aggressive but did it in a professional manner by challenging the frame of the subordinate.
Quote from Matthew Whitewood on September 21, 2021, 2:17 pm
- the remark didn't come from direct subordinates
- In President Macron's case, the boy was using the jester frame so President Macron looked like he overreacted
- Ray Dalio got too personal and argumentative
Yes, you said it.
Especially the first one: that is the first thing to consider.
As a leader, to be effective, you theoretically only need to have power over the people you directly lead (first and foremost, the ones who execute your tasks first and foremost)
And having their respect is an important part of that power over -the influence part, so you don't need to rely on the rank only-.
Then, it's a circle of different groups of people who matter less and less.
And whether or not you escalate with them is more contextual.
Sure, you should always aim to have as much respect as possible.
And if you're a high-quality "eagle", you will most likely have it.
But if you're a famous leader, no matter how great you are, you're almost bound to have at least some critics.
And if you escalate too often, it signals too much thin skin (see Trump, who probably lost the presidency for his tendency of over-escalating).