Individuals working in positions of support within legitimate positional power offices, such as those of CEOs or elected or appointed officials, can sometimes leverage their proximity to power to enhance their perceived importance and legitimacy, even when such status may not be fully warranted. This phenomenon can occur through several mechanisms: Proximity to power, information control, gatekeeping and access control and symbolic association. Likewise, misuse and manipulation of these can have significant impacts on individual, team, and organizational dynamics. These behaviors can distort decision-making processes, undermine trust, and lead to a toxic work environment.
Let’s take a look at each of these, how they work theoretically and then the impacts to individuals, teams, and the organization if this is misused or manipulated. We’ll start with proximity to power.
Proximity to Power
Proximity to power itself can confer perceived legitimacy. Support staff may be viewed as gatekeepers or trusted advisors, which can inflate their importance in the eyes of others, regardless of their actual level of influence. This is aligned with the concept of "borrowed power," where individuals gain influence by association with those who hold actual power (Yukl, 2013). This proximity can lead others to overestimate the support staff's authority or decision-making power, even if they are not directly involved in critical decisions.
Individual: A person close to a powerful figure, such as a CEO, might exaggerate their influence by implying that the leader endorses their opinions. This can create a false sense of authority, leading others to defer to them unnecessarily (Yukl, 2013).
Team: Within a team, this individual might dominate discussions or decisions by invoking their close relationship with leadership, potentially stifling diverse perspectives, and reducing collaborative efforts (Kanter, 1977).
Organization: Organizationally, the misuse of proximity to power can lead to favoritism, where decisions are made based on perceived loyalty rather than merit, which can undermine morale and fairness within the organization (Mintzberg, 1983).
Information Control
Support staff often have access to privileged information, which they can selectively share to appear more knowledgeable or influential than they are. The ability to control the flow of information can increase their perceived importance within the organization (French & Raven, 1959). When others perceive that these individuals have access to critical insights or that they can influence the decision-making process, their legitimacy and importance may be artificially inflated.
Individual: At an individual level, a person might selectively withhold or distort information to maintain a competitive edge or manipulate outcomes in their favor, often at the expense of others’ success or the organization’s objectives (French & Raven, 1959).
Team: In a team setting, manipulating information flow can create divisions, foster mistrust, or cause misaligned goals, ultimately reducing team effectiveness and cohesion (Tushman & Nadler, 1978).
Organization: At the organizational level, the misuse of information control can lead to poor decision-making, as leaders may be making choices based on incomplete or biased information, which can have long-term negative effects on organizational performance and culture (Ocasio, 1997).
Gatekeeping and Access Control
Support staff in such positions often control access to the powerful individual they serve. By acting as gatekeepers, they can determine who gets face time with the officeholder and when. This gatekeeping role can be leveraged to build a reputation as a key influencer or decision-maker, even if the reality is that they are merely facilitators (Kanter, 1977). This perception can lead to an overestimation of their actual power and authority.
Individual: An individual might exploit their gatekeeping role by granting or denying access based on personal biases or agendas, rather than organizational needs, thus skewing outcomes to their advantage (Kanter, 1977).
Team: Within a team, gatekeeping can be used to control the flow of resources or opportunities, leading to resentment and decreased collaboration among team members (Mintzberg, 1983).
Organization: On an organizational level, improper gatekeeping can create bottlenecks, where critical decisions or information are delayed or misdirected, hampering organizational efficiency and effectiveness (Pfeffer, 1981).
Symbolic Association
The symbolic power of being associated with a powerful office can lead to an increase in perceived legitimacy. This phenomenon is tied to the idea of "legitimacy by association," where individuals gain status simply by being linked to a high-status position or person (Weber, 1978). The support staff can exploit this association to project an image of importance, which might not be fully deserved.
Individual: An individual might misuse symbolic association by falsely implying greater authority or influence due to their connection with a powerful office or individual, leading others to overestimate their actual role or impact (Weber, 1978).
Team: Within a team, symbolic association can be manipulated to assert dominance or influence over others, potentially undermining the contributions of other team members and leading to a lack of trust or cooperation (Yukl, 2013).
Organization: Organizationally, when symbolic association is misused, it can lead to a culture where appearances and connections are valued over competence and results, which can damage organizational integrity and performance (Bourdieu, 1984).
Examples of Misuse of Proximity to Power:
Using the office's title rather than their own actual positional title is a common tactic that can be employed by individuals seeking to enhance their legitimacy through association. This approach relies on the prestige and authority associated with the higher office, which can overshadow the individual's true position within the organizational hierarchy.
Let’s look at an example where the concept of legitimacy by association is considered. Consider an example where someone is using the office title rather than their own actual positional title when introducing themselves or in correspondence.
Example Scenario
Consider a situation where a Confidential Assistant II (sub-managerial administrative position) works in the CEO's Office of a large corporation. Rather than introducing themselves in meetings with their actual title, which might be perceived as relatively junior or administrative, the individual might instead present themselves in communication or introductions as being "from the CEO’s Office." This subtle shift leverages the prestige and authority associated with the CEO's position, thereby increasing the assistant's perceived importance and legitimacy.
By invoking the "CEO’s Office," the assistant aligns themselves with the power and influence of the CEO, even though their own role may be much more limited. This tactic can lead others to assume that the assistant has more positional authority, decision-making power, or insider/privileged knowledge than they actually possess. It also doesn’t accurately state their true authority, leaving others to either have to question it or accept it as presented. This is a classic example of "legitimacy by association," where the individual's perceived legitimacy is bolstered by their association with a powerful entity rather than their actual position (Weber, 1978).
A More Surreptitious, Yet Effective Manipulation Tactic
Another common tactic is using the offices position as their own in the signature block of correspondence. Using the position of power rather than one's own actual position in a signature block can be a subtle but effective manipulative tactic. This approach leverages the authority and prestige associated with a powerful office or title to enhance the sender's perceived importance and influence. Here’s how this works:
By using the title of the office (e.g., "CEO’s Office") rather than their actual position (e.g., "Confidential Assistant II"), an individual can create the illusion that they have more authority or influence than they truly possess. This can lead recipients of the communication to assume that the message carries more weight or is closer to the decision-making process than it actually is. This tactic can be used to intimidate or pressure others into compliance, assuming that they are dealing directly with a higher authority (Weber, 1978).
This practice can also mislead others about the individual's role within the organization. For example, a person might use "Office of the CEO" to imply they are directly involved in strategic decision-making or have direct access to the CEO, even if their role is primarily administrative. This can distort perceptions and lead to decisions or actions based on incorrect assumptions about the individual's influence (Mintzberg, 1983).
By aligning themselves with a powerful title, the individual gains a form of "borrowed legitimacy." This can be particularly manipulative in negotiations or conflicts, where the perception of higher authority can unfairly sway outcomes in their favor. This tactic can undermine the integrity of communications and relationships within the organization, as others may feel coerced or misled by the implied authority (French & Raven, 1959).
Using an office's title rather than a personal title can obscure the true source of communication, making it difficult for others to understand the actual chain of command or decision-making process. This lack of transparency can be exploited to manipulate situations to the individual’s advantage, particularly in complex organizational environments where clarity and accountability are crucial (Kanter, 1977).
This tactic is manipulative because it distorts the reality of the individual's role and can lead others to act on false assumptions, ultimately disrupting fair and transparent interactions within the organization.
How To Mitigate the Misuse and Manipulation of the Proximity of Power.
Mitigating the risks associated with the misuse of proximity to power, information control, gatekeeping, access control, and symbolic association requires a multi-faceted approach focused on promoting transparency, accountability, and ethical leadership within the organization. Strategies to address these issues include promoting transparent communication, strengthening accountability measures, encouraging ethical leadership, and fostering a culture of inclusion and openness.
First, let’s consider how to promote transparent communication. Clearly defining roles and responsibilities within the organization can reduce the likelihood of individuals misrepresenting their authority. This involves ensuring that everyone understands the limits of their power and accurately and appropriately identifies their own position or role and the scope of their duties (Mintzberg, 1983).
Establishing open communication channels where information is shared transparently (including actual positional authority) helps to prevent the manipulation of information and ensures that decisions are based on accurate and complete data (Tushman & Nadler, 1978).
Next, we need to strengthen accountability mechanisms through conducting regular audits of decision-making processes and information flow, which can help identify and address any misuse of power. This includes reviewing how information is shared and how decisions are made to ensure they align with organizational goals and ethical standards (Ocasio, 1997). Implementing structures that hold individuals accountable for their actions is crucial. This might include establishing clear reporting lines, performance reviews, and consequences for unethical behavior (Pfeffer, 1981).
Another method to address misuse and manipulation of power is by providing training focused on ethical leadership and integrity, which can help leaders at all levels understand the importance of using power responsibly. This training should emphasize the dangers of manipulative tactics and the importance of fostering a culture of trust and fairness (Yukl, 2013). Leaders should model ethical behavior, demonstrating transparency and fairness in their actions. When leaders exhibit ethical behavior, it sets a standard for the rest of the organization and reduces the likelihood of others engaging in manipulative tactics (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999).
Lastly, fostering a culture of openness and inclusivity which encourage inclusive decision-making processes where diverse perspectives are valued can reduce the influence of individuals who may otherwise manipulate outcomes. This approach ensures that decisions are made collaboratively and based on the collective input of the team (Kanter, 1977). Also establishing mechanisms for feedback, such as anonymous surveys or suggestion boxes, allows employees to voice concerns about potential misuse of power without fear of retaliation. This can help identify issues before they escalate (Bennis & O'Toole, 2005).
Conclusion
The manipulation of proximity to power, information control, gatekeeping, access control, and symbolic association can have profound and often detrimental effects on individual, team, and organizational dynamics. Individuals who exploit their proximity to powerful figures or roles may inflate their perceived authority, manipulate the flow of information, and create barriers that distort decision-making processes. By using the title of a powerful office rather than their actual position, individuals can further mislead others, creating an illusion of greater influence and legitimacy than is warranted. This can lead to a lack of transparency, mistrust, and ultimately a toxic organizational culture where decisions are made based on distorted perceptions rather than reality (Yukl, 2013; Mintzberg, 1983; French & Raven, 1959). To mitigate these risks, organizations must promote transparency, clear communication, and accountability, ensuring that power and authority are exercised appropriately and equitably.
About the Author: Dr. Chris Fuzie is the owner of CMF Leadership Consulting and is currently the Business/HR Manager for a District Attorney’s office in California. Chris is a Leaderologist II and Vice President of the National Leaderology Association (NLA) who holds a Doctor of Education (Ed. D), M.A. and B.A. in Organizational Leadership, and has graduate certificates in Human Resources and Criminal Justice Education. Chris is a Senior Fellow with the American Leadership Forum and developer, trainer, consultant for leadership of public, private, profit, and non-profit organizations since 2010. Chris is a graduate of the FBI National Academy and a former National Instructor for the International Association of Chiefs of Police and California P.O.S.T. Courses. Chris is the author of "Liminal Space: Reshaping Leadership and Followership," "Because Why... Understanding Behavior in Exigencies." and of "S.C.O.R.E. Performance Counseling: Save the Relationship, Change the Behavior." Chris is honorably retired from the Modesto Police Department after 28 years of public service leading such teams as the Homicide Team, the Hostage Negotiations Team, the Street-Level Drug Team, and the School Police Officer Team.
References:
Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 181-217.
Bennis, W., & O'Toole, J. (2005). How business schools lost their way. Harvard Business Review, 83(5), 96-104.
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. Harvard University Press.
Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. Basic Books.
Mintzberg, H. (1983). Power in and around organizations. Prentice-Hall.
Ocasio, W. (1997). Towards an attention-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 18(S1), 187-206.
Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in organizations. Pitman Publishing.
Tushman, M. L., & Nadler, D. A. (1978). Information processing as an integrating concept in organizational design. Academy of Management Review, 3(3), 613-624.
Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology (Vol. 1). University of California Press.
Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in organizations (8th ed.). Pearson.
Comments