Power_ Why Some People Have Itand Others Don't - Jeffrey Pfeffer [58]
DISPLAY ANGER INSTEAD OF SADNESS OR REMORSE
Barack Obama’s chief of staff, former Illinois congressman Rahm Emanuel, is known for his temper. In his New Yorker portrait of Emanuel, Ryan Lizza observes:
Emanuel seems to employ his volcanic moments for effect, intimidating opponents…but never quite losing himself in the midst of battle…. Greenberg [an old friend] argues that Emanuel’s antics have been integral to his success. “Understand that the caricature and the mythology have always been helpful,” Greenberg said. “Sending the [dead] fish to the pollster that he thought had failed sent a message about how public he can be about his displeasure, and showed that he’s willing to step beyond the normal bounds, that he’s willing to be outrageous and he doesn’t suffer fools.”11
What works for Emanuel may work even better for you: you may not have a job with a lot of power; Emanuel does, and people know it. Sometimes you will work with peers and colleagues of about equal rank whom you want to influence. Sometimes your actual power will be ambiguous. In such situations, displaying anger is useful.
Research shows that people who express anger are seen “as dominant, strong, competent, and smart,” although they are also, of course, seen as less nice and warm.12 Social psychologist Larissa Tiedens has conducted research on the relationship between expressed emotions and perceptions of power. In three studies using vignettes as the stimuli, Tiedens and some colleagues explored people’s expectations for emotional expressions by high-and low-status others.13 The researchers found that in negative situations, participants believed that high-status people would feel more angry than sad or guilty and that low-status people would feel sad or guilty instead of angry. A second experiment demonstrated that angry people were seen as high-status while sad and guilty people were viewed as low-status.
In another series of experimental studies, Tiedens showed that people actually conferred more status on people who expressed anger rather than sadness. One study had participants watch two video clips from former president Clinton’s testimony in the Monica Lewinsky scandal. In one clip he appeared angry, and in the other he hung his head and averted his gaze, typical for someone expressing guilt and remorse. People who viewed the anger clip were significantly more pro-Clinton in their attitudes. They believed it showed he was a person in power compared to those who saw him acting sad. In a second study, to avoid any contamination by preexisting attitudes about Clinton, an anonymous actor played the role of a politician and delivered the identical speech on terrorism, in one instance acting as if he were angry and in the other as if he were sad. Study participants were more likely to say they would vote for the politician in the angry rather than the sad posture. They also thought the angry person would be a better political leader.
In a study Tiedens conducted at a software company, people rated their coworkers on how frequently these individuals exhibited a variety of emotions. People rated coworkers who expressed more anger as better potential role models—people from whom they could learn. In yet another study reported in the same paper, participants assigned a higher-status position and a higher salary to a job candidate who described himself as angry. He was perceived as more competent when expressing anger rather than sadness.14
If you express anger, not only do you receive more status and power and appear more competent but others are reluctant to cross you. After all, who wants to be the brunt of anger? No wonder “General George Patton tried to practice his scowl in front of his mirror.” Consider what political commentator and former legislative aide Chris Matthews said about Senator Ed Muskie of Maine: “Why tangle with the guy? Why ruin your day? A bad temper is a very powerful political tool because most people don’t like confrontation.”15
Does this recommendation