The Uses And Abuses Of Influence Pdf

The cause of drug abuse is not fully known but likely include genetic predisposition, co-occurring conditions and environmental circumstances. Drug use and experimentation is common in pre-adolescents and adolescents, but only a small percentage of those users will go on to abuse drugs.

Abuse of power or abuse of authority, in the form of 'malfeasance in office' or 'official misconduct', is the commission of an unlawful act, done in an official capacity, which affects the performance of official duties. Malfeasance in office is often grounds for a for cause removal of an elected official by statute or recall election. Officials who utilize abuse of power are often those who exploit the ability to use corruption in their advantage.^[1][2][3]

• 2Impeachment of U.S. officials
• 3Other examples

Institutional abuse[edit]

Institutional abuse is the maltreatment of someone (often children or older adults) by a system of power.^[4] This can range from acts similar to home-based child abuse, such as neglect, physical and sexual abuse, to the effects of assistance programs working below acceptable service standards, or relying on harsh or unfair ways to modify behavior.^[4]

Impeachment of U.S. officials[edit]

James Peck[edit]

Federal Judge James H. Peck was impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives in 1830 on a charge of abuse of power.^[5] Peck had jailed a man for contempt of court after the man had publicly criticized him.^[5] The U.S. Senate acquitted him in 1831, with 21 voting guilty and 22 voting not guilty.^[5][6][7]

Charles Swayne[edit]

Federal Judge Charles Swayne was impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives in 1904. He was accused of filing false travel vouchers, improper use of private railroad cars, unlawfully imprisoning two attorneys for contempt, and living outside of his district. He was acquitted by the U.S. Senate in 1905. There was little doubt that Swayne was guilty of some of the offenses charged against him. Indeed, his counsel admitted as much, though calling the lapses 'inadvertent.' The Senate, however, refused to convict Swayne because its members did not believe his actions amounted to 'high crimes and misdemeanors'.^[8]

George English[edit]

Federal Judge George W. English was impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives in 1926, but resigned before his trail in the U.S. Senate could take place. One of the five articles of impeachment alleged 'tyranny and oppression, and abuse of the powers of his office.'^[9] The House voted to impeach by a vote of 306 to 60, but the charges were dismissed following English's resignation.^[10] He had been accused of abusive treatment of attorneys and litigants appearing before him.^[10][11][12]

Richard Nixon[edit]

President Richard Nixon resigned from office after the House Judiciary Committee voted to approve articles of impeachment, but before the full House had a chance to vote on impeachment. Of the three articles of impeachment, Article II charged Nixon with abuse of power, alleging in part that:

{{quote Using the powers of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, impairing the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, or contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposes of these agencies.^[13][14]

The article also cited five specific examples of alleged misconduct to substantiate this charge against the president.^[15]

The vote on Article II was bipartisan, with 7 of the 17 Republicans joining all 21 Democrats on the committee in approving impeachment of a U.S. president for abuse of power.^[15]

Rod Blagojevich[edit]

Governor Rod Blagojevich of Illinois was impeached and removed from office in 2009, on charges of abuse of power and corruption. Blagojevich was accused of several 'pay to play' schemes, including attempting 'to obtain personal gain .. through the corrupt use' of his authority to fill a vacant seat in the U.S. Senate. The Illinois House of Representatives voted 114–1 (with three abstentions) to impeach Blagojevich for abuse of power,^[16][17] and the Illinois Senate voted 59–0 to remove him from office.^[18]

Donald Trump[edit]

President Donald Trump was impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives on December 18, 2019, and his trial in the Senate is ongoing. Of the two articles of impeachment, Article I alleges abuse of power. The votes for the charge of abuse of power were 230 in favor, 197 against, and 1 present. Voting in favor were all but three House Democrats and one Republican-turned-Independent, and voting against were all House Republicans and two Democrats. One Democrat voted present.^[19][20]

Other examples[edit]

Lois Lerner/IRS[edit]

Lois Lerner used her position as head of the Exempt Organizations Unit of the IRS to deny mainly conservative groups exempt status. A September 2017 Treasury Department Inspector General's found that the IRS used both conservative and liberal keywords to choose targets.

In October 2017, the Trump Administration agreed to settle a lawsuit filed on behalf of more than four hundred conservative nonprofit groups who claimed that they had been discriminated against by the Internal Revenue Service for an undisclosed amount described by plaintiffs' counsel as 'very substantial.' The Trump Administration also agreed to settle a second lawsuit brought by forty-one conservative organizations with an apology and an admission that subjecting them to 'heightened scrutiny and inordinate delays' was wrongful.

Joe Arpaio[edit]

In February 2010, Judge John Leonardo found that Arpaio 'misused the power of his office to target members of the Board of Supervisors for criminal investigation'.^[21]

In 2008, a federal grand jury began an inquiry of Arpaio for abuse of power, in connection with an FBI investigation.^[22][23] On August 31, 2012, the Arizona US Attorney's office announced that it was 'closing its investigation into allegations of criminal conduct' by Arpaio, without filing charges.^[24]

Arpaio was investigated for politically motivated and 'bogus' prosecutions, which a former US Attorney called 'utterly unacceptable'.^[22][23] Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon has called Arpaio's 'long list' of questionable prosecutions 'a reign of terror'.^[23]

Fa Zheng[edit]

Fa Zheng, a Chinese man, was appointed as the Administrator (太守) of Shu commandery (蜀郡) and 'General Who Spreads Martial Might' (揚武將軍) by Liu Bei. He oversaw administrative affairs in the vicinity of Yi Province's capital Chengdu and served as Liu Bei's chief adviser.^[25]

During this period of time, he abused his power by taking personal revenge against those who offended him before and killing them without reason. Some officials approached Zhuge Liang, another of Liu Bei's key advisers, and urged him to report Fa Zheng's lawless behaviour to their lord and take action against him. However, Zhuge Liang replied, 'When our lord was in Gong'an (公安), he was wary of Cao Cao's influence in the north and fearful of Sun Quan's presence in the east. Even in home territory he was afraid that Lady Sun might stir up trouble. He was in such a difficult situation at the time that he could neither advance nor retreat. Fa Xiaozhi supported and helped him so much, such that he is now able to fly high and no longer remain under others' influence. How can we stop Fa Zheng from behaving as he wishes?' Zhuge Liang was aware that Liu Bei favoured and trusted Fa Zheng, which was why he refused to intervene in this matter.^[26]

Police officers[edit]

In dictatorial, corrupt, or weak states, police officers may carry out many criminal acts for the ruling regime with impunity.

Individual officers, or sometimes whole units, can be corrupt or carry out various forms of police misconduct; this occasionally happens in many forces, but can be more common where police pay is very low unless supplemented by bribes.^[27] Police officers sometimes act with unwarranted brutality when they overreact to confrontational situations,^[28] to extract a confession from a person they may or may not genuinely suspect of being guilty,^{[29][full citation needed]}.

See also[edit]

References[edit]

1. ^'Corruption and abuse of power'. https://www.policeconduct.gov.uk/. Retrieved 2020-01-18.External link in publisher= (help)
2. ^'Vanuatu officials accused of abuse of power amid corruption claims'. www.rnz.co.nz. 2019-02-19. Retrieved 2020-01-18.
3. ^Gerson, Michael (2019-09-24). 'Opposing Trump's corrupt abuse of power is today's form of patriotism'. www.washingtonpost.com. Retrieved 2020-01-18.
4. ^ ^abPowers, J. L.; A. Mooney & M. Nunno (1990). 'Institutional abuse: A review of the literature'. Journal of Child and Youth Care. 4 (6): 81.
5. ^ ^abc'Jonathan Turley, Senate Trials And Factional Disputes: Impeachment As A Madisonian Device, 49 Duke L. J. 1 (1999)'. 18 March 2006. Archived from the original on 2006-03-18.
6. ^James Hawkins Peck at the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges, a public domain publication of the Federal Judicial Center.
7. ^'govinfo'. www.govinfo.gov.
8. ^'U.S. Senate: Impeachment'. www.senate.gov.
9. ^'Impeachment of Judge George W English Dismissed After Resignation'. Constitutional Law Reporter. 17 May 2017. Retrieved 23 September 2019.
10. ^ ^ab'Impeachment Proceedings Not Resulting In Trial'(PDF).
11. ^'JusticeLearning : Articles'. 5 October 2006. Archived from the original on 2006-10-05.
12. ^'Wayback Machine'(PDF). 30 September 2007. Archived from the original(PDF) on 2007-09-30.
13. ^ This article incorporates public domain material from the Congressional Research Service document 'Congressional Resolutions on Presidential Impeachment: A Historical Overview' by Stephen W. Stathis and David C. Huckabee. Retrieved on October 14, 2019—via University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.
14. ^ This article incorporates public domain material from the United States House of Representatives document 'A History of the Committee on the Judiciary 1813–2006, Section II—Jurisdictions History of the Judiciary Committee: Impeachment' (H. Doc. 109-153). Retrieved on November 6, 2019.
15. ^ ^abNaughton, James M. (July 30, 1974). 'New Accusation'. The New York Times. p. 1. Retrieved December 4, 2019.
16. ^Saulny, Susan (January 9, 2009). 'Illinois House Impeaches Governor'. The New York Times. Retrieved April 21, 2009.
17. ^Vote on House Resolution 1671 to impeach Gov. Blagojevich.
18. ^Chicago Tribune, January 30, 2009, 'Impeached Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich Has Been Removed From Office' by Ray Long and Rick Pearson.
19. ^Edmondson, Catie (December 18, 2019). 'On Historic Impeachment Votes, Three Democrats Cross Party Lines to Vote 'No''. The New York Times.
20. ^Haberkorn, Jennifer; Wire, Sarah D.; Megerian, Chris; O'Toole, Molly (December 18, 2019). 'U.S. House impeaches President Trump'. Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on December 18, 2019. Retrieved December 18, 2019.
21. ^Wingett, Yvonne (2010-02-25). 'Supervisor cases collapse'. Azcentral.com. Retrieved 2010-09-23.
22. ^ ^ab'Sources: FBI Investigating Joe Arpaio'. KPHO. Oct 30, 2009. Archived from the original on October 20, 2010. Retrieved July 10, 2010.
23. ^ ^abcConder, Chuck (July 10, 2010). 'Arizona sheriff under investigation for alleged abuse of power'. CNN. Retrieved July 10, 2010.
24. ^'Feds close criminal investigation into Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio'. Fox News. August 31, 2012. Retrieved 2013-03-03.
25. ^(以正為蜀郡太守、揚武將軍，外統都畿，內為謀主。) Sanguozhi vol. 37.
26. ^(一飡之德，睚眦之怨，無不報復，擅殺毀傷己者數人。或謂諸葛亮曰：「法正於蜀郡太縱橫，將軍宜啟主公，抑其威福。」亮荅曰：「主公之在公安也，北畏曹公之彊，東憚孫權之逼，近則懼孫夫人生變於肘腋之下；當斯之時，進退狼跋，法孝直為之輔翼，令翻然翱翔，不可復制，如何禁止法正使不得行其意邪！」初，孫權以妹妻先主，妹才捷剛猛，有諸兄之風，侍婢百餘人，皆親執刀侍立，先主每入，衷心常凜凜；亮又知先主雅愛信正，故言如此。) Sanguozhi vol. 37.
27. ^'IPS: DRUGS-MEXICO: Police Caught Between Low Wages, Threats and Bribes'. Ipsnews.net. 2007-06-07. Archived from the original on 2010-06-20. Retrieved 2010-05-22.
28. ^Edwards, Richard (2009-04-17). 'Ian Tomlinson G20 protests death: police office faces manslaughter charge'. The Telegraph. Retrieved 2010-05-22.
29. ^'The police often argue that the tough 'interviewing' of suspects is the best way to extract the truth. But such strategies are exactly the sort to provoke false confessions'. New Scientist. Retrieved 2010-05-22.

Further reading[edit]

• Branum, Tara L. (2002). 'President or King? The Use and Abuse of Executive Orders in Modern-Day America'. Journal of Legislation. 28 (1): Article 1.
• Lee-Chai, Annette Y.; Bargh, John, eds. (2001). The Use and Abuse of Power. Philadelphia: Psychology Press. ISBN1-84169-023-6.

Robert Cialdini, considered the leading social scientist in the field of influence, was initially drawn to the topic because he saw how easily people could step over an ethical line into manipulation or even abuse. His 2001 book Influence, which laid out six principles of persuasion, was eloquent about the dangers of persuasive techniques in the wrong hands. A best-selling article he wrote for HBR the same year, “Harnessing the Science of Persuasion,” looked at the positive side of persuasion: how managers could use those principles to run their organizations more effectively.

Cialdini is the Regents’ Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Marketing at Arizona State University and the president of the consulting firm Influence at Work. In this edited interview with HBR executive editor Sarah Cliffe, he drills deeper into everyday uses of persuasion inside businesses and describes new research on the ethics of influence.

HBR: I’m going to run a few scenarios by you to explore how people can influence others more effectively at work. First, imagine that you’re an employee trying to behave entrepreneurially. You need resources to jump-start a great business idea. How do you get people to help?

Cialdini: It requires prework. People will help if they owe you for something you did in the past to advance their goals. That’s the rule of reciprocity.

Get in the habit of helping people out, and—this part’s really important—don’t wave it away when people thank you. Don’t say, “Oh, no big deal.” We’re given serious persuasive power immediately after someone thanks us. So say something like “Of course; it’s what partners do for each other”—label what happened an act of partnership. With that prework done, a manager who subsequently needs support, who needs staffing, who maybe even needs a budget, will have significantly elevated the probability of success.

Adam Grant’s work on the importance of giving inside organizations echoes that, doesn’t it?

It does. Grant provides a brilliant analysis. Another fascinating study was done by Frank Flynn, formerly at Columbia, now at Stanford. He examined giving behaviors at a large telecom and found that two things happened when people helped their colleagues. One, the helpers were perceived by their fellow employees to be extremely valuable. Two—and here’s where it gets complicated—they had lower productivity on their own projects. They were diverting a lot of time and energy to their colleagues’ problems.

How do you manage that discrepancy between generosity and productivity?

Flynn found one thing that increased both the social value of the giver and that person’s productivity. It wasn’t the number of favors done. It was the number of favors exchanged.

If the initial giver creates a sense of reciprocity—a sense that there’s a network of partners who are not just willing but eager to help—he will get a lot in return. He can increase the likelihood of a big ROI by characterizing his assistance as a two-way partnership.

Get in the habit of helping people out, and don’t wave it away and say, “Oh, no big deal.” We have serious persuasive power immediately after someone thanks us.

Second situation: An executive needs to convince a group that a big change in direction is necessary. What would you advise?

Moving people under conditions of uncertainty is difficult—the first thing they do is freeze. They’re scared of what they might lose. Therefore, it’s good to tell people what they will lose if they fail to move. Daniel Kahneman won a Nobel Prize for showing that if you’re trying to mobilize people under conditions of uncertainty, notions of loss are psychologically more powerful than notions of gain. Managers can take the wind in their faces and make it wind in their sails by speaking not just of what will be gained by moving but also of what will be lost or forgone if people fail to move.

A second thing that happens when people are uncertain is that they don’t look inside themselves for answers—all they see is ambiguity and their own lack of confidence. Instead, they look outside for sources of information that can reduce their uncertainty. The first thing they look to is authority: What do the experts think about this topic?

That’s not necessarily the boss. It could be the person who knows the subject best.

That’s an important distinction. We’re not talking about being in authority but about being an authority. The manager needs to marshal evidence from acknowledged experts—they could be outsiders—that aligns with the rationale for the initiative.

The other place people look is to peers. If a couple of people are hanging back in a team meeting, the manager shouldn’t hammer those guys, trying to get them to fall in line. Instead, he or she should identify a respected member of the group who agrees with the plan and ask that person to weigh in. Peers are often more convincing than executives when we’re deciding what we should do.

Here’s another scenario. I was recently at a conference where a group of CEOs were asked to cooperate on a task that was important in a civic sense—important to the world—but was not necessarily something their shareholders would applaud. The organizer was deeply respected but had no formal power. In that kind of situation, how do you get people to make commitments that last beyond the feel-good moment?

Two things strike me as important. The first is something I’m thinking about right now for a book I’m writing: the power of we. When people see themselves as part of a larger group that has a shared identity, they are willing to take steps they wouldn’t take for their individual interests. The research on this is very clear. So the organizer needed to build that sense of shared purpose in the moment.

Once people disperse, they go back to their everyday we—in this case, the companies they run. So you need to lock in the change by getting people to make a public commitment while they’re still together. You have to ask them what they will do and, if possible, get a written response.

Why does getting it in writing matter?

People live up to what they write down, for some reason; it seems to make the choice more conscious. They should also be asked to make commitments about next steps and to schedule another conversation, by which time they will be ready to describe the progress they’ve made. Bit by bit, the commitment becomes more concrete.

If you want to build up your informal networks, how do you go about it? Lagu barat terbaru sering dj mp3.

Further Reading

• Harnessing the Science of Persuasion

  LeadershipFeature

  • Robert B. Cialdini

  Six fundamentals, and how you can apply them in your organization.

Here’s where the internet helps us. We can find out a lot about people by checking their Facebook or LinkedIn pages. Look for things you have in common—maybe it’s running, maybe it’s knitting, maybe it’s where you went to school. Finding something in common is powerful, because we like people who are like us; that’s another principle of influence. If you use that similarity as a point of departure, and if you do it honestly, they’ll like you, and you’ll come to like them. Now you have people who are willing to be part of your network because of commonalities that were under the surface.

What advice can you give people who are reluctant to negotiate for themselves and need to get better at it? I’m thinking particularly about the research suggesting that women typically “don’t ask.”

I’ve done some work with Jeffrey Pfeffer, of Stanford, on whether you need someone to advance your case in a negotiation, and we’ve found that having an agent or advocate can be very helpful.

There are two benefits associated with having an agent when, say, you’re being considered or recruited for a position. One is that you’re perceived as more prestigious if someone is advocating for you. That’s the authority principle in action.

The liking principle also comes into play. If you have to be a broker of information about yourself, you often appear self-aggrandizing, and it rubs people the wrong way. In the research we did, we found that if an advocate for a candidate makes demands that are based on the candidate’s merits, it doesn’t harm the candidate. But if the candidate argues the very same case, it does. The people on the receiving end just don’t like that person, who comes off as a braggart.

This is especially relevant for women. We have done research showing that women who are anything less than modest about their accomplishments are harmed interpersonally. Men can also do themselves damage by being boastful, but we expect them to be aggressive. It hurts them far, far less than it hurts women.

Because of this bias, women will do better in organizations where managers are expected to advance the case for their people—where that’s the cultural norm.

Any organization has minority groups—people who are “other” to some extent. Do they face difficulties when it comes to influencing those around them?

Yes, because of the similarity factor we talked about earlier. But there’s a way around that. Those surface characteristics—race, ethnicity, foreign-born status—become irrelevant when there are commonalities in terms of values. We all want to work with people who share our sense of what’s important—our priorities on the job, or even beyond the job. So one thing people can do is establish commonalities that aren’t immediately visible. It usually takes a while for those things to be recognized; you can shorten the process by speaking about values more spontaneously.

Moving people under conditions of uncertainty is difficult—they freeze. They’re scared of what they might lose. It’s good to tell people what they will lose if they fail to move.

So many businesses now are global—what kinds of difficulties do you run into cross-culturally with persuasion?

The good news is that the six principles of influence do seem to exist in all cultures. They’re part of the human condition. The bad news is that their weights change from culture to culture.

In our research, we’ve found that in more collectivist, communal cultures, certain kinds of persuasive appeals are more successful. Social proof is very powerful. If a lot of your peers are doing something, that’s a more powerful impetus for you than for people in more individualistic cultures, where one looks inside the self and doesn’t use the group as the standard for deciding.

For example, we did a study in the U.S. and in Poland, which has a more communal orientation than the U.S. We asked individuals if they would be willing to participate in a marketing survey. We also asked them whether they had done that sort of thing in the past and whether they thought their friends had. In the U.S. the issue that best correlated with whether people would participate was whether they themselves had previously done so. That’s the principle of consistency in action. In Poland it was whether they perceived that their friends had done that sort of thing in the past.

One of the clichés in Western management literature is that the command-and-control organization is dead. When we print something like that in HBR, I’m never sure if it rings true globally.

There’s some evidence in that regard. Citibank asked its managers in various countries the following question: Suppose a fellow manager’s project is suffering, and he or she asks for help. Responding will take time and energy, maybe even resources and staffing. Under what circumstances would you feel most compelled to help? In Hong Kong and in China the answer was “I would ask myself, Is the requester connected to a senior person in my group?” Out of fealty, you have to say yes to someone who is above you. In Spain the answer was “I would ask myself, Is the requester connected to one of my friends?” There it’s not fealty; it’s loyalty. It’s the liking principle. You have to know those shifts in emphasis across cultures in order to optimize your effectiveness.

One thing that has changed since you did your original work on influence is the extent to which the internet and social media have taken over our lives. When you’re not in a face-to-face setting, how does influence change?

Social media have allowed us to access other sources of information than in the past, but I don’t think they’ve changed our responses to influence appeals. One thing we’re seeing, though, is that people are beginning to be influenced by their peers more than by experts.

If you look at TripAdvisor or Yelp, you find that it’s not travel writers or restaurant critics who are influencing others’ choices. It’s people just like you and me, who can now report on their experiences.

That peer-influence effect reminds me of the work you’ve done on how hotels influence guests to reuse towels. Making an environmental argument was powerful, but what really moved the needle was hearing about the number of other guests who reused their towels.

Yes, and in follow-up studies we found that the most successful message was not the one that said the majority of people who’ve stayed in this hotel reused their towels. It was the one that said the majority of people who’ve stayed in this room reused their towels.

That’s such an odd finding.

Isn’t it? But one thing I’ve learned is that the most primitive techniques of influence are the most powerful ones. By “primitive,” I don’t mean anything derogatory. It’s just clear that the more localized and personalized we can make a source of information, the more likely it is to move people in our direction.

What emerging themes in the field interest you?

One important issue is the durability of the change we create. The research typically hasn’t looked at that. However, along with a company called Opower, we’re now in our fourth year of giving people access to information about their neighbors’ patterns of energy usage, and the latest study indicates that people continue to pay attention to that information and to adjust their own usage accordingly. We have to give people a reason to pay attention—in this case, it’s evidence about what their neighbors are doing—so that their commitments will endure.

The other issue I’ve gotten interested in is the ethics of influence, which we haven’t examined in a rigorous, scientific way. What are the consequences of being ethical or unethical? Of course, we know that a person’s reputation—and her ability to influence—suffer damage if she is discovered to have been unethical, especially inside an organization. However, that fact doesn’t necessarily constrain less-than-ethical behavior. Here’s why: People don’t expect to be found out. Especially at the highest levels of power, people feel that they’re bulletproof.

So we’re approaching ethics from another, more self-interested, angle: Is there a bottom-line argument for being scrupulously ethical in the way you deal with customers, clients, vendors, regulators, and so on? Our hypothesis is that if an organization allows or cultivates a culture of dishonesty with the world outside the firm, the people inside the organization who are uncomfortable with dishonesty will seek to leave, and they will remain uncomfortable and stressed until they do. Conversely, the people who are comfortable with dishonesty will stay. Eventually the organization will be full of people who are comfortable with cheating—and who will cheat the organization.

Along with Adriana Samper [of Arizona State University] and Jessica Li [of the University of Kansas], I’ve done some experimental work to test this hypothesis. First we set up project teams and gave some members reason to believe that their fellow team members had conspired to cheat. When those witnesses were then given a difficult problem to solve, they performed significantly worse than people who hadn’t been exposed to cheating. They were stressed. They were preoccupied to the point where it affected their performance. In a related experiment, people who, when given a choice, were comfortable working with a dishonest team cheated 50% more often than anyone else did.

These are early data, but we suspect this is a decent proxy for what will happen inside an organization over time. If an organization chooses to be unethical with clients or suppliers, it will ultimately be cheated by people who are happy to work in a dishonest culture. Eventually the organization will pay for it on the bottom line. Count on it.