Notes — Jeffrey Pfeffer on the Seven Rules of Power, the Knowing-Doing Gap, and Why Power Is a Learnable Skill

Source: raw/lenny/Jeffrey Pfeffer.txt | Jeffrey Pfeffer in conversation with Lenny Rachitsky | Lenny’s Podcast

Four questions [Adler frame]

Q1 — What is it about as a whole? That power is a learnable set of behaviours, not a personality trait, taught through seven rules; and that the chief obstacle to acquiring it is not ignorance but discomfort — the gap between knowing and doing. Pfeffer’s stance is explicitly descriptive (‘how the world is, was, and will be’), not normative.

Q2 — How is it argued? By social-science citation plus a dense gallery of cases: Laura Esserman (the cancer surgeon who reduced her ‘friction’), Omid Kordestani (Google #11 via networking), Jason Calacanis, Laura Chau, Jack Valenti, Steve Jobs-via-Regis McKenna, and Trump as the unnamed organising example the book was really about. Each rule is paired with a name.

Q3 — Is it true, in whole or part? Pfeffer grounds each rule in research (Ferris’s political-skill scale, Granovetter’s weak ties, Carney on body language) and insists the claims are explanatory, not anecdotal. The descriptive core is well-supported. The discomfort is real and acknowledged — the framework is ethically contested, which is why the Seven Rules of Power concept page carries a Where mainstream views differ section. Pfeffer’s defence: the knife that cures cancer and the knife that mugs are the same tool.

Q4 — What of it? Two operational takeaways dominate. First, the Knowing-Doing Gap: comprehension changes nothing without practice, so ‘do power’ — coaching, a personal board of directors, deliberate reps. Second, the deliberate trade-off: power and autonomy sit on different tracks (James March), so choose knowingly rather than drift.

Glossary

Political skill — Gerald Ferris’s measured construct; empirically tied to higher salary, promotion, career satisfaction, and lower stress. The evidentiary basis for studying power at all.
Knowing-Doing Gap — Pfeffer & Sutton’s term for the chasm between understanding what to do and actually doing it; here, the main reason people stay powerless. See Knowing-Doing Gap.
Doing Power — the signature assignment in his Stanford ‘Paths to Power’ course: take a principle and apply it in the real world this quarter, because unused learning evaporates (the French-class analogy).
Suspend judgement — toward anyone on your critical path, the only useful judgement is ‘they are on my critical path’; leaking dislike drives cooperation to zero.
Critical path — the people whose collaboration you need to get your job done; jobs entail interdependence, so the relationship is non-optional.
Weak ties — Granovetter: distant contacts carry non-redundant information and the best job leads, because they see parts of the ecosystem your close ties cannot.
Broker / centrality — the networking goal: connect otherwise-unconnected people and groups who benefit from connection (what VCs, bankers, and agents are paid to do).
Power vs autonomy — James March’s dictum: you can have one or the other, not both; power buys influence at the cost of control over your own time.

Key claims by section

Why power makes us uncomfortable [§ Opening]

Power skills correlate with good outcomes (Ferris), yet feel dirty because the reality ‘bears almost no resemblance to what you’re taught in Sunday school.’ The tool-versus-use defence: a surgeon’s knife and a mugger’s knife are the same knife. [§ Opening]
The people most in need of power skills are those the world is stacked against; ‘if you want power used for good, more good people need to have power.’ [§ Opening]
Suspend judgement of anyone on your critical path: senior executives master not leaking what they think of you, because leaked contempt kills cooperation. [§ Opening]

Rule 1 — Get out of your own way [§ Rule 1]

Self-limiting beliefs (‘power is dirty’, imposter syndrome, pre-emptory apology) sabotage trajectories before any external obstacle does. Don’t describe yourself in disempowering terms — it leaks, and others adopt your low estimate. [§ Rule 1]
Don’t prioritise being liked: ‘if you want to be liked, get a dog’ (Gary Loveman). The bar is don’t be gratuitously disliked (Sutton’s No Asshole Rule) while prioritising competence and getting the job done — the spine-surgeon analogy. [§ Rule 1]

Rule 2 — Break the rules [§ Rule 2]

Breaking rules makes you memorable, and the rules were written by those the rules already favour — so conformity cements incumbency. The business analogue is disruption. [§ Rule 2]
A concrete instance: ask. People overestimate how often they’ll be refused (Flynn & Lake, ‘If You Need Help, Just Ask’); the downside of asking and hearing no is nil. Jason Calacanis as the rule-breaker exemplar (many small bets, no partners to fire him). [§ Rule 2]

Rule 3 — Appear powerful [§ Rule 3]

We respond first to how people look, then how they sound, least to content (Carney; ‘watch the debate with the sound off’). Tall and (optimally) attractive people earn more. [§ Rule 3]
These are learnable skills, not traits — Regis McKenna ‘made Steve Jobs Steve Jobs.’ Tactics: eye contact, no notes (Jack Valenti ‘felt taller’ than 5′2″), brevity, gestures, open posture, louder voice, gentle personal-space touch, humour (‘if you can get people to laugh, you can tell them anything’ — Rushdie). [§ Rule 3]

Rule 4 — Build a brand [§ Rule 4]

The world is hierarchical and there are fewer seats at the top; no one promotes someone they don’t know. Substance without visibility is invisible; visibility without substance is exposed. [§ Rule 4]
Brand-building examples: Keith Ferrazzi (the Lincoln Quality Award at Deloitte), Tristan Walker (signing partnerships to get hired at Foursquare), Laura Chau (podcast, writing, dinners, deliberate visible style). Reframe self-promotion as amplifying the team or scaling what you know. [§ Rule 4]

Rule 5 — Network relentlessly [§ Rule 5]

The first principle of networking is generosity — who can I introduce you to? You can only broker if you know people. Pursue weak ties (Granovetter) for non-redundant information; aim to be the broker / central node. [§ Rule 5]
Omid Kordestani’s arc: networked inside Netscape (well-connected people aren’t policed on tasks), then drove the Valley meeting everyone, so when a 10-engineer startup asked ‘who’s the best technical business person?’, his was the only name on every list — Google #11, ~$2.5B. [§ Rule 5]

Rule 6 — Use your power [§ Rule 6]

Power unused atrophies; exercised, it compounds. People want to associate with success, so getting things done earns more resources, opportunities, and promotions. Ambivalence to power (Gruenfeld; Ibarra’s hesitant manager) is self-defeating. [§ Rule 6]

Rule 7 — Success excuses (almost) everything [§ Rule 7]

Antidote to the Icarus fear that you’ll be ‘brought low.’ Life is self-fulfilling, not homeostatic: believed-powerful becomes more powerful. Results reset the social account. [§ Rule 7]
Cases: Lindsey Graham reversing on Trump ‘to be relevant’; Bill Gates, Jeffrey Epstein, Martha Stewart — ‘people want to be close to money, power, and success, and will overlook your flaws.’ Descriptive, not endorsed. [§ Rule 7]

The Knowing-Doing Gap [§ Knowing-Doing]

Understanding produces nothing without practice; unused learning disappears (the French analogy). Hence ‘Doing Power’ assignments and a four-stage arc — denial → anger → sadness → acceptance — moved via practice and coaching, scaled gradually (don’t ‘swim the English Channel’ on day one; cf. Carole Robin’s 15% rule). See Knowing-Doing Gap. [§ Knowing-Doing]
Most actionable closing advice: if it’s uncomfortable, don’t do it alone — get a coach and a personal board of directors who advise, support, and hold you accountable. [§ Knowing-Doing]

Power vs autonomy, and the price of power [§ Close]

James March: ‘you can have power or autonomy, but not both.’ Pfeffer chose autonomy — controls his own calendar, took one administrative job and disliked it. The powerful surrender their time (the dean who couldn’t grieve; Satya Nadella booked three months out). [§ Close]
Power also brings scrutiny (behaviour previously ignored gets dissected), loss of privacy, the trust dilemma (are people here for you or your position?), and a price paid by family — Rudy Crew’s daughter Lauren left ‘not a dry eye in the room.’ [§ Close]