Asper School Professor Pouyan Tabasi-Nejad's recent article about political influence to be published in world-renowned journal
What do Mother Teresa, a soldier, and Gordon Gekko from the film Wall Street have in common?
Well, they’re all characters in Asper School of Business Assistant Professor Pouyan Tabasi-Nejad’s academic article Beyond Dangling Carrots: The Effect of Policy Maker Motives on Their Response to Corporate Political Activity, which is slated for publication in Academy of Management Review.
One of the very top management journals in the world, Academy of Management Review is included in both the Financial Times 50 and UT Dallas journal rankings.
In the article, Tabasi-Nejad and his co-author Yuval Deutsch (York University) theorize how corporate firms influence politicians and impact public policy—showing, through social influence theory, what approaches are likely to connect or disconnect.
But the key to why the article has earned the attention of Academy of Management Review is in the title: Beyond Dangling Carrots.
For those who don’t know, a dangling carrot is just another way of saying “bribes.”
In the current academic literature (and not to mention, the popular imagination), we think of the relationship between corporations and politicians as a market where buyers (corporations) can influence policy by paying the sellers (politicians).
But Tabasi-Nejad knows it’s not that simple.
Before his time as an Asper School Assistant Professor of Business Administration, researching and teaching the Strategic Management course, Tabasi-Nejad ran for federal office in Willowdale, Toronto, days before his 25th birthday (unfortunately not winning a seat), and served as the Vice President of the Iranian Canadian Congress.
To illustrate the world of politicians as one with a diversity of perspectives and motivations, Tabasi-Nejad and Deutsch found inspiration in social influence theory.
Social influence theory posits that there are three types of human motivation and influence: instrumental, relational, and moral.
Instrumentally motivated people are driven by personal gain and power; relationally motivated people spend their energy on creating and maintaining relationships; and morally motivated people aim to act in accordance with their deeply-held beliefs.
Though everyone is a mix of all three, for the purposes of painting the picture, these examples explore each archetype one by one.
Immortalized by Michael Douglas in Wall Street, the character Gordon Gekko famously lived by his mantra “Greed is good.”
Tabasi-Nejad’s paper never mentions him by name, but theorizes how a politician who similarly believes “greed is good” might act in response to the various ways a firm could try to influence their political actions.
Therefore, the most obvious way to persuade this person—like giving them access to money or power—would be the most successful.
But if the firm tried to influence them with a relational or moral method, they would probably be met with a neither positive nor negative reaction.
A relational example might be that an old friend from university, representing the firm, asks for a political favour of the Gekko type. Because there is nothing tangible for them to gain, it’s unlikely they would take the bait.
The same goes for an attempt at a moral influence.
The most relationally motivated people give everything in the name of companionship—and for Tabasi-Nejad, there’s no better example than a soldier—specifically the kind that would give their life for their fellow servicepeople.
Someone who thinks like a soldier in a political setting would have a weakness for any corporate influence that hinges on helping their friends, their family, or their people—which could be, for example, their ethnic group.
To a relationally motivated person, maintaining relationships is the most important thing, but only if the relationship is conducted in a genuine way. Just as in the real world, real relationships can’t be bought.
If a firm tried to, they would surely get a negative reaction. Tabasi-Nejad explains it by giving the example of a soldier who saves their comrade, and then the comrade tries to give them money for it.
“That would probably piss off the guy who risked his life to save you, right?”
A moral influence, prioritizing ideas instead of people, would have a neither positive nor negative impact on a relationally motivated person’s political actions.
However, they would probably give Mother Teresa a nicer response than “go to hell.”
Morally motivated people pledge themselves to a set of moral values and act to uphold them. Examples include a commitment to justice, liberalism or conservatism, or in the case of Mother Teresa, religion.
It’s easy to see how pulling the money card or the “we’re friends” card on Mother Teresa would backfire: “What if someone tries to pay off Mother Teresa? It would probably piss her off,” Tabasi-Nejad says. “You’re probably better off to ask her explicitly. She might agree to help you.”
Firms who are motivated to do good through capitalism can use their influence in a socially responsible way, for example convincing a politician who is passionate about climate change to invest even deeper in sustainable energy.
Both parties having a moral motive doesn’t guarantee they’re compatible—each may hold deep beliefs, but on opposite sides (e.g. climate change believers vs non-believers). Firms must ensure their value sets align.
Though Beyond Dangling Carrots stands on its own, it is also the first chapter of Tabasi-Nejad’s dissertation; future chapters will answer the unanswered questions leftover from the first.
One I had was about morality. Is it ok for firms to influence politics?
Tabasi-Nejad hopes it’s clear that, with a few exceptions, this academic article is very much about politicians and businesses with hazy morals, who flirt with unethical, undemocratic conduct.
The next chapter of his dissertation addresses the impacts of their amorality, showing how corporate political donations directly contribute to poorer societal outcomes for marginalized groups.
But Tabasi-Nejad emphasizes how important it is to see politicians beyond their greedy stereotype.
“When we imagine politicians as self-interested, we’re going to interact with politicians that way, which also makes them act that way as well,” he says. “It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.”
He has also found social influence theory (despite some of the darker ways it can be used) surprisingly useful in his everyday life.
“Just with the people I interact with, I think, ‘how do I appeal to this person?’ What are they interested in? How do they look at the world? What are their values?” he says. “Social influence theory is super useful for understanding why people do things,”
“And again. NOT in a How to Win Friends and Influence People kind of way,” Tabasi-Nejad says.
This article is only a small summation of the insights in Beyond Dangling Carrots: The Effect of Policy Maker Motives on their Response to Corporate Political Activity. The full article is forthcoming in Academy of Management Review.
The Asper School of Business aims to expand the creation of global knowledge and engage in intellectual exploration to advance management research and practice. Our researchers’ scholarly work is regularly published in the world’s most renowned outlets in the field.
Be part of this flourishing research culture and learn more about research programs in management (MSc and PhD) at the Stu Clark Graduate School.
New tech fights bacteria
New funding for accessible tools announced earlier this year.
A new cutting edge in disease prevention.
UM Chancellor Dave Angus sits down with the CEO behind Canada’s largest urban reserve.
