Acting with Power

Acting with Power Plot Summary

Introduction

Power exists in every relationship and social context, yet most of us misunderstand what it truly means. We tend to equate power with dominance, control, and self-interest—believing that powerful people must assert authority through intimidation or manipulation. This narrow view prevents us from effectively using the power we already possess. The truth is that power is not personal but social; it's not about who we are but about the roles we play in others' lives and the impact we have on them. Real power comes from accepting our roles and responsibilities rather than focusing on how we feel about ourselves. When we shift our attention away from our insecurities and toward what others need from us, we discover a profound ability to influence outcomes. By approaching power as actors approach their roles—with commitment, purpose, and awareness of the larger story—we learn to transcend self-consciousness and embrace the responsibilities that come with our positions. This perspective transforms how we lead, support, and interact with others, allowing us to act with genuine integrity rather than mere authenticity.

Chapter 1: Power Is Social, Not Personal: Redefining Power Dynamics

Power is commonly misunderstood as a personal attribute—something we either possess or lack based on our individual qualities. Many assume that wealth, charisma, good looks, and confidence guarantee power. However, these are merely potential sources of influence, not power itself. Power actually resides in relationships and contexts. It exists in the degree to which others need you for access to valued resources or to avoid negative consequences. When someone needs you, they are motivated to please you, which gives you control. This social definition explains why power isn't permanent or transferable across situations. A CEO commanding respect in the boardroom may have little influence at home with teenage children. Power corresponds to who adds more value in a particular context—a unique source of knowledge is more powerful than a redundant one. It also depends on the strength of your allies and options. A person with the exact same competence but stronger relationships and more alternatives has significantly more power than someone who stands alone. Power is part of an implicit social contract, not a personal right. People have power to the extent that others consent to being influenced. When powerful individuals violate the terms of these unspoken agreements, they rarely maintain their position for long. Employees leave abusive managers, voters reject corrupt politicians, and even dictators face revolution when they push too far. The balance of power can always shift. Feelings of power are often disconnected from actual power. We frequently overestimate or underestimate our influence, with serious consequences. Managers who underestimate their impact on subordinates might make inappropriate requests without recognizing how difficult it is for others to refuse them. By the same token, feeling powerful doesn't mean you have real influence. Accurate assessment of power dynamics requires seeing beyond personal feelings to understand the social reality of relationships. The most effective use of power comes not from dominating others but from using whatever influence we have to benefit those around us. When we focus less on accumulating power for its own sake and more on employing it responsibly to address shared challenges, we discover its true purpose. Power becomes not a resource for personal consumption but a means to advance collective goals and improve others' lives.

Chapter 2: The Dual Faces of Power: Playing Power Up and Down

Power has two faces that effective leaders must master: the ability to "play power up" and to "play power down." Playing power up involves behaviors that elevate oneself and assert control—taking up space physically, speaking with authority, interrupting others, making direct eye contact, and openly disagreeing. These actions signal dominance and a willingness to compete. When someone plays power up, they communicate Don't come near me, I bite. Counterintuitively, people often play power up not because they feel secure in their position but because they fear they aren't respected enough. The most confident people rarely need to assert their dominance aggressively. Playing power up can be necessary and appropriate when groups need direction and protection. In crises especially, people appreciate leaders who take charge, make decisions, and create structure. However, constantly playing power up alienates others and undermines trust. Playing power down involves behaviors that minimize one's power to connect with others—speaking more tentatively, taking up less space, smiling more, asking questions rather than making statements, and deferring to others' expertise. Playing power down signals Please don't bite me, I'm not worth it. It shows respect and creates psychological safety, allowing others to contribute without fear. When leaders play power down appropriately, they demonstrate that they value others' perspectives and are secure enough to be vulnerable. Research shows that playing power down through what psychologists call "prestige" can be equally effective as dominance for gaining influence. In studies of peer groups, individuals who share expertise respectfully, listen actively, and speak tentatively while offering valuable insights earn as much respect and influence as those who dominate through force of personality. The key difference is that prestigious individuals are both respected and liked, while dominant individuals may be feared but not trusted. The most effective approach to power combines both faces strategically—what political scientist Joseph Nye calls "smart power." This means knowing when to command and when to connect, when to assert authority and when to defer to others' expertise. Leaders who master this balance understand that power isn't just about control; it's about connection. Real influence comes from being able to read situations correctly and respond with the appropriate face of power. The art of power requires flexibility and self-awareness. Most people naturally gravitate toward one face of power, finding the other uncomfortable or inauthentic. But limiting yourself to only playing power up or only playing power down restricts your effectiveness. The goal isn't to always control or always connect, but to develop a full arsenal and consciously choose which approach best serves the situation and the people involved.

Chapter 3: Embracing Your Role: Authenticity Through Responsibility

The challenge of authenticity plagues many people in positions of power. We worry that stepping into roles that feel unfamiliar will make us fake or inauthentic. However, this reflects a fundamental misconception about what authenticity really means. True authenticity comes not from "being yourself" in every situation but from accepting responsibility for the roles you play in others' lives. Just as actors understand that a compelling performance requires bringing their unique perspective to a role while honoring its requirements, we must learn to align our personal identity with our professional responsibilities. In life, as in theater, roles come with scripts—expected behaviors and responsibilities. Parents protect children, professors share knowledge, and managers direct teams. These aren't constraints on authenticity but opportunities to express different aspects of ourselves in service of others. Rather than defining authenticity as freedom from roles, we can embrace the roles we occupy and find personal meaning in fulfilling them well. This shift transforms authenticity from self-expression to integrity—aligning our actions with our responsibilities. Research shows that people who define themselves more in terms of roles than attributes are more likely to prioritize responsibilities over personal needs. Studies of U.S. presidents found that firstborn children, who typically learned early to put younger siblings' needs before their own, had careers marked by fewer scandals than later-born or only children. Similarly, women in leadership positions often use power more responsibly than men because they've been socialized to prioritize caretaking. The lesson is clear: seeing ourselves as part of something larger helps us use power more effectively. Getting "in character" for roles that feel uncomfortable requires imagination and discipline. Professional actors use techniques like Stanislavski's "Magic If" to mentally inhabit unfamiliar circumstances. When facing challenging situations, we can ask ourselves: "What if I were already the person I need to be in this moment?" This mental shift allows us to tap into strengths we might not realize we possess. One executive preparing for a difficult deposition imagined herself as a character from Game of Thrones—"The Mother of Dragons"—to access her inner strength and confidence. Physical preparation also matters. The clothes we wear, the items we carry, and the spaces we occupy all affect how we experience our roles. Putting on a lab coat helps doctors embody medical authority; wearing a priest's collar helps clergy feel pastoral. These aren't just costumes; they're tools that strengthen what Stanislavski called the "unbroken line" connecting actor and role. By consciously using these external supports, we make it easier to internalize the responsibilities that come with our positions.

Chapter 4: Supporting Versus Leading: Mastering Both Positions

Every social context requires both leaders and supporters, and most of us must play both roles at different times. While many people struggle to step up and lead, others find it difficult to stand down and support. Yet mastering the supporting role is essential for everyone, regardless of formal position or personal ambition. Even CEOs answer to boards, and presidents must respect constitutional limits. Acting with power in supporting roles requires the ability to "ride shotgun"—to put someone else's success ahead of your own visibility. Supporting roles often require more maturity than leading ones. When we support others effectively, we focus on the work itself rather than who gets credit. Lisa Fischer, backup singer for the Rolling Stones, exemplifies this attitude: "Some people will do anything to be famous. I just wanted to sing." This craft-centered approach demonstrates commitment to collective outcomes rather than personal glory. It signals that you care more about the production than your position in it. Many people damage relationships by misreading the power dynamics in a room. Acting as if you have more power than you do—putting your feet on an interviewer's desk, interrupting senior colleagues, or speaking too much in meetings where you have little expertise—shows disrespect for others' positions and suggests you don't understand your place. Research by psychologist Cameron Anderson found that group members who overestimated their social rank were not only disliked but had their contributions devalued by teammates. Showing too little respect to higher-status individuals can be social suicide. Taking risks for the team earns tremendous status in supporting roles. In one remarkable example, a student in a business school simulation took responsibility when aggressive alumni investors demanded to know who would be accountable if a project failed. When her partner hesitated, she calmly stated, "You come to me." This simple declaration stopped everyone cold and immediately shifted power to her. By showing willingness to protect others and accept responsibility, she demonstrated leadership from a supporting position. The most successful supporting players understand power as partnership, not submission. They see themselves as essential contributors to a shared enterprise rather than passive followers or stepping-stones to something better. This perspective allows them to contribute fully without undermining established leadership structures. It also positions them perfectly for greater responsibility when opportunities arise. As Sheryl Sandberg discovered when considering a position at Google, sometimes the best career advice is: "When you are offered a seat on a rocket ship, you don't ask which seat, you just get on."

Chapter 5: Performance Anxiety: Managing Fear in Powerful Positions

One of the great ironies of power is that we seek leadership positions hoping to feel more secure, only to discover they often intensify our insecurities. The moment we step into a powerful role is the moment we realize how little control we actually have. Suddenly, we face higher expectations, greater scrutiny, and the crushing realization that our actions affect others profoundly. This is performance anxiety in its purest form—the fear of bombing on a big stage where the stakes are high and the audience is watching closely. Imposter syndrome, the fear that others will discover we aren't qualified for our roles, affects people at every level of achievement. A psychiatrist who works in Cambridge reports counseling Nobel Prize winners who suffer from this affliction. The discomfort is especially acute during transitions into more senior positions, when we must establish credibility while still learning the requirements of a new role. Our instinct is often to hide until we feel ready, but this approach backfires. When playing a high-power role, you must make an entrance—physically show up, even if you don't yet have all the answers. Professional actors manage performance anxiety by treating it as energy to be channeled rather than a threat to be eliminated. They engage in physical warm-ups that release tension and move nervous energy through their bodies. Deep breathing, stretching, shaking out the hands, and even jumping up and down can transform anxiety into excitement. These techniques work by focusing on action rather than feeling. Similarly, rehearsal helps establish dominant responses that become automatic under pressure. When we've practiced thoroughly, anxiety enhances rather than undermines performance. Perhaps the most powerful technique for managing performance anxiety is shifting attention away from ourselves. Self-consciousness triggers anxiety; mindful focus on others alleviates it. When former FCC chairman Michael Powell was offered his position at age 34, he felt overwhelmed and unqualified. His father advised him to accept that "sometimes other people know better than you do what you are capable of." Powell embraced his fear as motivation to learn quickly and serve effectively. By focusing on his responsibility to the public rather than his personal insecurities, he transformed anxiety into purposeful action. Love—not just for oneself but for others—provides another antidote to performance anxiety. Oprah Winfrey advises that "there's really only two emotions that count, and that's love and that's fear. And in all of your movements through life, you're either moving in the direction of one or the other." When we focus on what we love about our work and the people we serve, fear recedes. Harvard Business School professor Michael Porter wrote "Smile" at the top of his first-day-of-class notes as a reminder to show warmth rather than tension. When we genuinely care about others' experiences, we naturally project confidence and create connection.

Chapter 6: Abuses of Power: Understanding Root Causes and Responses

Power does not inevitably corrupt, but it does make people more likely to act on whatever goals are most salient when opportunities arise. If someone feels chronically insecure about their status, control, or sexual desirability, power presents opportunities to address these insecurities in ways that can be harmful to others. Understanding the psychological roots of power abuse helps us recognize warning signs and develop effective responses. Research on the psychology of power reveals three common profiles of abusive power-holders. Bullies use intimidation to maintain control, often justifying their behavior as necessary for accountability. They may explode in anger, offer destructive criticism, or deliberately humiliate others to shift insecurity from themselves to their targets. Megalomaniacs must be the center of attention and take credit for every success while blaming others for failures. They cannot accept defeat or admit mistakes. Sexual predators like Don Juan types use power to fulfill needs for affection, intimacy, or validation. Contrary to popular belief, these behaviors reflect desperate insecurity rather than excessive confidence. Insecurities that drive power abuse often stem from childhood experiences. When people are deprived of love, secure attachments, or a sense of their own capability early in life, they develop heightened needs for status, control, and validation. Power presents opportunities to fulfill these needs at others' expense. Hillary Clinton once explained Bill Clinton's infidelities by noting he had been abandoned by his mother: "When a mother does what she did, you keep looking in all the wrong places for the parent who abused you." Paradoxically, powerful people who abuse their position are often extremely seductive. We may be drawn to them because their strength makes us feel secure, even when they have no intention of protecting us. Evolutionary psychology suggests we are attracted to high-power mates who increase our odds of survival. Additionally, a powerful partner can be like a trophy—a sign of our own status and value. This explains why women might be drawn to aggressive men, and why subordinates sometimes accept inappropriate invitations from superiors. Breaking free from abusive relationships requires recognizing that no one has the right to control you or define your role in their story. You can reclaim authorship of your own story by setting clear boundaries, refusing to play the victim, and maintaining psychological distance from manipulative tactics. Effective strategies include staying out of private contexts where norms are unclear, responding to inappropriate behavior with calm observation rather than emotional reactions, and finding allies who will support your perspective. Remember Maya Angelou's wisdom: "When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time."

Chapter 7: From Bystander to Upstander: Acting Against Power Misuse

When witnessing abuses of power, most people choose to be bystanders—watching silently rather than intervening. This phenomenon, famously documented in the Kitty Genovese case and confirmed by subsequent research, occurs because we fear embarrassment, retaliation, or simply being wrong. We look to others for cues about how to respond, and when no one acts, we take this as evidence that action isn't necessary. This "free rider" problem allows abuse to continue and even escalate. Becoming an "upstander" rather than a bystander requires a mental shift from seeing yourself as an observer to recognizing your role as a member of a community with responsibility for maintaining norms. Irish American diplomat Samantha Power coined this term to describe people willing to use their power on others' behalf. Upstanders focus on taking action that benefits others, even when it involves personal risk. This orientation not only protects vulnerable individuals but also earns respect and can transform organizational cultures. Even small actions can make a significant difference. When inappropriate behavior occurs, simply noticing it—staring without smiling, asking "What did you mean by that?", or saying "I don't like the turn this has taken"—puts perpetrators on notice that their behavior isn't acceptable. These calm, measured responses are often more effective than emotional confrontations, especially for women. Studies show that while verbal assertiveness from women can provoke backlash, nonverbal assertiveness typically does not. Collective action amplifies individual power. Research on minority influence shows that even two dissenting voices are much more credible and harder to dismiss than a single voice alone. This explains why movements like #MeToo gained momentum only after multiple women came forward with similar accusations against powerful men. One female executive effectively addressed gender inequities at her company by organizing women to submit complaints simultaneously rather than individually. The collective action forced HR to make immediate systemic changes that individual complaints had failed to achieve. Roles and identities significantly influence intervention. We're more likely to act when we feel we have the "psychological standing" to do so. Programs like Green Dot combat sexual assault on campus by recruiting high-status students as allies, knowing their actions will influence peers. Similarly, when straight white men advocate for diversity, they're often perceived as more credible than members of marginalized groups advocating for themselves. By deliberately crafting roles as "guardians" or "allies," organizations can empower bystanders to become upstanders who actively maintain healthy power dynamics.

Chapter 8: The Standard of Beneficence: Using Power to Benefit Others

When asked about the standard to which powerful people should be held, most leaders struggle to articulate a clear answer. We focus extensively on abuses of power but pay little attention to exemplary uses of it. This creates a vacuum where we know what not to do but lack positive models for what to do instead. The most helpful framework for using power well is what philosophers call "beneficence"—the principle that those in high-power roles should prioritize the welfare of less powerful others. Power-holders set the tone for entire organizations. The highest-ranking member must use their visibility to provide meaning and direction, articulating a vision that keeps everyone focused on shared objectives. Without this leadership, organizations devolve into competitions for control where individuals pursue personal agendas rather than collective goals. Leaders sometimes delegate this responsibility to appear democratic, but this is usually a mistake. The person in charge has a duty to lead, which means taking the risk of stepping out front. Creating a "secure base" is perhaps the most important responsibility of powerful individuals. Drawing on attachment theory, leadership expert George Kohlrieser describes a secure base as "a person, place, goal or object that provides a sense of protection, safety and caring, and offers a source of inspiration and energy for daring, exploration, risk taking and seeking challenge." When leaders provide this psychological security, team members become more confident, creative, and willing to take appropriate risks. Organizations typically select leaders based on characteristics that predict ascendance into high-power roles but fail to predict effectiveness in those roles. Physical indicators of confidence, dominance, and masculinity strongly influence hiring and promotion decisions despite having no relationship to performance. This "typecasting" perpetuates gender and racial disparities while overlooking candidates who might use power more effectively. If organizations selected for beneficence instead—comfort with power differences, ability to compete when necessary but collaborate when appropriate, willingness to sacrifice personal outcomes for collective welfare—different individuals would rise to leadership positions. The alternative to a "win-or-die" culture is a culture of beneficence, where powerful individuals use their position to establish healthy norms and demonstrate what it means to use power for the benefit of the group. When casting for such a culture, organizations should look for three key qualities: achievement orientation (focus on results and excellence rather than self-promotion), commitment orientation (genuine caring about others' success), and developmental maturity (ability to control selfish impulses and prioritize group welfare). Power exists in every relationship, not just at work. By acting with beneficence in our families, communities, and institutions, we create cultures where power serves its intended purpose. The standard of beneficence recognizes that power is not a resource for personal consumption but a tool for solving other people's problems. When we approach power with this mindset—not as a measure of personal worth but as a responsibility to others—we transform not only our own experience but the experiences of everyone around us.

Summary

The fundamental insight at the heart of this examination is that power becomes transformative when we shift our focus from accumulating it for ourselves to deploying it for others. Power is not a personal attribute but a social relationship—it exists in the roles we play and the responsibilities we accept. By approaching power as actors approach their roles—with commitment to the larger story rather than preoccupation with personal feelings—we discover the capacity to impact others positively while remaining true to ourselves. This perspective offers a path forward in a world increasingly defined by power struggles and identity politics. Rather than seeking power as an end in itself or rejecting it out of fear of corruption, we can embrace power as a means of creating psychological security for those around us. The most effective individuals in any context are those who understand that power is not about controlling others or liberating ourselves from constraints, but about creating environments where everyone can contribute meaningfully. In this way, acting with power becomes not a burden but a privilege—an opportunity to advance causes greater than ourselves.

About Author

Loading...

Deborah Gruenfeld

Deborah Gruenfeld is a leading social psychologist and the Joseph McDonald Professor at the Stanford Graduate School of Business. Gruenfeld’s research has been featured in many scholarly journals as well as in The Wall Street Journal, The New Yorker, O: The Oprah Magazine, The Washington Post, and the Chicago Tribune. Gruenfeld co-directs the Executive Program for Women Leaders at Stanford and teaches courses on power and leadership for a wide variety of audiences around the world, including young company founders and senior executives in large, multinational companies. She sits on the boards of the LeanIn Foundation and Stanford’s Center for the Advancement of Women’s Leadership. She has a PhD in psychology from the University of Illinois.

Read more