P
ublic spaces are vital arteries of a bustling city.
When designed well, these can encourage diverse
and gracious uses of spots that are open to one
and all. Free of barriers and walls, they help to
Publication: make
ThetheStraits
Times,
A30
city feel welcoming.
Yet,p
civic
considerations often take second place to commercial priorDate: 4 February
ities and2017
urban development demands. It is not
wrongThe
to maximise
economic yield,weight
of course, but
Headline: 2017:
unbearable
of
this may sometimes be done in crass ways, to the
detriment of society, the liveability of an area and
the well-being of users. Refined property owners,
however, recognise that creating the right ambience and making spaces attractive to users can
bring significant rewards.
The Urban Redevelopment Authority’s recent
introduction of new guidelines to make public
spaces in private buildings more user-friendly
might help more people to see these spots in a different light. The development of land sites that
stipulate the inclusion of such free-to-roam areas
will have to meet new requirements, such as offering ample shade and public seating. Those constructing larger spaces are encouraged to add
power
amenities such as free Wi-Fi connectivity, mobile
device charging points, drinking fountains, exercise equipment or public art.
Not all developers will greet these guidelines
with cheer. Some may fret that noise levels from
non-paying loiterers could disturb the building’s
tenants and visitors. Others might worry about
the possibility of accelerated wear and tear – and
perhaps even serious damage – in spaces that
have to be easily accessible from major thoroughfares and be open 24 hours a day. However, graceful spots can encourage people to behave gracefully, and high-profile public zones can create a buzz
that is not easily replicated. The appeal of Times
Square in New York, for example, generates significant economic value by eliciting more tourism
spending and boosting real estate values.
Constructing well-planned public spaces – the
art of place-making – raises the quality of not just
commercial life but also social life. Bringing natural, green elements and rest stops into concrete
jungles produces therapeutic benefits for weary
shoppers, workers and tourists. Collaborating
with creative groups to design public spaces or
holding free activities in them are innovative
ways of engaging younger people. Cleverly located open areas can also encourage more walking,
which can benefit businesses in the area.
Equally importantly, good communal areas
play a role in giving all equal access to quality spaces and in encouraging social, cultural and interest groups to mingle naturally. It is no exaggeration to link vibrant public spaces with stronger
community bonds, enlarged common experiences and a greater sense of social equity. Over time,
some of these places might become much loved
spots, even though they are privately operated.
ByInvitation
The unbearable weight of power
Does power corrupt? Research suggests that
it can, and often does. Worst of all, people
with weak moral identities tend to abuse
power when they get it.
David Chan
For The Straits Times
When leaders at the workplace or
in politics behave badly, people
often go: “Power corrupts.”
The statement is used broadly to
mean that power has led one to
behave in ways that violate norms
and values. The violations may be
cultural or moral, such as making
offensive remarks and
inappropriate demands, or legal,
such as falsifying documents and
misusing funds.
Sometimes, the phrase “power
corrupts” is used in conversations
to refer to how someone has
changed for the worse after
acquiring new power, such as a
promotion to senior management
or winning an election.
Does power actually corrupt? Or
is it that corruptible people are
attracted to power and more likely
to get it, so that corruption is the
correlate rather than the
consequence of having power?
Does power always corrupt? Could
power not enable people to make
good things happen that benefit
others?
The answers to these questions
have implications for practical
decisions, such as selecting leaders,
designing systems to check and
balance power, and when or who to
give more or less power to.
POWERFUL PERSONS
BEHAVING BADLY
When powerful people misbehave,
people are likely to think that it is
their powerful position that makes
them misbehave, rather than other
personal traits or circumstance.
This is due to three reasons. The
explanation that power induces
misbehaviour is coherent because
we understand that a person in
power can make others do what he
wants. It is conspicuous because
many scandals involving politicians
and senior executives are
high-profile ones that come easily
to our mind. And finally, it is
common because most people have
come across powerful people
behaving badly. Thus, the notion
that “power corrupts” becomes a
convincing conclusion.
But what is the scientific
evidence that power corrupts?
Studies on workplace incivility
and deviant behaviours show that
disrespectful behaviours, bullying
and sexual harassment are
committed mostly by persons in
positions of power. This is not
surprising since powerful persons
are more likely to get away with
misbehaviours.
What will surprise many are the
findings from laboratory
experiments showing that ordinary
and decent people can end up doing
bad things when they have power.
In these experiments,
participants were randomly put
into a position that has either high
power or low power, so the findings
can be explained by power rather
than personality. Findings from
these experiments consistently
showed that participants in
high-power positions were more
likely to engage in various deviant
behaviours such as cheating.
They also make more biased
moral judgments. In the
experiments, participants induced
to be in either high- or low-power
positions were asked to rate the
moral severity of the same deviant
behaviour hypothetically
committed by themselves or
others. Results showed that,
whether it is over-reporting travel
expenses at work, under-declaring
income for taxes or speeding when
late for an appointment,
high-power participants were
harsher than low-power
participants when rating a
transgression committed by
others, but more lenient when
rating the transgression committed
by themselves.
Powerful persons who condemn
the transgression of others while
being less harsh on themselves are
engaging in moral hypocrisy. But
why are they not deterred by a
sense of guilt? Studies suggest two
possibilities.
First, a sense of entitlement may
accompany the self-righteous
judgment. Experiments showed
that when the high-power
participants are led to believe that
their power is legitimate, they are
even more likely to make
self-righteous judgments.
Second, studies have shown that
persons in power are less likely to
be empathic or good at
perspective-taking (understanding
other people’s perspectives). If
they do not see or understand the
angst and agony they have caused
to others, they have no thoughts
that would make them feel guilty.
The troubling conclusion from
the research is that power can and
does corrupt, and it can happen to
normally decent people.
THE PERSON MATTERS
But does this mean that bad people
do more bad things if they have
power, and good people may do bad
things if they are given power?
It turns out that the nature of the
person in power matters a lot.
Recent experiments suggest that
power reveals the true nature of a
WHAT TO DO WITH POWER
Power per se is not the problem,
since power can either harm or
help. How then to minimise power
corrupting and maximise power
doing good? Here are some
possible approaches.
• Ensure a robust system of checks
and balances. This is not a
complicated audit with
comprehensive technical details,
which will only hinder effective
functioning. A robust check is
real when relevant information is
available and accessible, and
independent when it can operate
without fear or favour.
• Reinforce a culture of zero
tolerance for wrongdoing. In
such a culture, everyone believes
that wrongdoings will be
objectively and swiftly dealt with,
no matter how high the position
of the transgressor. There must
also be effective processes to
protect whistle-blowers, while
discouraging malicious
allegations and ensuring a
thorough investigation and fair
hearing for the accused.
• Prevent power from breeding
complacency and a sense of
entitlement. To do this, seek
feedback and self-monitor
honestly. Know the ground and
see things from another’s
perspective. Be humble and open
to other viewpoints, especially
those of the less powerful and
those with good intentions. React
constructively to information
contrary to the preferred
position.
person’s character because it
removes the constraints that
normally exist, and allows him to
act freely in ways that are
consistent with his values, goals
and interests.
In one experiment published in
2011, Dr Michael Kraus and his
colleagues induced participants to
feel that they are in either high- or
low-power positions, and then
asked both groups to describe
themselves three times when they
are in the presence of their family,
friends and co-workers,
respectively.
Participants with low power
described themselves differently in
the three situations, suggesting
that they varied their behaviours
and tried to accommodate their
traits to those around them. In
contrast, participants with high
power described themselves
consistently in the three situations,
suggesting that they tended to
behave freely in ways that are
consistent with their traits.
In another piece of research, Dr
Katherine DeCelles and her
colleagues demonstrated, using an
experiment and a survey study with
working adults, that power can
heighten pre-existing moral
tendencies.
The researchers measured the
participants’ pre-existing moral
identities by asking them the
extent to which they see certain
moral values, such as fairness and
compassion, as important to their
self-identity.
Results showed that those with
high moral-identity scores were less
likely to break rules or misbehave
and more likely to engage in prosocial behaviours when they had
power. This was directly opposite to
those with low moral-identity
scores, who exhibited the usual
pattern of more misbehaviours and
fewer pro-social behaviours when
they had power.
These and similar studies showed
that power does not necessarily
corrupt. On the contrary, for a
person with good moral character,
power accentuates his positive
traits and enables the person to do
things that benefit others.
In the real world outside the
laboratory, there are many
individuals who use their position
of power to do good and benefit
many people. They include
policymakers, religious leaders,
educators, union leaders, business
leaders, celebrities, philanthropists
and civil society advocates.
Power does not always corrupt –
it can be used to do either good or
bad. It can bring out the best, and
not just the worst, in individuals.
Power helps translate an intention
to actual behaviour, but it is the
person, and not power, that
determines whether it will be a
good or bad behaviour.
What about the negative side of
the coin? For example, citing the
research showing that power
reveals a person’s true nature,
Dr Kraus and other researchers
have argued that giving power to
Mr Donald Trump as President of
the United States would simply
increase the magnitude of his moral
transgressions because he would
have more freedom to be his true
self.
So, is disaster inevitable when a
person of bad character occupies
high office with strong powers? It
will certainly cause damage, and
there is no shortage of examples.
Lord Acton’s quote comes to mind:
“Power tends to corrupt, and
absolute power corrupts
absolutely.”
But there is reason to be less
pessimistic. At work or in politics,
everyone is dependent on others to
function effectively, and there is a
context or system within which
reactions and decisions occur. This
means fewer cases of absolute
power by a single person may exist
less than we think, and it is often
self-delusionary.
History has shown that absolute
power in the hands of a bad
character is self-defeating. It is
therefore not as long-lasting and
effective as the person in power
thinks it is, although it will always
be consequential and too long to
those negatively affected.
Source: The Straits Times © Singapore Press Holdings Limited. Permission required for reproduction.
• Build a culture of positive values.
These values include respect for
others, compassion for the
disadvantaged, and concern for
the collective good. They help
prevent power from corrupting,
and enable power to benefit
others and improve their lives.
• Emphasise that character is
fundamental. When selecting
leaders in an election or for an
assignment, look for more than
competence. Recognise the
values that their actions reflect.
Scrutinise character, not just
academic achievements or
technical skills.
So, the question is not whether
power corrupts. The research is
clear that it certainly can, and
unfortunately it tends to, but
fortunately it is not the case that it
always will. Power can be negative
and destructive, but it can also be
positive and uplifting.
We need to guard against the
perils of power, but also galvanise
goodness from power. Power
matters, so it matters who is in
power, and who we give power to.
[email protected]
• The writer is director of the Behavioural Sciences Institute, and Lee
Kuan Yew Fellow and professor of
psychology at the Singapore
Management University.