Save your enemy

Strong leaders try to keep their enemies close to them as part of dealing with threats from their side. What is behind this behavior? 

Dr. Miriam Dishon-Berkowitz Galileo

Throughout history, the human race has had to deal with a wide range of physical and social threats - from infectious diseases and predatory animals, through other human groups, to dangerous competitors from within your group. As a result of the constant presence of threats in the environment, psychological mechanisms have developed that help us deal with them. One of these mechanisms is called "fight or flight". According to this mechanism, people estimate the source of the danger, and based on their assessment of it, they decide whether to stay and fight - or run away.

If so, how will leaders deal with threats posed to them in the form of competitors from within their group? In light of the prevailing tendency, in which dealing with sources of threat is through combat or experience, it can be assumed that leaders will also behave in a similar manner. And indeed, from studies - including studies done on animals - it appears that these are the two common coping responses of leaders.

Proximity to the opponent will allow you to follow his intrigues closely
And here, in a study published in the Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, Nicole Mead and John Maner (Mead & Maner) examine a different strategy by which leaders can deal with an opponent from within their group: an attempt to bring the threatening competitor closer. The rationale behind this strategy is that by being close to the adversary, the leader will be able to closely monitor his intrigues, and thus try to torpedo them (this can already be seen in David's conduct at Pibushet - XNUMX Samuel, chapter XNUMX, XNUMX: "And Pibusheth will dwell in Jerusalem, for at the king's table he is always food").

This strategy is preferable to strategies of distancing or avoiding people who are a source of threat, as they may allow competitors freedom of action to help them oust the incumbent. Therefore, the first question examined in the present study is: Will the fear of losing a position of power lead people to seek the proximity of the source of the threat?

In previous studies it was found that leaders differ from each other in the way they derive their power from the group. There are two main strategies for pumping power. One through dominance, and the other through prestige. Dominance is a strategy in which people gain influence through power and selfish manipulation of group resources. Conversely, prestige is a strategy in which influence in a group is achieved from the respect that group members acquire for the leader.

Therefore, the second question examined in the study is whether an attempt to bring the threatening opponent closer will be done mainly by leaders characterized by high dominance and not by leaders characterized by high prestige - since trying to bring an opponent from within the group is a strategy that protects the power of the leader.

How will leaders deal with threats posed to them in the form of competitors from within their group?
Illustration: ingimage

Dominance vs Prestige
77 subjects participated in the study, of which 48 were women. When they arrived at the research laboratory, they were told that they would perform a task with another subject in another room, but first they would perform it alone. They were also told that the assignment measures leadership ability (although in fact it did not test this). In the task, the subject was presented with three words at a time, and he had to find a fourth word common to the three presented words (for example, the words "white", "scratched" and "shell" share the word "egg"). After performing this task, the subjects filled out questionnaires measuring the need for dominance and prestige.

After they finished answering the questionnaires, each subject was told what was the score he received on the assignment in each of the questionnaires, and what was his weighted score in the three indices that measure leadership. On top of that, he was told what grades his partner got for the assignment (which, as mentioned, is in another room). The score the subjects received was not real, but manipulated by the researchers, so that each participant was told that the weighted score they received was the highest. The subjects were also told that in the semantic task their partner received a higher score than them. Since the joint task that the subjects had to perform with their partner is the semantic word task, the subjects could see their partner as a competent ally - or a threatening opponent.

On top of that, half of the subjects were told that since they received the highest weighted score, they were assigned the role of "leader" in performing the couple task, while their partner was assigned the role of "subordinate." Therefore, they must ensure that their and their partner's joint performance is as high as possible in order to increase the financial profits they will receive upon solving the task. Their duties as leaders included planning the methods of carrying out the task, evaluating the "subordinate" (their partner) and planning how to allocate the financial profit upon completion of the task. They were also told that the roles of the leader and the "subordinate" may change during the assignment depending on the individual performance that each of the partners will demonstrate. Thus the participants' status as leaders was not secure, and threatened by their talented group member (spouse).

Distance between chairs as a measure of physical distance
The other half of the subjects were told that they and their partner for the task would have equal control over the decisions, and that they and their partners would share equally the financial profits they would receive upon solving the task. Hence, the subjects in this group had no power or control over the task and its benefits, and therefore should not have seen their talented partner as a threat; On the contrary - he should be seen as a strategic asset, since his skills may increase the joint performance in the task, which will result in higher financial profits for each of the parties.

In addition, some of the participants were told that they and their partners were competing against another group, while the other subjects were told that another group was performing the task, but that they were not in competition with it. Finally, the extent to which each participant perceived their partner as threatening was measured. This question was hidden within a wide series of questions about the task they performed.

To measure the extent to which the subjects were interested in bringing their partner closer, the following latent measure was used: the participants were brought to a new room in the laboratory with a desk. Since there were no chairs in the room, the experimenter asked the subject to bring two chairs (for him and for his partner). When the subject did this, the experimenter left the room apparently for another task. After a minute, the experimenter returned and asked the subject to return to the original room, as it turned out that the room was needed for another experiment. After the subject left the room, a second experimenter arrived and measured the distance between the two chairs placed by the subject. The distance between the two chairs was used as a covert measure of the degree of physical distance the subject wanted to create between himself and his task partner.

The more threatening the enemy is perceived, the greater the desire to approach him
The analysis of the results of the study shows that subjects who were assigned the role of leader and who had a high level of dominance wanted to be close to a partner who was perceived as competent-but-threatening more than subjects who did not have high levels of dominance wanted; Probably because that way they will be able to follow him closely and monitor his actions. It is interesting to note that when there was rivalry against another group (competition between groups) even leaders with high dominance did not show much need to bring their competitors closer together.

These data are consistent with previous studies that found that competition between groups also causes dominant leaders to prioritize the group's success over their own sense of power and strength, and perceive their talented group members as allies rather than a threat. Finally, the more threatening the subjects perceived their partner, the more they wanted to get closer to him.

In conclusion, the results of the study indicate that being in a position of power (leadership) causes leaders characterized by high levels of dominance to try and bring a group member perceived as threatening closer to them, probably as a way to control the degree of threat he creates. In this way, the subjects acted according to the famous advice attributed to Machiavelli in his book "The Prince": "Keep your friends close and your enemies even closer."

Dr. Miriam Dishon-Berkowitz is a psychologist, organizational and marketing consultant and lecturer at the Ono Academic College.

The full article was published in Galileo magazine, May 2012