Making blockades visible and dealing with them effectively so that we can successfully shape change was an important initial perspective. But anyone who really wants to control change cannot ignore another issue: power.
Why do we treat this topic so neglectfully in change management?
Because we almost automatically associate power with abuse, dominance, or control. We think of “those at the top,” back rooms, and manipulation. But power is neutral at first: it describes nothing more than the ability to make decisions and shape things. Without power, there can be no change.
Nevertheless, it is often suppressed, and that is precisely what makes it dangerous:
- Those who do not address power leave it to those who use it anyway.
- Those who do not make power visible fight symptoms instead of causes.
- Those who ignore power lose their scope for action.
That is why power in change is not a side issue, but a central control factor.
And that is precisely why we are starting a new series here with this important focus for change managers:
How does power work: officially, informally, politically? How does it influence decisions, responsibility, trust? And what does it take to ensure that it accelerates change rather than slowing it down?
Power always has an effect. Even if no one mentions it.
In change processes, there are moments when everything seems to be prepared: goals are clear, roles are described, processes are defined. And yet, the organization is not moving as it should.
Often, the first step is to turn to the solid and “change management typical” levers and adjustment screws: more/different communication, more/different participation, more/different structure. What usually receives little attention and is even less frequently addressed openly is power.
This does not only refer to the formal power that is visible in organizational charts, but also to the quiet, stable structures of influence that arise from relationships, loyalties, habits, or particular interests. These can have a stronger effect than any “official” decision.
2 Examples
When structures change, power does not remain neutral
A factory dissolves its classic line organization. Project structures are to take over in the future. Formally, everything is regulated. But as soon as decisions have to be made, employees turn to their previous superiors. Not out of resistance or uncertainty, but out of familiarity. Out of loyalty. Because power does not simply disappear when structures are changed. It “shifts” into relationships, networks, routines.
Dual power structure
A cross-departmental project stalls. One department is barely participating, decisions are being delayed. The project management suspects disinterest or operational overload until it becomes clear what is really behind it:
Two team leaders are responsible for the same area. One reports to the production line, the other reports to the project management. A typical matrix constellation. Both have formal decision-making authority, but neither is clearly recognizable as “the one who decides.”
What is special about this particular case is that one of the two has more influence in everyday life: he has been with the company longer, knows the people in the department, and enjoys their trust. The other “only” has official project responsibility. A silent power struggle has been going on between the two for some time, which no one openly addresses.
The result: employees wait and see. Managers postpone decisions. Nothing moves until it is clear whose line will prevail.
The problem was therefore not a lack of commitment, but a dual power structure that creates uncertainty and dilutes responsibility. As long as it is not clear who actually makes the decisions, the project will proceed slowly.
Why “power” is relevant for every manager and every person responsible for change:
Power is not a marginal issue, but a central factor in management capability. It shapes how information flows, who is heard, and how decisions are made. As long as these dynamics are not visible, organizations treat the symptoms: workshops are optimized, roles are refined, goals are adjusted, etc. But the actual network that drives or slows down change remains untouched.
Making power visible does not mean looking for someone to blame
It means recognizing real channels of influence and decision-making. Not just the official ones. It means taking trust, influence, and interests seriously. And it means thinking about change not only in terms of formal processes, but also in terms of the real dynamics within the system.
Conclusion:
As long as power remains invisible, symptoms are treated, but not the cause. Visible power is not a risk, but a prerequisite for genuine cooperation.
Change processes do not fail because power exists. They fail because no one clearly identifies it, consciously addresses it, and integrates it into the control system.
Power is not the enemy. But it is also not a neutral playing field. It is a force. Those who ignore it will be surprised by it. Those who understand it gain room for maneuver.
Outlook
In the next article, we will show how these three forces of power, influence, and interests work in organizations. And how they can be consciously navigated to make change sustainable—and how to make them visible, readable, and navigable.
Quick ideas: What leadership can do to make change succeed.
- Make power visible: At the beginning of a project, clarify together who actually makes decisions, provides information, and exerts influence. A simple visualization often creates immediate clarity.
- Discuss horizontal dependencies: Reveal conflicts and mutual expectations: “What do we need from each other in order to remain capable of acting?”
- Recognize informal sources of influence: Those who are heard have power. Those who should be heard but are not need support.
