u susret izborima, navodno (meni su te neke psiho-sociološke analitičke metode u najmanju ruku dubiozne) nije istina da moć kvari ljude, no još nam je rano za veselje jerbo tko kvaran dojde na vlast postaje još kvarniji a tko je dobrica (ne čosić) postaje još "dobriji". uglavnom hebali smo ježa bar dok se brane ne kanditira.
zadnji paragraf se nadovezuje na nedavnu raspravu o "bankama", velikim ulagačima.

Iz novog znanstvenika:
Good leaders don't have to be bad people
27 September 2011 by Michael Kraus
Magazine issue 2831. Subscribe and save

We have a habit of choosing leaders who turn out dishonest or corruptible. It doesn't have to be this way

THE idea that power corrupts, and that absolute power corrupts absolutely - as the British historian John Dalberg-Acton put it in 1887 - has become so deeply ingrained in our understanding of society that we hardly raise an eyebrow at the indiscretions and ethical lapses of our political leaders. We expect them to be arrogant, selfish, greedy, immoral and deceitful, and we can draw on copious examples of their behaviour to corroborate this view.

In the past few months in the US alone we have seen revelations about Arnold Schwarzenegger's infidelity, the conviction of former Illinois state governor Rod Blagojevich for attempting to sell the US senate seat vacated by Barack Obama, and US presidential contender Jon Edwards's indictment over allegations that he used campaign funds to hide his girlfriend from public view. All this is quite depressing because it suggests that no matter who we appoint to positions of prominence, they will inevitably be brought down by the whim of self-interest and opportunism.

It turns out, however, that this received wisdom is misplaced. Research into the psychology of power by Stéphane Côté at the University of Toronto, Canada, and colleagues, published in August, suggests that rather than being universally corrupting, leadership can give people the control and freedom to play to their strengths and pursue their own goals and interests. For those who are already prone to unethical or immoral behaviour, this can lead them even further astray. For those who possess agreeable or charitable traits, it can enhance their prosocial qualities and benefit society. In short, nice people who gain power will use it in nice ways (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol 101, p 217).

This runs counter not only to the common understanding of the nature of power, but also to much scientific research on the topic. For example, several studies have found that people in powerful roles are less empathic than those without power.

In a now classic experiment led by Dacher Keltner of the University of California, Berkeley, members of a college fraternity were asked to make up a funny nickname about another "brother" and to tease them in front of others. Keltner found that students in high status positions in the fraternity tended to tease in more direct, hostile ways - by questioning their victim's manhood, for example - compared with those further down the hierarchy (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol 75, p 1231).

But the new research has uncovered something that previous studies missed: not everyone is influenced by power in the same way. Côté's team - of which I was a member - conducted three experiments with students and working adults to see whether power enhances people's prosocial tendencies, in particular their empathic abilities. In the first, we assessed the subjects' vagal tone, a measure of variability between heart beats. It is influenced by a cascade of physiological responses and is often used as an indicator of a person's empathic tendencies.

We found that people with heightened vagal tone who also reported that they felt in a position of power in most of their social relationships were more accurate at judging a stranger's emotions during a social interaction than powerful individuals who lacked this vagal marker of prosociality.

In a second study, we examined how the empathic skills of people in low and high-status positions varied according to their agreeableness. Among subjects with the power to make decisions in their jobs, those with more friendly dispositions were significantly better than their less agreeable counterparts at inferring emotions from facial expressions. However, this did not apply to those with less power to make decisions.

In a third variation, we found that powerful people were best at reading emotions if they had been primed to be in a prosocial state by watching scenes showing others in need of help. Taken together, all of this suggests not only that friendly, agreeable and helpful people will make friendly, agreeable and helpful leaders, but also that their altruistic and empathic qualities will be enhanced by promotion up the ranks.

In terms of policy the message is clear: character counts, and we need to be very selective when we elect our leaders in the boardroom, in schools and in politics. If you are deciding who to promote at work, go with the employee who cleans out the microwave every week rather than the one who greases up to the boss. At election time, vote for the candidate who helps army veterans rather than the one who merely poses for pictures with them. These people will serve you better.

In practice, such people rarely get selected. One reason is that we tend not to analyse character in this way. As psychologists have discovered, appearances are everything. Studies show that when choosing between election candidates, voters are strongly persuaded by facial form, even though the face is not likely to be a reliable indicator of someone's competence or intelligence.

We also tend to pick narcissists because of their confident and dominating manner, according to research by Barbora Nevicka at the University of Amsterdam in the Netherlands, to be published in Psychological Science next month. This is unfortunate, she says, because narcissists' preoccupation with their own importance makes them poor at encouraging the free exchange of ideas, a key aspect of good leadership.

Another reason why prosocial people so rarely get chosen to lead is that during job interviews or political elections, it is easy to appear prosocial without actually being so. Research by Frank Flynn of Stanford University in California and colleagues suggests that people achieve positions of prominence at work largely by using their knowledge of social networks to develop their reputations as being empathic and sociable (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol 91, p 1123).

Despite these challenges, it is possible to find examples of prosocial people taking on leadership positions. My mother is a fifth-grade teacher who for 6 hours a day during the school year has about as much power as anyone, yet she uses that position of prominence to promote the academic and social development of others. A more famous example might be Warren Buffett, the billionaire businessman who has made headlines for his generosity. I have never met Buffett, but most public accounts of his character indicate a highly effective, even-tempered approach to leadership.

How can we encourage more people like this into positions of power? Clearly jobs such as teaching, which have explicit goals to foster the betterment of others, will push prosocial people to the top of the heap. But businesses can emulate this culture.

A company mission such as "You can make money without doing evil" - the mantra of California-based Google - is likely to attract more prosocial individuals to leadership positions than the more ubiquitous "Win at all costs" that seems to be the calling card of nearly every Wall Street executive.

Michael Kraus