6/N Then participants could return money to charity, write a message to the group, and compete to become the final decision-maker.
The elected person controlled a much larger charity pool.
This allowed us to test who gains power when ethics conflicts with group benefit.
7/N The main result: prosocietal individuals mostly failed to gain power.
Only about 1.5% of participants combined clearly prosocial choices with persuasive success.
Political skill increased confidence, but not actual votes.
3/N We therefore add a fourth response: fight.
By fight, we mean trying to acquire decision authority from inside the organization.
Not merely persuading the decision-maker. Becoming the decision-maker.
5/N We tested this in a behavioral task with 466 participants in four-person groups.
Participants repeatedly decided how much money to withdraw from charities. The money benefited the group, but imposed social harm and destroyed value.
9/N Link to the paper: doi.org/10.1007/s118...
4/N We call this Benevolent Machiavellianism: strategic influence, coalition-building, and power-seeking used for prosocietal goals.
The idea is intentionally uncomfortable: ethical reform may require political behavior.
1/N Can ethical people gain power inside unethical organizations?
In our new paper with @bahniks.bsky.social (and originally @mvranka.bsky.social, before he left our team), we study a difficult problem: prosocial will may not be enough when the dominant coalition benefits from harmful practices.
2/N Classic theory (Hirschman) says employees facing wrongdoing can choose exit, voice, or loyalty.
But in many “bad barrel” organizations, none of these options works well. Leaving changes little, speaking up may be neutralized, and loyalty preserves the status quo.
Petr Houdek
Petr Houdek
Petr Houdek
Petr Houdek
@wwwojtekk.bsky.social Wojciech presenting his latest research in our research seminar series rsse.vse.cz. Come back to us after summer!
