The Winner Effect

The Winner Effect Plot Summary

Introduction

Throughout history, we've been fascinated by the question of what makes certain individuals rise to positions of power and success while others falter. From the soaring achievements of leaders like Winston Churchill to the devastating failures of companies like Enron, the patterns of winning and losing shape our world in profound ways. Yet the forces that drive these outcomes remain largely mysterious to most of us. Consider this remarkable fact: Oscar winners live an average of four years longer than nominees who don't win, despite both groups being equally successful by almost any measure. Nobel Prize winners experience a similar longevity boost compared to nominees. What hidden forces could explain such dramatic differences? The answer lies in understanding how power and success physically change our brains, altering our behavior and even our physical health. By exploring these mechanisms, we gain insight not just into the lives of famous winners and losers, but into the everyday dynamics that shape our families, workplaces, and communities. These insights can help anyone—whether parent, manager, teacher, or citizen—better navigate the complex dynamics of power that influence every aspect of our lives.

Chapter 1: Birth vs. Achievement: The Mystery of Inherited Success

The story of Paulo Picasso represents one of history's most striking paradoxes of inherited success. As the son of the legendary artist Pablo Picasso, Paulo seemed destined for greatness from birth. Yet his life unfolded as a tragic counterpoint to his father's brilliance. While Pablo dominated the art world as one of history's most renowned artists, Paulo drifted through life aimlessly, struggling with alcoholism and unable to support his family. He died at just 54, a mere two years after his father's death, having spent much of his adult life as his father's driver and secretary. This stark contrast raises a fundamental question about success: are winners born or made? The conventional wisdom suggests that success runs in families through genetics and privilege. Children of the successful should naturally become successful themselves, inheriting both the genetic gifts and social advantages of their parents. Yet research tells a different story. A 2007 study by Morten Bennedsen at the University of Copenhagen examined over 5,000 companies and found that when family members took over businesses from successful founders, profitability dropped by at least 4 percent—and even more for larger firms in high-growth industries. The explanation for this pattern lies partly in psychology. Children of highly successful parents often develop what psychologists call an "entity theory" of ability—believing their talents are fixed traits rather than qualities that can be developed through effort. In laboratory studies, when children with this mindset encounter failure, they become helpless and give up, while those with a "growth mindset" redouble their efforts and improve. This psychological dynamic creates a cruel irony: the children of the successful may be handicapped by their very inheritance, developing a mindset that makes it harder for them to persevere through inevitable setbacks. Another factor is what psychologist Fiona O'Doherty calls "hiding the ladder." Successful people often attribute their achievements to innate genius or natural gifts rather than acknowledging the thousands of hours of practice and countless small steps that built their success. This leaves their children with no path to follow, only an impossible standard to live up to. Paulo Picasso's father didn't just create masterpieces—he referred to himself as "El Rey" (the King) and treated his son with contempt, calling him mediocre and "my thing." Such treatment reinforces the notion that success is an inherent quality rather than something earned through effort and perseverance. For children like Paulo, the shadow cast by a successful parent can be crippling. The impossibility of matching a legendary parent's achievements creates a psychological trap where any reasonable success seems trivial by comparison. This "burden of greatness" helps explain why many children of famous achievers struggle to establish their own identities and successes, trapped by a legacy they didn't choose.

Chapter 2: Environment and Opportunity: How Circumstances Shape Winners

In the warm, shallow waters of Lake Tanganyika in East Africa lives a remarkable species of fish that challenges our understanding of winning and losing. The African cichlid fish, Haplochromis burtoni, comes in two distinct types: the dominant, brightly colored T fish with large testes and aggressive behavior, and the submissive, drab-colored NT fish with shrunken testes and passive demeanor. For years, biologists assumed these were fixed biological types, with the dominant T fish passing on their superior genes while the inferior NT fish lurked at the margins. But then scientists discovered something extraordinary: these fish can transform completely based on their circumstances. When a dominant T fish is removed—perhaps eaten by a bird—a nearby NT fish can quickly claim the vacant territory. Within hours, the formerly submissive fish begins to change color, its testes enlarge, and its behavior becomes aggressive. The fish undergoes a complete physical and psychological transformation simply because its environment changed. This remarkable transformation occurs because a group of cells in the brain swells to eight times their previous size, releasing hormones that trigger cascading changes throughout the fish's body. This phenomenon parallels what happens in human society. Research by London financial researchers found that traders had higher testosterone levels on mornings when they made more profits. This hormone boost made them more willing to take risks, which often led to even more profit—creating a "winner effect" where success breeds further success. Similar studies with chess players showed testosterone surges among winners but drops among losers. The implications are profound: winning itself creates biological changes that make future wins more likely. The home field advantage in sports illustrates this principle in action. Athletes perform better at home not just because of familiar surroundings, but because their brains respond differently to their home environment. University of Durham researchers discovered that soccer players had higher testosterone levels before home games than away games, particularly against important rivals. This biological advantage extends beyond sports—business negotiators secure better deals on their home turf, and diplomatic negotiations tend to favor the host country. Our physical posture can even trigger these same biological pathways. Researchers found that simply adopting "power poses"—expansive postures that take up space—for just one minute increased testosterone levels and decreased stress hormones. Conversely, making oneself physically small—hunching shoulders, folding arms, lowering the head—had the opposite effect. This explains why leaders often unconsciously take up more physical space while subordinates make themselves smaller. Perhaps most troublingly, these biological mechanisms can create invisible barriers to success for marginalized groups. Unconscious bias operates below our awareness, affecting how we perceive others and ourselves. When negative stereotypes about gender, race, or age become internalized, they create what researchers call "glass ceilings of the brain"—self-imposed limitations that can impair performance. Studies show that reminding women of stereotypes about mathematical ability impairs their math performance, and priming older adults with negative age stereotypes worsens their memory.

Chapter 3: Power's Transformation: How Authority Changes the Brain

When Bill Clinton and Tony Blair met for dinner in London in May 1997, they seemed perfect political partners—both young, charismatic lawyers with center-left politics and a shared vision for a "third way." Their early friendship was warm and mutually supportive, with Blair defending Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Yet by 1999, their relationship had deteriorated dramatically, with Clinton accusing Blair of betrayal after the British Prime Minister gave a speech advocating a more aggressive military approach in Kosovo than Clinton was willing to pursue. What could explain this rift between seemingly natural allies? The answer lies in how power physically changes the brain. When people gain authority over others, they undergo measurable neurological changes. Power increases levels of testosterone and dopamine, which affect everything from risk assessment to empathy. Brain imaging studies show that power narrows attention, making people more focused on goals but less aware of peripheral information—including warning signs and the perspectives of others. Power also creates an illusion of control, making powerful people overestimate their ability to shape events. These changes were evident in Tony Blair's leadership style. While Bill Clinton maintained an average level of belief in his ability to control world events (as measured by political psychologists analyzing his speeches), Blair showed an extraordinarily inflated belief in his capacity to shape global affairs—more than two standard deviations higher than the average world leader. This exaggerated sense of control likely contributed to his more aggressive stance on military intervention. Power also changes how people process moral questions. Research by Joris Lammers of Tilburg University found that power makes people more likely to advocate rule-based decisions when judging others but more likely to make outcome-based decisions (where the ends justify the means) when acting themselves. This explains the hypocrisy often observed in powerful figures—they hold others to strict standards while exempting themselves from the same rules. Perhaps most troublingly, power reduces empathy. Studies show that powerful people are worse at decoding others' emotional expressions and more likely to view others as instruments for achieving their goals rather than as individuals with their own needs and perspectives. This diminished empathy partly explains why leaders sometimes make decisions that seem callous or out of touch—their brains have literally become less capable of seeing situations from others' viewpoints. The disastrous Chernobyl nuclear disaster illustrates how these power dynamics can have catastrophic consequences. In the hierarchical Soviet system, subordinates were afraid to deliver bad news to superiors, creating what researchers call the "mum effect." When engineers noticed warning signs before the explosion, they remained silent rather than risk angering their superiors. This pattern repeats across organizations and societies with steep power hierarchies, where those lower in rank suppress crucial information that might displease those above them. Power's effects aren't entirely negative—the confidence and goal-focus it creates can drive important achievements. But without checks and balances, these brain changes can lead powerful individuals toward increasingly poor decisions as they become more isolated from reality and less able to receive critical feedback.

Chapter 4: The Self-Preservation Drive: Why We Seek Recognition

In 1956, actor Charlton Heston turned down the lead role in Alexander the Great to star in The Ten Commandments instead. MGM executives weren't worried—they had Richard Burton, reputedly Hollywood's highest-paid actor, ready to step in. Three years later, Heston was offered the lead in Ben-Hur after three other actors declined, and his performance won him an Academy Award. Burton, despite being nominated seven times throughout his career, never won an Oscar. When Burton died in 1984, he was just 58 years old. Heston lived to be 84. This stark difference in longevity reflects a startling pattern: Oscar winners live an average of four years longer than equally successful nominees who never win. This phenomenon extends beyond Hollywood. Nobel Prize winners live one to two years longer than nominees who don't win. What explains this remarkable effect? It's not wealth—the monetary value of prizes doesn't correlate with the longevity benefit. Rather, the answer lies in understanding how social recognition protects the human self from its greatest vulnerability. Human beings evolved as social creatures whose survival depended on group acceptance. Rejection by the group meant almost certain death for our ancestors. This history has left us with an intense sensitivity to social evaluation—the feeling that others are judging us. In laboratory studies, researcher Sally Dickerson found that social-evaluative threat (SET)—the fear of being negatively judged by others—triggers higher levels of stress hormones than almost any other stressor, including physical pain or fear of death. Chronic exposure to this social stress takes a physical toll. The stress hormone cortisol, when persistently elevated, damages the immune system, shrinks brain cells in memory centers, and accelerates aging. Studies of HIV-infected people found that those particularly sensitive to social rejection showed greater immune system deterioration and died about two years sooner than those less concerned with others' judgments. Control emerges as a crucial buffer against this stress. People who feel in control of their lives—who believe they can influence important outcomes—show lower cortisol responses to stressful situations. This was dramatically illustrated in studies of military personnel undergoing extreme stress training. Those who scored higher on measures of perceived internal control were less likely to break under pressure. Brain imaging studies at Montreal Neurological Institute confirmed these findings, showing that people with a stronger sense of control had physically larger memory centers in their brains—areas particularly vulnerable to stress damage. Our need for recognition and our fear of social rejection have deep historical roots. Between 1050 and 1200 CE, a profound shift occurred in Western consciousness that social psychologist Roy Baumeister calls "the discovery of the individual." Prior to this period, spiritual salvation was largely seen as a collective phenomenon—simply being a member of the church guaranteed salvation. But during this period, led by figures like St. Bernard of Clairvaux, salvation became increasingly viewed as an individual achievement, requiring personal examination and effort. This historical shift created what Baumeister calls "the unprecedented inner loneliness of the individual self"—a self now responsible for its own spiritual fate and increasingly vulnerable to the judgments of others. The Oscar or Nobel Prize serves as a powerful safety signal for this vulnerable self—a permanent affirmation that one's contributions are valued, that one belongs. This psychological security translates into physical resilience, explaining why such recognition can literally extend life.

Chapter 5: The Dark Side: When Success Corrupts Judgment

On November 18, 2008, as America reeled from the financial crisis, three auto industry CEOs—Rick Wagoner of GM, Alan Mulally of Ford, and Robert Nardelli of Chrysler—flew to Washington in separate corporate jets to beg Congress for a $25 billion bailout. The public outrage was immediate and overwhelming. How could executives whose companies were on the brink of bankruptcy demonstrate such tone-deaf extravagance? Within weeks, the chastened CEOs were driving hybrid cars back to Washington to make their case again, and Ford and GM announced they would terminate their corporate jet fleets. This incident reveals a puzzling aspect of success: it can dramatically impair judgment even in highly intelligent, carefully selected leaders. A similar pattern emerged in the Enron scandal, where CEO Jeffrey Skilling presided over increasingly risky and ultimately fraudulent business practices while cultivating an image of "hypersmart and hyperconfident" leadership. How does success transform reasonable people into figures who seem oblivious to obvious risks and social perceptions? The answer involves how power and success alter brain chemistry. When people win or gain status, their brains release dopamine—the same neurotransmitter triggered by cocaine and other addictive drugs. This chemical messenger is central to the brain's reward system, teaching us what to seek and what to avoid. But like any drug, too much dopamine can disrupt normal brain function. Researchers at the University of California at London found that small financial rewards make people perform better on challenging tasks, but larger rewards actually worsen performance. The excess motivation creates a "choking" effect as the brain's reward circuits become overstimulated. Similarly, brain imaging studies at Stanford University revealed that power makes people more egocentric and less able to see things from others' perspectives, a change directly observable in brain activity. Money itself changes how people think and behave. When researchers at the University of Minnesota subtly exposed volunteers to money-related concepts, they became less helpful to others, preferred to work alone rather than with others, and placed their chairs farther away during conversations. Money, like power, increases feelings of self-sufficiency while decreasing connection to others. This psychological distance creates a particularly dangerous pattern when combined with another effect of power: hypocrisy. Studies by Joris Lammers found that people primed with feelings of power were more likely to condemn others for moral transgressions while being more likely to cheat themselves when given the opportunity. Power creates a sense of entitlement that makes people apply different standards to themselves than to others. Dopamine's effects explain another troubling pattern among successful people: addiction. The same brain circuits activated by success are also triggered by gambling, sex, and drugs. Financial traders, whose work involves risk and reward, show higher rates of substance abuse than the general population. Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger's observation that "power is the ultimate aphrodisiac" has neurological truth—power, sex, and risk-taking all operate through the same dopamine pathways in the brain. The Goldilocks principle emerges as crucial here: dopamine must be in the "just right" zone for optimal function. Too little leads to insufficient motivation; too much creates recklessness and impaired judgment. Executives with oversized compensation packages, extreme power, and constant status rewards may be pushed beyond this optimal zone, leading to the kinds of judgment failures we see in corporate scandals and political overreach. Perhaps most troublingly, these brain changes happen gradually and invisibly. Like the proverbial frog in slowly heating water, successful people rarely notice how power is altering their perception and judgment until a major failure forces a reckoning.

Chapter 6: The Balanced Winner: Merging Personal and Social Power

The contrast between Karen and Chris, a couple observed during a weekend gathering, reveals something profound about different types of winning. Karen dominated the interaction, systematically humiliating her husband in front of the group. Her eyes glittered with triumph as she dismantled his qualities one by one, while Chris sank deeper into his whisky glass. Karen appeared to be winning this emotional contest, yet the victory came with a disturbing undercurrent of contempt. Years later, both were encountered with new partners. The transformation was remarkable—Chris appeared confident and happy, while Karen seemed gentler and more content. Like the cichlid fish that changes color and behavior when its environment changes, these individuals had undergone complete personality transformations simply by changing their relationship contexts. This illustrates a fundamental truth: winning takes different forms, and the type of victory we pursue shapes not just our success, but our very selves. Psychologist David McClelland identified two distinct forms of power motivation. P-power (personal power) focuses on domination for its own sake—winning to feed the ego. S-power (social power) focuses on having impact for the benefit of others or an institution. Both types involve the desire to influence others, but they differ in their underlying motives and effects. People high in p-power but low in s-power experience testosterone surges when imagining dominating others and show large hormonal responses to winning even trivial contests. They approach life as a zero-sum game where "I win, you lose." In contrast, those with balanced p-power and s-power show smaller testosterone responses to simple domination scenarios and are more motivated by making a difference than by personal triumph. Studies of world leaders reveal these differences in action. When researchers analyzed the speeches of US presidents, they found that those with higher p-power relative to s-power were more likely to lead the country into war. During simulated Cuban Missile Crisis exercises, participants high in p-power advised more aggressive military responses and less deliberation before acting—potentially pushing the world toward nuclear confrontation. Gender appears to play a role in these power orientations. While women show the same average level of power motivation as men, they tend to have higher levels of s-power relative to p-power. This may help explain why Sherron Watkins was the only senior Enron executive to blow the whistle on the company's fraudulent practices. Women aren't inherently more moral, but their typically higher s-power orientation may provide some protection against power's most corrupting effects. Organizations and societies benefit from balancing these power types. Timothy Gowers, a mathematician at Cambridge University, demonstrated this by creating the Polymath project, which democratized mathematical problem-solving by opening difficult problems to contributors of all abilities through an internet forum. This "mathematical super-brain" solved problems faster than even the most brilliant individual mathematicians could alone, showing how distributed power can outperform concentrated power. Democracy itself represents humanity's most successful attempt to manage power's effects on the brain. By distributing power and creating systems of accountability, democratic societies create the conditions where leaders can exercise authority without succumbing to its most corrupting influences. The checks and balances of democratic systems—elections, independent judiciaries, free press—serve as guardrails against the neurological damage that unchecked power inflicts. The key insight for individuals seeking to be true winners is to develop s-power motivation alongside p-power—to seek influence not just for personal gain but for broader benefit. This balance protects against addiction to power and enables more sustainable, meaningful success. As psychologist David Kipnis discovered, people who manipulate others purely for personal gain actually end up feeling worse about themselves, while those who exercise power for collective benefit experience greater fulfillment.

Summary

Throughout history, the fundamental patterns of winning and losing have been shaped less by innate qualities or random chance than by the complex interplay between our brains and our environments. Power emerges as both the great enabler and the great corrupter of human potential. When we gain authority over others, our brains undergo physical changes—testosterone rises, dopamine surges, and our neural circuitry shifts toward greater goal-focus but diminished empathy. These changes create a feedback loop where initial success breeds further success, but also plants the seeds of potential downfall through impaired judgment, reduced sensitivity, and inflated belief in control. The lessons for individuals and societies are profound. At the personal level, we must recognize that winning comes in different forms—the domineering triumph that feeds the ego but corrodes relationships, versus the balanced success that advances both individual and collective interests. Developing what psychologists call s-power (social power) alongside p-power (personal power) creates a foundation for sustainable achievement and wellbeing. For organizations and nations, the challenge lies in creating structures that harness power's benefits while minimizing its dangers. Democracy, with its distributed authority and systems of accountability, represents humanity's most successful attempt to solve this problem. As we face mounting global challenges from climate change to technological disruption, our capacity to understand and manage power's effects on the human brain may determine not just who wins and loses in the marketplace of ideas, but whether our species continues to thrive at all.

About Author

Loading...

Ian H. Robertson

Read more