When we look at power in organizations, it is important to take a close look: there are different forces at play. Sometimes visible, sometimes invisible, sometimes formal, sometimes informal.
Power, influence, and politics in organizations: three games, one system
The lens you use to analyze “power” in your change process must be well calibrated: We do not always use terms such as “power,” “influence,” and ‘politics’ in their exact literal sense: These terms do not describe the same thing. But for a successful intervention, you need to know exactly which “game” you are currently playing.
1. The official game: Power through legitimation
In the “official” game, structures, processes, and responsibilities apply. This is where positions, budgets, and responsibilities are located.
This game is necessary because it provides orientation. But it only shows part of reality: the visible surface. As an organizational chart, as an official job title, as an agreed-upon process.
In this official game, power is conferred through hierarchy, mandate, or function. And it officially ends when the role officially ends. And that is precisely why this energy so often shifts to the other games as soon as the organization changes!
2. The social game: influence through trust
Beneath the surface, a second game is being played: the social game.
This game is about relationships, credibility, and sympathy. Influence arises when people place their trust in others, seek advice, or orient themselves toward others. And this social game is powerful because it is based on experience, reliability, and closeness, rather than formal authority.
In change processes, this often manifests itself in the fact that it is not the official project manager but an informal reference person who determines the course of action. And this is not a flaw in the system, but rather an expression of lived culture.
3. The political game: influence through interests
The third game is the political one.
Although it is almost always present, it is rarely discussed openly. It is about the distribution of power, the protection of resources, and interpretive authority. As those responsible for change, it is essential to keep this in mind, because those who ignore politics often lose without knowing why.
Political action is not automatically manipulative. It is the way in which people in complex systems try to protect or implement their interests. It becomes problematic when the political game dominates the official one, i.e., when personal agendas become more important than the common goal.
Three games, one stage
These three games usually run simultaneously. And they are often interconnected: the official game provides structure, the social game creates trust, and the political game ensures movement.
Research: Why successful teams control all three games
In her studies on decision-making dynamics in teams and organizations, organizational researcher Kathleen Eisenhardt (Stanford University) has shown that teams that keep formal rules clear, actively shape social bonds, and negotiate political interests transparently make faster and more sustainable decisions.
Eisenhardt examined high-performance teams in tech and industrial companies, among others. Her key finding: it is not the absence of power and politics, but their conscious management that makes organizations capable of decision-making and change.
What you can do to manage all three levels
- Make power visible: Clarify who really makes decisions, who is informed, and who influences. A simple visualization often yields surprising insights.
- Cultivate the social game: Create spaces where trust can develop, e.g., open discussions, joint learning, feedback on an equal footing.
- Recognize politics and don't suppress it: Ask, for example: What interests are at stake? Who wins or loses as a result of this decision? Transparency is the antidote to hidden agendas.
- PRO-TIP: In team-building processes at the start of projects or change processes, we always address the area of “personal goals.” Quite officially and proactively. Integrated into the work with TCI according to Ruth Cohn, this “overall model for successful teamwork” makes the necessity of this point absolutely transparent to everyone “as a matter of course.”
Outlook: Consciously shaping power structures
Power, influence, and politics are not disruptions! They are the mechanics that make organizations function. Those who understand these dynamics can actively shape them instead of being surprised by them.
The next article will take a closer look at exactly that: how to make influence networks visible, control power architectures, and accelerate change.
Sources:
- Eisenhardt, K. M. (1999) . Power, Politics, and Strategic Decision Making. Academy of Management Perspectives, 13(2), 58–69.
- Eisenhardt, K. M. (1999). Strategy as Strategic Decision Making. Sloan Management Review, 40(3), available at: https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/strategy-as-strategic-decision-making/
