On imaginary loci of power in organisations

This article is the personal opinion of the author and does not represent Capgemini

Early on in my career I often imagined power as a set of concentric rings: by getting more senior, I would be getting closer to that central target and then – one day – I myself would wield power. It always seemed as though other people – somewhere else – knew what they were doing and made the decisions.

This idea of the power lying ‘somewhere else’ is, I now see, both a mirage and, crucially, one of the main barriers to change in organisations. Power is always in your hands.

Why do we think in terms of power relations?

By ‘power’ we mean the ability a person has to get others to do things – to compel, command, decide, influence, trade or co-operate. In Government, we have ceded power to a group of elected individuals and the civil service, to make decisions on our behalf. How these powers are used, separated, arbitrated and enforced, and where exactly the ‘real’ power lies, is the subject of much debate. We have been wary of too much power being invested in the hands of one individual (as in traditional monarchy), or in small groups (dictatorship). Democracy as a political system seeks power by consent, with safeguards and limits to prevent abuse. However, some politicians – even senior ones – have felt that power lies in the civil service, or with advisors, or the media, or judiciary. Satire often plays off this. ?

Organisations – whether public sector or private sector – also operate through power relationships arbitrated by role, seniority, status, and networks. These are usually deeply hardwired in to organisational structures, the flow of information, pay, incentives, processes, and behaviours – so much so, that more power is assumed through heuristic mental shortcuts than really exists.

Why do we see power elsewhere but not in ourselves?

I think there are several reasons why people tend to perceive power lies everywhere but in themselves.

Firstly, we are creatures of social hierarchy – asymmetric power relationships have underpinned much of human history, from gender roles to capitalism. It is why, as a species, we have been able to team, organise and to get things done. We usually start our careers in junior roles and are deeply impressed by the limited visibility we have of the seniors, the ‘grown ups’ as they are often, so revealingly, referred to. They seem like wise, experienced, parental figures, in whom we trust. We want to believe that they know what they are doing. This framing seems to inform much of the rest of our careers, in which we ourselves strive to become and embody those senior people we one looked up to. But, of course, they are just humans and everyone who has worked with senior people for any length of time quickly sees past the fa?ade to the (thankfully) flawed, vulnerable human beneath. A key point of maturity comes when we realise that nobody is coming to save us; that nobody has the answers; and that nobody is really in charge.

Secondly, there is the odd phenomenon that many of the people who, by the trappings of wealth and position, have power, often do not recognise it. They simply don’t know how much power they have, or how to use it well. ?Arguably, this is a lack of training (unless perhaps you have been to one of the top private schools?), despite the plethora of books exploring the topic of power, advising people how to gain power and achieve leadership. Certainly, in the UK, we value a kind of humbleness, of not wanting to be see as ‘better’ than other people and downplaying one’s own abilities. Some are deeply uncomfortable with power, afraid of letting power corrupt, or suffer the sins of hubris, narcissism, nepotism, or cruelty and thus hold themselves back. Indeed, there are instances of individuals letting power go to their heads, and thinking they have more control over outcomes than in reality. And some people are simply unwilling to take responsibility, to be where the buck stops.

(I would argue that such power imbalances particularly disadvantage some groups of people who are less heard, and less likely to be in positions of obvious power.)

Thirdly, power is a highly graduated, relative, phenomenon and this is felt most acutely in middle management, where more junior teams look up to you for answers and direction, while you in turn are looking upwards instead of inwards. Nobody tells you how much power you have in a role; you work it out by trial, error, and observation. It is a rare leader who really has your back when things go really wrong: and so it is safer and more comfortable to take refuge in decisions being ‘above your pay grade’.

Why does this delusion hinder positive change?

Both as a former civil servant, and as a consultant, I have seen time and time again teams fail to decide a way forward and implement change because they are waiting for ‘someone else’ to make the decision and tell them that they can change. They imagine that someone else is in charge or that they need permission from others to proceed – even when they are the very team tasked with making that decision (policy, process, operation etc.). They can also fail to ‘hear’ when given such permission, even by very senior people, perhaps not trusting that they are truly being empowered to decide and to act. And so they become blockers to the very organisational change that senior leaders want to see happen, stuck in loops of procrastination and discussions and unable to move forward to bold action.

What can we do about it?

Organisations and government need to give much more consideration to how power is distributed and make more transparent who is taking decisions and how, and for whom. We need more diversity, more inclusivity, and more co-creation in how and why decisions are made and challenged. People at every stage of their career need to be trained to understand and how to use their power in the right ways, while leaders need to empower others by delegation and by actions, as well as words. And we need to foster psychological safety, to let people try out taking decisions even when they turn out wrong, without catastrophic consequences, so that they can take decisions when it really matters.