Whether managed intentionally or not, a culture will develop in a group or organization. A happenstance culture is far less likely to be one that supports all its members. Most cultures fall into that happenstance category.

Leadership occurs in organizations in a similar man­ner: leaders often lead based on the behaviors of the people who led them. This, unfortunately, reinforces dysfunctional leadership qualities as much as positive ones. What connects these two concepts, culture and leadership, is the form in which power is wielded in an organization. In an article originally published in 1959, John R.P. French and Bertram Raven identified five distinct forms of power:¹

1. Coercive power. The power to punish, to force people to do as requested, or face the (usually negative) consequences.

2. Reward power. The power to reward people if they do as requested; the close cousin to coercive power.

3. Legitimate power. A form of power based on your position in the organizational hierarchy or your organization’s standing in the industry.

4. Expert power. A form of power that exists among people who know what they are talking about.

5. Referent power. A form of power driven by qualities such as integrity and respect, which drives trust and close relationships.

Note that the first three forms of power described here are generally characterized as “formal” and require “surveillance” to ensure the power is in play. The remaining two are characterized as “personal.” This distinction is critical, as the need for “surveillance” implies a strongly autocratic, hierarchical relationship.

While there are often several forms of power at play in organizations, based on the context and the relationship between the different players involved, most organizations tend to be characterized by one dominant form of power over the others, and the majority of these are usually some combination of coercive and reward power.

Table 1 captures the relationship between leadership and these different forms of power, and the impact this has in the organization, both to the culture and the outcomes for the subordinates of this power. These outcomes are aligned with Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, expressing how far up this hierarchy subordinates can expect to rise with the corresponding culture and power base in play.

Looking at Power from Two Perspectives

When working with individuals and describing the interaction of all these models, two primary scenarios can be used to interpret this table.

In the first scenario, when a person is in the position to build a large, sustainable organization, working to build a participatory, collaborative culture from day one offers distinct advantages. This allows the organization to adapt or pivot as required to whatever it may have to deal with from a tumultuous external environment, while providing access to the other forms of power and influence as required within the organization.

For organizations that start out with a strong autocratic style (many technology companies are started by bright, charismatic leaders), it is very difficult to transition to one of the higher levels in the table, as this can be perceived as a loss of that power that the leader has grown accustomed to (“it has gotten them this far”).

Microsoft, currently led by Satya Nadella, is a partic­ular exception to this rule. This transformation is best explained by Nadella himself who notes the shift “is about us humans and the unique quality we call empathy, which will become ever more valuable in a world where the torrent of technology will disrupt the status quo like never before.”

The second scenario is for people who do not aspire to lead a large, sustainable organization. For them, this table acts as a lens to help them better understand the dynamics at play in an organization, whether they are already working in the organization or are entertaining the possibility. By analyzing the dominant culture and power base in an organization, they can understand how high they may expect to rise in Maslow’s hierarchy in such an environment.

In my work, we interview people and ask them to describe a time when they felt excited by their work and honored and appreciated for their contribution. We then ask them to identify practices or characteristics of the culture that would create an environment where more of these experiences could occur. Universally, people describe an environment at the top of Table 1, where there is a collaborative team culture and involve­ment in the decision-making and problem-solving.

Despite these connections, there remains resistance in many organizations to join this shift, as those in power can perceive it as a loss of power. In reality, though, it is a shift in the nature of power that happens, a more cohesive and less hierarchical form of power that makes the organization as a whole stronger than before. We are shifting from a form of power wielded by the boss (“I can fire you”) to a form of power wielded by the organization (“We can deliver great products, and we can experience self-actualizing moments in the process”).

In my experience, it has been easier for a new organi­zation to grow with this understanding in mind than for a large, established organization to successfully make the shift. Fortunately, Nadella is demonstrating that this shift, while challenging, is possible and pro­vides significant value to the organization as well as the employees.

Note

¹A sixth form of power, informational power, was added later. My experience is that this tends to be a transitive form of power, in play only while there is an imbalance in information that can be used to wield an advantage in situations where someone is playing what James P. Carse would call a “finite game” scenario, and has no place in a collaborative, appreciative organization. See: Carse, James P. Finite and Infinite Games: A Vision of Life and Play as Possibility. Free Press, 2013.

[For more from the author on this topic, see: “Recognizing the Relationship Between Power & Culture in Today’s Organizations.”]