Does power corrupt or are the corrupt attracted to power?

Sturm and Antonakis defined power as “having the discretion and the means to asymmetrically enforce one’s will over others”.

Finding resonance with the well-worn adage that “absolute power corrupts absolutely”, history offers many examples of figures who with
personal magnetism mask widespread corruption. But power can also be of great benefit to many if placed in the right hands.

McClelland’s theory identifies achievement, affiliation, and power as the three main motivational drivers, with each person showing a unique mix of the three. His power motive is the desire to control, influence, or take responsibility for people and events. While personal power is self-aggrandising, institutional power is important for building of resilient structures.

Power driven by desire

Personal Power is driven by a desire for individual dominance and control. It is self-serving and ego-driven, focusing on personal prestige and getting others to bend toone’s will.

A classic example is a fiercely competitive, authoritarian figure such as a ruthless dictator who seeks control over others for their own personal glory and ego. They demand blind loyalty and often prioritize winning at all costs.

There are many examples this type of leaders who did and still do have legacies ruinous to entire nations.

Institutional (socialised) power is the drive to organise people around shared goals. Leaders who embody it use influence to strengthen teams, build institutions, and advance broader societal objectives.

Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore’s prime minister from 1959 to 1990, is regarded as the founding father of modern Singapore. He led the country’s separation from Malaysia in 1965 and helped transform it from a struggling port into a prosperous, highly developed global hub.

Four hypothesis

In his seminal book, Corruptible, Brian Klaas interrogates the conundrum: “Does power corrupt or are corrupt people drawn to power?” In this article as a follow up to an earlier piece 1 , the dynamics and dimensions of the relationship between power and corruption will
be lensed through the following four hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1 :  Power corrupts

In the 1971 Stanford Prison Experiment students, responding to an advert for “a psychological study of prison life” were assigned the roles of guards and prisoners. With alarming alacrity, “guards” became sadistically abusive, while some “prisoners” were humiliated and distressed.
The behaviour deteriorated to the extent that researchers began to fear for the mental wellbeing of the volunteers. The planned two-week study was abruptly ended after six days.
1  https://sundayworld.co.za/big-reads/corruption-in-the-evolution-of-human-society-and-the-power-motive-gearing-it/

Zimbardo, who led the experiment, concluded that unchecked power can corrupt ordinary people. Other researchers, however, argue that power does not simply corrupt; instead, it amplifies existing character. In people with strong moral values, power may deepen compassion,
while in others it can expose hidden self-interest once normal social restraints are removed.

Psychological evidence suggests that attaining power fundamentally alters the brain’s reward systems. When people gain power, they become overconfident, entitled and disinhibited, making them more likely to behave unethically. Often the Dunne-Kruger
phenomenon comes into play. The powerful frequently show reduced empathy and a diminished ability to understand the perspectives of those beneath them. Politicians entering townships suffering deprivation of basic amenities with luxury cars and designer label
apparel. Powerful individuals often judge others harshly, while holding themselves to lower moral standards. Just view the behaviour of the blue light entourage of politicians owning the road and force lesser citizens to take avoidance actions.

Hypothesis 2 : Power attracts the corruptible

To test whether power-seeking students were drawn to the original advert for the Stanford Prison experiment, researchers designed a control experiment, revising the advert to describe a generic psychological study by removing the words “prison life.” Comparative analysis revealed that respondents to the “prison” advert scored significantly higher in aggressiveness, authoritarianism, narcissism, and social dominance, and significantly lower in empathy and altruism.

This outcome suggests that power may attract corruptible individuals. Positions of control appear lucrative for pathological and authoritarian personalities who actively seek authority

This phenomenon is encapsulated in:

• The Draw of Command; which refers to the irresistible allure of leadership, power, and ultimate responsibility. It describes the psychological pull toward taking charge, guiding a team, and steering a larger mission, despite the burdens of being the
  ultimate decision-maker.
•  In his book, The Road to Serfdom, economist Friedrich Hayek describes Systemic Failure. He argued that the worst individuals rise to the top of collectivist and totalitarian systems. These systems require the consolidation of unprecedented power and the coercion of others and thus would organically filter out moral leaders.

Hypothesis 3 : We are attracted to bad leaders, and so we tend to give them power. Jeanine Prime in the Harvard Business Review of 12 May 2014 asserts “When we choose humble, unassuming people as our leaders, the world around us becomes a better place.”
Notwithstanding this sagaciousness, humans are drawn to bad or destructive leaders because of deep-seated psychological needs, confusing arrogance and narcissism for strength, or fooled by charismatic personalities.

In Corruptible, Klaas cites an experiment showing that both adults and children often judge leadership by appearance. In more than 70% of cases, they chose the winner of a political election over the runner-up as the captain to steer their ship in a computer game, based solely
on facial appearance. Studies supporting face-value leader selection suggest that people often associate dominant or aggressive-looking candidates with leadership and are less likely to choose those who appear cooperative or meek.

Evolution conditioned us to look to the biggest and most self-assured individuals for protection and direction. Arrogant people project certainty, rarely question themselves, and display a confidence that draw in the insecure or anxious. In times of crisis or social stress, people often seek the safety and direction of protective parental figures.

Aggressive or authoritarian leaders exploit this impulse by promising to fight our battles and solve our problems. Destructive leaders
turn complex problems into “us vs them”; narratives.

A hallmark of poor conflict-resolution skills, it provides a sense of certainty to confused or stressed followers. Followers also back
bad leaders because it serves their personal interests. If a leader rewards loyalty, praises specific groups, or hands out perks, it distracts followers from the leader’s broader ethical or operational failings.

We often confuse traits such as excessive charm, extraversion, and storytelling skill with true leadership. The most effective leaders are more likely to display humility, empathy, and a readiness to unlearn.

Hypothesis 4 : Mistake of focussing on individuals in power

Klaas posits that bad systems actively attract corruptible people, creating a dangerous feedback loop. A system is never completely neutral as its design dictates who wants to join it. Positions with high, unchecked is a natural habitat for people with "Dark Triad" personality trait. If a system is poorly structured, honest people leave, leaving free rein to highly
corruptible individuals.

When a system intentionally constructs overly complex, slow, and opaque administrative procedures, it creates artificial bottlenecks. This structural friction serves as a direct incentive for bribery. Citizens and businesses are forced to pay “speed money”; or “facilitation fees”;
simply to bypass systemic inefficiencies and secure basic public services.

Entrenched corrupt networks proactively defend themselves by altering the system’s architecture. They deliberately hollow out oversight agencies, police forces, and judiciaries by appointing loyalists to key watchdog roles.

When a system grants an individual power without robust accountability, it actively erodes their empathy, increases their risk-taking
behaviour, and makes them more prone to self-serving choices. A bad system can corrupt a decent person over time.

According to Collective Action Theory, if an individual believes that everyone else is paying or receiving bribes, acting honestly yields no systemic benefit and carries immense personal cost. Honest business owners lose competitive government tenders to corrupt
rivals. Ethical public servants face marginalisation, reassignment, or physical threats from entrenched actors. [

Concluding Remarks

“Political will”, or setting the tone at the top, is the foundation of any successful anti-corruption effort.  But what if a country’s leader, whose ethics and integrity should be beyond question, is not as principled as they should be?

Analysing such leaders highlights the dark side of charisma, where profound public trust is exploited for personal gain.
When a system grants an individual power without robust accountability, it actively erodes their empathy, increases their risk-taking behaviour, and makes them more prone to self-serving choices.

Any bad system can corrupt any decent person over time, as the latter has to resist so many negative impulses and coercion, sometimes to protect their lives or livelihoods.

Klaas argues that the solution is not just trying to find better individuals, but structurally re-engineering institutions. Systems must actively recruit empathetic, community-minded people who wouldn’t normally seek power.

• Psychological Screening: Institutions should actively screen out individuals displaying
  high levels of narcissism or psychopathy before giving them authority.
• Inverted Surveillance: Oversight and tracking should be intensified for those at the
  top of the hierarchy, rather than those at the bottom.

Visit SW YouTube Channel for our video content