Yes, it was "about" power corrupting, but it absolutely did not demonstrate it, and it certainly didn't detail how pure individuals came to be corrupted by the acquisition of power.
It can't possibly show that power corrupts. All the author does does is talk about how there are powerful, corrupt people. For instance, he writes, "This isn't just anecdotal: Surveys of organizations find that the vast majority of rude and inappropriate behaviors, such as the shouting of profanities, come from the offices of those with the most authority." Except it is anecdotal: that's what a survey is designed to show--a systematic study of anecdotes. And we already know anecdotes aren't systematic surveys. If you wanted to show that the 'vast majority of rude and inappropriate behavior' came from 'the top', you'd have to design a rubric for what constitutes rude and inappropriate behavior, record all social interactions, transcribe them and attribute them to an encoded number, send off the transcriptions to people without the ability to deduce the actors, tally rude and inappropriate behavior, and then convert back to the original actors and see where the inappropriate behavior came from.
There's literally zero evidence that supports the argument of this article, that being: "The very traits that helped leaders accumulate control in the first place all but disappear once they rise to power."
The "Machiavellian" study, for instance, says nothing about whether or not Machiavelli was right. It only says people who are perceived as being 'malicious gossips' are shunned. GROUNDBREAKING!? No. Nowhere does Machiavelli say, "The way to power is to be known as a malicious gossip."
It can't possibly show that power corrupts. All the author does does is talk about how there are powerful, corrupt people. For instance, he writes, "This isn't just anecdotal: Surveys of organizations find that the vast majority of rude and inappropriate behaviors, such as the shouting of profanities, come from the offices of those with the most authority." Except it is anecdotal: that's what a survey is designed to show--a systematic study of anecdotes. And we already know anecdotes aren't systematic surveys. If you wanted to show that the 'vast majority of rude and inappropriate behavior' came from 'the top', you'd have to design a rubric for what constitutes rude and inappropriate behavior, record all social interactions, transcribe them and attribute them to an encoded number, send off the transcriptions to people without the ability to deduce the actors, tally rude and inappropriate behavior, and then convert back to the original actors and see where the inappropriate behavior came from.
There's literally zero evidence that supports the argument of this article, that being: "The very traits that helped leaders accumulate control in the first place all but disappear once they rise to power."
The "Machiavellian" study, for instance, says nothing about whether or not Machiavelli was right. It only says people who are perceived as being 'malicious gossips' are shunned. GROUNDBREAKING!? No. Nowhere does Machiavelli say, "The way to power is to be known as a malicious gossip."