Many leaders do not fail for lack of competence, but because they understand power too narrowly.
You were taught that power comes from five sources: position, reward, punishment, expertise, charisma. You were taught that you “have” power like a toolbox. And that good arguments and solid facts are enough to influence decisions.
That falls short. Not in theory, but in the practice of many organisations.
The American legacy
The classic models of power date from the 1950s. French and Raven developed their five “bases of power” at a time when organisations were more hierarchical, stable and manageable. Their classification was brilliant for its time: it made power analysable, teachable, tangible. That is why it is still taught in leadership programmes today.
But it described a world in which a manager could decide largely autonomously, information flowed slowly and networks were locally limited. Power was organised vertically, not networked horizontally.
That world hardly exists any more. Many modern organisations are matrix structures. Decisions arise in committees, not at individual desks. Information often flows almost in real time. Power is less ordered vertically than networked horizontally.
Nevertheless, the old models are still often taught: in MBA programmes, leadership seminars and coaching courses, as if they were timeless truths. They are not.
The three illusions of power
Illusion 1: position = power
The classic model claims: the higher your position, the more power you have. This is called “legitimate power”.
The reality: position gives you formal authority. But formal authority does not automatically mean actual influence.
A typical case: the newly appointed managing director of a subsidiary. On paper he has extensive decision-making powers. In practice he has to come to terms with group requirements, the works council, influential old hands and informal centres of power. His position gives him legitimacy, but not automatically the ability to get things done.
Another typical case: the project lead of a strategic initiative. She has no authority to give instructions. Yet she effectively sets the direction, because all information runs through her and she has built the coalition of supporters.
Position is not irrelevant. But position alone is not power.
The decisive insight: position, expertise or assertiveness are not sources of power per se. They only become power when they create dependencies. A title without actual control over resources helps little. Expertise without strategic positioning fizzles out. Assertion without a coalition mainly creates resistance.
Illusion 2: expertise = influence
The second classic model: “expert power”. Whoever knows the most has the most power.
That too falls short.
In complex organisations there are usually several experts with conflicting assessments. The IT expert says: “We need system A.” The data protection expert says: “System B is legally safer.” The finance expert says: “System C is more cost-efficient.”
All three are right, each from their own perspective. Who prevails?
Often not the one with the best expertise, but the one who understands the political constellation. Who knows which arguments resonate with the CEO. Who has forged the right alliances. Who uses their expertise strategically, not only professionally.
Expertise gets you heard. But it does not automatically get you your way.
Illusion 3: getting your way = power
The third illusion is subtler. Many leaders believe: power shows in my imposing my will. The more often I “win”, the more powerful I am.
Often it is the other way round.
The most powerful people in organisations often do not need to impose themselves at all. They shape constellations so that their solution appears logical and without alternative. They do not stage trials of strength. They avoid them.
Power is often only noticed when it is missing. As long as it works, it looks like the natural order of things.
If you constantly have to persuade, fight resistance and negotiate compromises, you are probably in a power struggle. Real power is more invisible. It does not show in spectacular victories, but in certain questions no longer being asked at all.
How power works in organisations
If the classic models are not enough, what determines who really has influence in organisations?
More than 25 years around politics, public administration and business have led me to three principles.
Principle 1: power arises from dependency
You have power over someone if they depend on you, not formally but in fact.
That is not a new insight. Back in the 1970s, Pfeffer and Salancik showed that organisations are steered not only by formal hierarchy but also by resource dependencies. Whoever controls what others need has power.
This can take many forms:
- You control resources others need (budget, staff, information).
- You have access to decision-makers that others do not have.
- You have knowledge that is not documented and cannot easily be transferred.
- You can speed up or slow down processes.
- You have legitimacy with critical stakeholders (works council, supervisory board, customers).
The decisive question is not: which titles do I have? But: who depends on me, and for what?
A controller without leadership responsibility can be more powerful than a department head if he alone understands the budget logic and every strategic decision has to pass his assessment.
Principle 2: power arises from information
In stable, hierarchical organisations information was distributed more symmetrically. Everyone knew roughly the same, only at different times.
In modern, networked organisations information is often asymmetric. Some know things others never learn. Some understand connections that remain hidden from others.
What matters then is no longer who sits at the top of the hierarchy, but who is positioned at the hubs of communication. Those who mediate between different areas, sit on several committees and have access to different circles of information see the whole picture, while others know only fragments.
A typical case: the head of strategic projects has little formal decision-making authority. But she sits on the digitalisation steering group and the core team for the reorganisation, and reports directly to the CFO. She learns early which budgets will be cut, which divisions are to be merged and where political resistance is forming. While other leaders act in their silos, she understands the overall dynamic and can position her own projects before others even notice what is coming.
Power often lies with those who are informed earlier and better. Not only about official decisions, but about:
- unofficial moods and opinions
- upcoming changes before they are communicated
- the actual priorities of decision-makers (as opposed to the officially communicated ones)
- conflicts and alliances in the background
- the informal rules by which decisions are really made
Those who have this information can anticipate. Those who can anticipate can shape. Those who can shape have power.
Principle 3: power arises from coalitions
Nobody is powerful alone. Not even the CEO.
Power arises from alliances, loyalties and mutual support. From the network of those who stand behind you when things get critical.
The central question is therefore not: how competent am I? But: who is prepared to take risks for me?
That does not mean you have to please everyone. On the contrary: the most powerful people often have determined opponents too. But they have a stable coalition of supporters they can rely on.
These coalitions do not arise by chance. They are built:
- Through reciprocity: you support others so that they support you.
- Through shared interests: you identify common goals and work towards them.
- Through reliability: you do what you say, even when it is uncomfortable.
- Through strategic positioning: you make yourself valuable to the right people.
Power without a coalition is illusory power. It rarely lasts.
The dark side: when power is abused
At this point many will say: “That sounds like Machiavelli. That sounds like manipulation. Is that really how I want to lead?”
The question is justified. Because these principles can be abused.
Abusing power means:
- creating dependencies only to control others
- withholding information only to make yourself indispensable
- forging coalitions against others only to weaken personal rivals
But that is not the only way to deal with power.
Using power ethically means:
- understanding dependencies in order to find solutions that work for everyone
- sharing information where it serves the cause, and withholding it where necessary
- forming coalitions to move things that would not be possible alone
The difference lies not in the mechanisms, but in the intention and the time horizon.
Short-term self-interest at the expense of others: abuse of power. Long-term goals that align with the organisation's goals: use of power.
Or put differently: ethical use of power succeeds when impact (effectiveness) and integrity (legitimacy) stay in balance. You use your power to move things, but in a way that would hold up under transparent scrutiny.
The line is not always sharp. But it exists.
What this means for you
If you want to move something in your organisation, real change and not just symbolic politics, you should stop treating power as an abstract concept. Instead, answer three questions.
1. Who depends on me, and for what?
Identify your actual sources of power. They are often not where you think.
If you have no clear answer to this question, you lack bargaining power. The solution is not to create artificial dependencies, but to make yourself valuable to the right people.
2. What information do I need, and from whom?
Power does not mean knowing everything. Power means knowing the right thing at the right time.
Build channels through which you are informed earlier and better than others. They do not have to be official channels. Often the informal conversations give the decisive insight.
But be careful: collecting information without using it achieves nothing. The art lies in recognising which information is relevant and which is just noise.
3. Who has to stand behind me for my initiative to succeed?
Power is not a solo project. Identify your critical stakeholders, not the obvious ones but the hidden ones.
Who can block your initiative without anyone noticing? Who has informal influence on the decision-makers? Who could be a natural ally if you involve them properly?
And then: talk to these people. Not as a petitioner and not as a salesperson, but as someone who has understood that power arises together.
Power is not a dirty word
The biggest problem I see with leaders is not that they want too much power, but that they think too little about power.
They shy away from the word. They prefer to talk about “influence”, “leadership”, “shaping”, as if power were something dirty that must not be named.
This avoidance has consequences. Those who ignore power can become the plaything of those who understand it. They are passed over, outmanoeuvred, harnessed for other people's interests, often without noticing.
Many people of integrity and ability whom I have seen in difficult situations had no bad intentions. But they did not see through the power dynamics and mistook their restraint for decency.
Staying out of questions of power is not automatically decency. Often it is a reluctance to take responsibility. Because if you want to fix grievances, push through innovation and develop people, you need influence. Not for your own sake, but for the sake of the cause.
The real question
In the end, the question is not: should I strive for power?
The question is: what do I use the power I have for?
Because you have influence; everyone has it in some form. The only question is whether you recognise it and use it deliberately or leave it to others.
The classic models of power give no answer to this. They describe power as a state, not a process; as something you possess, not something you shape.
Reality is more complex and more uncomfortable:
- Power arises from dependencies you have to understand.
- Power arises from information you have to work for.
- Power arises from coalitions you have to build.
That is laborious. That is political. That is sometimes frustrating. But it is reality. Those who do not accept it will find it hard to push their ideas through, no matter how good they are.
Three concrete next steps
- Analyse your sources of power. Take 30 minutes. Write down: who depends on you? For what? Where do you have dependencies yourself? Be honest with yourself.
- Identify your information gaps. What would you need to know to be more effective in your organisation? Who has this information? How can you get access?
- Map your stakeholders. For your most important initiative: who has to stand behind you? Who could block? Whom have you not talked to yet?
If you are in such a situation yourself and are looking for support, write me a few sentences about what it is about: Request a consultation. I read every enquiry myself and usually reply within 24 hours on working days.
Do you recognise your situation?
Briefly describe your situation. I read every enquiry myself and usually reply within 24 hours on working days.
Request a consultationPersonal · confidential
