is distributed power a myth?
Introduction: Setting the context for power in self-organization
For over half a century, we have seen a growing movement dedicated to finding new ways to organize work. People have innovated many alternatives to the management hierarchy that emerged out of the industrial revolution and became a globally dominant organizational model. One thing seems to be clear; the power hierarchy has run its course. The complex circumstances of the 21st century call for a different way for people to get together and engage toward a mutually desired outcome.
As people strive toward new models of work, and as many possible solutions are developed and refined, there’s one underlying issue that persistently gets in the way of a fully functioning system. Whether addressed explicitly or implicitly, this issue is power. The goal of this article is to bring clarity to those who are living into or exploring new ways of organizing and who have questions about the role of power in this endeavor, as well as to plant a seed of thought with this question: what if we understood power and love as inextricably linked, and acted from that understanding?
Some current alternative organizational systems, including Holacracy, Sociocracy, and other models, change the authority structure. Yet, changing the authority structure or distributing authority does not automatically create a new and desired power dynamic because authority is about decision-making, not power. Power includes more than simply decision-making authority: it includes aspects of personality, socialization, identity, and more. If power is to shift, it must be understood and directly addressed.
During over 10 years of specialized work in the field of self-organization, I have witnessed something time and time again: shifting the organizational structure, with the promise that it will empower people by distributing power, brings big challenges to the relational aspects of working together. After years of exploring this phenomenon, I have come to understand the value of making a clear distinction between authority and power.
When authority and power are differentiated and understood, an even more compelling question emerges: what is authentic power, and how can we harness it for good?
What is the problem with power?
It is a myth to claim that changing the structure and agreeing on specific decision-making processes, even self-organized approaches, distributes power. Tools, processes, and frameworks like Sociocracy, Holacracy, Teal, and others help move in the general direction of shifting power, but each one overlooks a critical distinction—the distinction between power and authority.
The traditional management hierarchy does not only manage the work; it also manages and takes care of people. Then what is happening when we move away from the management hierarchy? We substitute the management hierarchy with a structure that either fully distributes authority and implements processes that govern the work—not the people—or tries to distribute authority in other ways that also don't make the distinction between power and authority. Depending on the structure of the new system, the people, their relationships, and the power dynamics among them often either remain conflated with the organization itself or left out entirely.
Structural solutions distribute authority in any number of ways, such as with a role-based structure or a network organization. If the intention is to change the power hierarchy through a full-scale replacement of the management hierarchy, but we only address the authority structure, this creates a huge shadow or blind spot.
In reality, there is no guarantee that an alternative structure creates a power shift. In many cases, it does not. I have worked all over the world with companies where the "promise" of "distributed power" created a lot of positive excitement, curiosity, and expectations, which soon turned into disappointment and frustration. Power still expresses itself in interpersonal dynamics in many, often quite subtle, ways.
The defined parts of an organizational structure—whether roles, functions, or something else—are described by their authority. These include, for example, which work a role can do and which decisions it can make. Power, on the other hand, is held by people and is a personal and interpersonal phenomenon. When we fully distribute authority, we take away the ability to assert "power over," or to allow one person to be more powerful than another concerning the work. This moves power into purely the interpersonal realm. If we don't have a safe space to transparently address power and its dynamics, it often becomes an individual or collective shadow, playing out in difficult and sometimes disruptive ways.
Examples of power as a shadow
In a meeting, Mary makes a suggestion of how to move forward with a project. Before she finishes the last sentence, her eyes quickly move to look at her former boss, hoping to receive a sign of approval or feedback from her. In a very subtle way the former boss gets drawn back into old dynamics and reacts with a brief smile and a nod. Encouraged, Mary now feels safe to finish her suggestion, saying “I believe this is the way we need to move forward!”. Many subtle power dynamics like this one can be observed in body language.
A CEO adopts a self-organized approach to work. He creates a role of mentor and says that he wants people to make their own decisions, but that they can get his input if they want. This way the behavior pattern of getting his approval continues, with the result that he now tells people what to do as a mentor.
In both examples, power remains implicit and plays out from the shadow, working against efforts at self-organization.
To take it further, as long as you still have aspects of the management hierarchy defined in the organizational structure like Team Leaders, Managers, or any other function that supervises others, you will always face power dynamics that feel disempowering to those who are supervised. It is better to admit this and face the limits of efforts to distribute authority in this situation rather than confuse the issue and create shadows.
What then do we do about power?
In every social system, we find power in interpersonal dynamics. Power (as such) is neither good nor bad, but it needs to be made explicit through open communication and clear agreements. Groups need safe spaces where these communications can take place to create the necessary agreements. The concepts of the For-Purpose Enterprise and the Symbiotic Enterprise both define a clear People Context. This enables the differentiation of organizational and personal tensions, which each require very different processes to resolve.
Let me come back to the example of the CEO who shifted his power into a Mentor role. After a time, he saw that what he was doing was corrupting the shift to self-organization. So he proposed to delete the Mentor role, and when people came to him to ask for advice, he declined to do so and pointed out that he didn't hold the role anymore. This left everybody used to consulting with him confused and sometimes frustrated. The CEO then invited everyone to a facilitated workshop about the People Context where he told the story of his learning, how his idea to create a Mentor role was rooted in his desire to not let anyone down, yet from his perspective, he had reached the exact opposite. People didn't know he trusted that everyone was capable of making their own competent, autonomous decisions. Sharing his experience showed his vulnerability, which helped the team feel closer to him.
People still wanted to consult with him because of his experience and seniority, so he agreed he would answer concrete and specific questions but would never give advice or tell anyone what to do. It resolved the issue completely for both the organization and the people. Also, it helped develop context-awareness, a capacity needed for self-organization.
Toward a New Story of Power
Our belief system is shaped from early childhood on by hearing stories told to us, by people and other (often technological) sources. We believe that these stories are true, and over time our brain has them programmed so they guide our thoughts and behaviors like an autopilot. We don't question them. The same goes for the stories we believe about power. We integrate these stories generally into our life and specifically into our work. For many, the word power immediately and quite unconsciously creates this sense of "power over," as described above. The core question is how we define personal power, which has been a topic for many of humanity's greatest thinkers.
The stories we’ve learned and believed about power have served humanity immensely for a long time. They have also brought us new challenges. In the dominant model of “power over”, power is great at yielding even more power for those who hold it. With power concentrated in such a way as to rob many people of agency, with large parts of humanity on the losing side of this (power) game, and with our planet facing hugely complex issues which threaten our continuation as a species, does this story continue to serve us? Is it time for a new story of power?
When we start from one definition of power, as “the capacity to act and to influence and direct the course of events,” it’s easy to understand why many of us sit and watch the world’s developments without feeling empowered to change course or alter outcomes. In a society built on the story that it’s right and natural for some of us to hold more power than others, it’s easy to assume that some people must have a better understanding than I of where we’re going and what’s needed now. “We need someone powerful,” one might say, “because otherwise we won’t get anywhere. Someone must have the last word, or we will drown in chaos!”
Does that story of power sound familiar? Even if you don't quite believe this 'old story' anymore, how many people still do
Something else—a new story of power—is needed now. We cannot create a new relationship with power or a new story without seeing what we think about it.
What if the story that some people are inherently more powerful than others, and therefore hold power over others, doesn't have to be true? How can we define power if we let go of this story ?
Paul Tillich (1886—1965), the German American existential philosopher and doctoral adviser to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., said on power:
“The drive of everything living to self-realize with increasing intensity and extensity.”
What if the new story goes like this: everything living is here to self-realize, which means to manifest its purpose.
Power is. Not over, not with, it is as it is; a natural phenomenon that flows in, out, between, and among. Power is a flowing drive of everything to self-realize. As everything is connected and interdependent, all power is connected and interdependent as well. It flows through the connection, resonates, serves, and nourishes more powerful self-realization.
What if we humans were to see love as the natural phenomenon that connects everything? Is it love through which power can flow, thus enabling powerful co-creation of everything, for everything, in service of everything?
What would change if we began to believe this new story—if we shifted our beliefs about power in this way? How would we treat each other differently, seeing that everyone is here to self-realize, to authentically and powerfully manifest purpose and through it serve the greater whole? How would we collectively do our work in the world, and organize around a purpose? How would we collectively face the global issues humanity has created based on the stories of separation we have believed for so long, and that are threatening our livelihood?
Is it too much to ask to live in a world where our human gifts go toward the benefit of all? Or where our daily activities, no matter how small or how big, contribute to the healing of the biosphere and the wellbeing of all people?
Truly shifting the story of power and love in this way begins within ourselves. It is a shift in consciousness through challenging our belief systems, facing our shadows and traumas, letting go and unlearning, healing, and embracing the new.
Organizations are the greatest force to collectively be of service. Self-organization holds the potential to co-create and manifest this new story. As many of us look to work in a self-organized system, let's take the opportunity to use this wisdom and open up new possibilities for the future.
The author will explore questions of love and power, unified in service to purpose, in her upcoming book, “The Story of Love, Power and Purpose”. Click here to sign up for an email notification when the book is ready for pre-ordering!
