If you want to gain political power, what would you aspire to become? Business Tycoon. Agree / Disagree
Given that politics is unavoidable, and we all live in a state, if you want to gain political power, what would you aspire to become? Business Tycoon. Agree / Disagree
Politics is unavoidable. It doesn’t matter where you live, or what state you reside in, politics will always be there. For some people, this may be a good thing.
They feel as though they need to be politically active in order to have a voice. Others find politics to be a nuisance and would rather not deal with it at all. No matter which side of the spectrum you fall on, one thing is for sure: if you want to gain political power, becoming a business tycoon is the way to go!
There are a few reasons why this is the case. First, business tycoons have a lot of money. And as we all know, money is power. With enough money, you can buy your way into just about anything – including politics. In addition, business tycoons also have a lot of influence. They can use their influence to get what they want from politicians.
Finally, business tycoons are often very charismatic people. This makes them good at networking and building relationships – two things that are essential for success in politics.
So there you have it! If you want to gain political power, becoming a business tycoon is the best way to go. Of course, it’s not an easy road to take. But if you’re up for the challenge, it’s definitely worth it!
Do you agree or disagree? Let us know in the comments below.
What are your thoughts on this issue? Do you think that becoming a business tycoon is the best way to gain political power? Or do you think there are better ways to go about it? Let us know in the comments below! We would love to hear from you. Thanks for reading! 🙂
If money is power, and business tycoons have a lot of money, then it only makes sense that they would also have a lot of political power. What do you think about this issue? Do you agree or disagree?
Weak players in organisations can overcome their dependence on powerful actors, but it comes at a cost.
Alexis Tsipras, the new left wing prime minister of Greece, is in a tight spot. Having spent much of his time trying to coerce the powerful countries of Europe into accepting Greece’s rejection of the agreements signed between the EU and the prior Greek government, he’s not getting any closer to achieving his goals.
He cannot reduce Greece’s dependence on the “troika” and has been unable to rally allies to his cause. Greece is running out of money, and out of time.
The case of Greece reminded me of my recent paper with Assistant Professor Gokhan Ertug, The Power of the Weak (2014), which examined the strategies weak organisational players can employ to attenuate their dependence on the powerful. Greece is the weak, but has tried to negotiate from an illusory position of strength.
Such an approach was unlikely to work. To understand why, I would like to revisit our analysis of how weak organisational members can reduce their dependence on the powerful.
The inequality of power
Power is unequally distributed in organisations. Typically, people in the higher echelons of the hierarchy depend on those below much less than the latter depends on them for resources. It is this asymmetry that confers power. Yet, weak organisational members can attenuate the negative consequences of their dependence by implementing a number of strategies that can reduce the power of the strong or at least curtail their ability to use such power.
First, weak players can try to take control of resources important to the people they depend upon. For example, they could monopolise information or knowledge on a key issue of interest for the powerful party, increasing its dependence on the weaker player. This is behind the disproportionate influence wielded by technical experts in industrial disputes, or the privileges enjoyed by irreplaceable executive assistants.
Second, a weak player could try to increase the emotional investment of the powerful party in the relationship. The weaker party could try to elicit the sympathy of the stronger, overtly accepting its weakness while trying to negotiate better terms in the relationship appealing to the benevolent nature of the powerful.
Third, the weak player may try to build a tie with a third party that can have influence on the powerful individual. If successful, this manoeuvre should make the powerful party reconsider its behaviour towards the weak. In fact, research suggests that even creating the impression that such ties exist can make the stronger party think twice about using power against the weak.
Fourth, weak players can also enhance their position by forming coalitions with other weak parties, limiting the ability of the strong party to use its power in their relationship. Many new managers soon realise that they have much less power over subordinates than their formal position suggests.
These subordinates have been working together for years and would easily come together if they feel that the new manager is abusing his or her power. This cohesiveness is ultimately what accounts for the power of cartels such as the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) in the global economy. When employees can form a coalition, the manager’s ability to use power is drastically reduced. This was the case of the strike at Market Basket, when thousands of staff walked off the job to protest their boss’s firing.
The bottom line is to develop a network of relationships that go beyond the people you depend on. As I wrote in this earlier article, it’s also important to make sure your network is composed of people in different positions and at different levels. If you just flock with those like you, you’re less likely to build a network that can help you when you need it.