Why This Matters
Power dynamics sit at the heart of every organizational behavior question you'll encounter in business anthropology. You're being tested on your ability to recognize how authority flows, why influence accumulates with certain individuals, and what cultural and structural factors shape who gets heard. These concepts connect directly to broader themes of organizational culture, social stratification, and cross-cultural management—all high-frequency exam topics.
Don't fall into the trap of memorizing definitions in isolation. The real exam value lies in understanding how different power bases interact, why some leaders thrive while others fail, and how cultural context transforms identical power structures into radically different workplace experiences. Know what mechanism each concept illustrates, and you'll be ready for any comparative question they throw at you.
Positional Power: Authority Built Into the Structure
These power bases derive from where someone sits in the organizational chart. The mechanism is straightforward: the organization itself grants and legitimizes the power through formal systems.
Legitimate Power and Authority
- Legitimate power flows from formal position—it's the authority your job title grants you, independent of your personal qualities
- Organizational charts codify this power through reporting structures, decision rights, and spans of control
- Compliance depends on employees accepting the system's legitimacy—when that acceptance erodes, so does the power
Hierarchical Power Dynamics
- Vertical structures concentrate decision-making at the top—creating predictable authority flows but potential communication bottlenecks
- Lower-level employees often experience disempowerment, which can suppress innovation and reduce engagement
- Hierarchy shapes organizational culture itself—determining who speaks in meetings, whose ideas get implemented, and how information travels
Reward and Coercive Power
- Reward power operates through incentives—bonuses, promotions, recognition, and access to opportunities
- Coercive power relies on fear of consequences—termination, demotion, public criticism, or exclusion
- Over-reliance on coercion damages trust and psychological safety, while pure reward systems can create transactional cultures
Compare: Legitimate power vs. reward power—both stem from formal position, but legitimate power requires only acceptance of the system while reward power requires actual resources to distribute. FRQ tip: If asked about sustainable leadership, legitimate power is more stable; reward power depletes when resources run out.
Personal Power: Influence Beyond the Org Chart
These power bases emerge from individual characteristics rather than formal roles. The mechanism here is social: people choose to follow or defer based on what someone knows or who someone is.
Expert Power and Knowledge-Based Influence
- Specialized knowledge creates dependency—when you're the only one who understands the legacy code or regulatory landscape, you hold power regardless of title
- Expert power is portable across organizations but requires continuous learning to maintain relevance
- Knowledge hoarding vs. knowledge sharing represents a strategic choice—sharing builds collaborative capital while hoarding concentrates individual power
Referent Power and Charismatic Leadership
- Referent power stems from identification—people follow because they admire, respect, or want to be like the leader
- Charisma combines vision, communication skill, and authenticity to inspire voluntary commitment beyond job requirements
- This power base is fragile—a single authenticity breach can destroy years of accumulated referent power
Compare: Expert power vs. referent power—both are personal rather than positional, but expert power is task-specific while referent power transfers across contexts. A brilliant engineer may lack referent power; a charismatic leader may lack technical credibility. The most effective leaders cultivate both.
Structural Power: Control Over Flows and Resources
These concepts explain how power accumulates through strategic positioning within organizational systems. The mechanism is control over what others need—information, resources, or access.
- Central network positions create information advantages—you hear things first, control what gets passed along, and become a required stop for anyone seeking knowledge
- Brokers who bridge disconnected groups hold disproportionate power because they control information flow between silos
- Building network centrality requires intentional relationship investment across departments, levels, and functions
Resource Dependency and Power
- Control over critical resources translates directly to organizational power—whether those resources are budget, talent, technology, or external relationships
- Scarcity amplifies this power—the harder a resource is to replace, the more power its controller wields
- Strategic planning requires mapping resource dependencies to understand where power actually resides versus where the org chart says it should
- Formal structures appear in official documentation—org charts, job descriptions, policy manuals
- Informal structures emerge from relationships, trust, and social capital—the person everyone consults before major decisions may hold no formal authority
- Effective leaders read both structures simultaneously, recognizing that ignoring informal power leads to implementation failures
Compare: Network centrality vs. resource dependency—both create structural power, but network centrality controls information flows while resource dependency controls material flows. An FRQ might ask which matters more in knowledge-intensive vs. manufacturing organizations—the answer depends on what the organization most needs.
Political Power: Navigating Influence and Resistance
These concepts address the dynamic, contested nature of organizational power. The mechanism involves strategic action—building coalitions, managing perceptions, and responding to challenges.
Organizational Politics and Coalition Building
- Politics is the informal influence process—using relationships, persuasion, and strategic positioning to achieve goals outside formal channels
- Coalition building multiplies individual power by aggregating interests and creating collective leverage
- Political skill is learnable—it requires reading situations accurately, building genuine relationships, and knowing when to spend political capital
Resistance to Power and Employee Voice
- Resistance signals perceived illegitimacy—employees push back when power feels arbitrary, unfair, or disconnected from organizational values
- Voice mechanisms transform resistance into productive feedback—suggestion systems, skip-level meetings, union representation, anonymous channels
- Suppressing resistance doesn't eliminate it—it drives concerns underground where they fester and eventually erupt
Power Shifts During Organizational Change
- Change disrupts established power equilibria—new structures create winners and losers, generating anxiety and political maneuvering
- Transition periods are high-stakes moments when coalitions form, resistance crystallizes, and new informal structures emerge
- Transparent communication about power implications reduces destructive politics and builds trust during uncertainty
Compare: Coalition building vs. resistance—both involve collective action, but coalitions work within the system to accumulate power while resistance challenges the system's legitimacy. Smart leaders recognize that today's resisters might become tomorrow's coalition partners if their concerns are addressed.
Cultural Power: Context Shapes Everything
These concepts demonstrate how cultural factors transform how power operates. The mechanism is shared meaning—cultural values determine which power bases are legitimate, how they should be exercised, and who has access.
Power Distance in Organizational Culture
- Power distance measures acceptance of inequality—high power distance cultures expect and accept hierarchical gaps; low power distance cultures expect accessibility and consultation
- Hofstede's framework places this on a national scale, but organizational subcultures vary significantly within countries
- Mismatched expectations create friction—a low power distance leader in a high power distance culture may seem weak; the reverse seems arrogant
Power Dynamics in Cross-Cultural Organizations
- Global organizations navigate multiple power logics simultaneously—what earns respect in one cultural context may undermine credibility in another
- Cultural intelligence becomes a power base itself—leaders who can code-switch across contexts hold advantages in multinational settings
- Standardized policies interact unpredictably with local power norms, requiring adaptation and local interpretation
Gender and Diversity in Power Dynamics
- Structural barriers limit access to positional power for underrepresented groups—pipeline problems, sponsorship gaps, and biased evaluation systems
- Diverse leadership teams demonstrate measurable performance advantages in innovation, risk assessment, and market responsiveness
- Inclusion requires examining informal power structures—who gets heard in meetings, whose ideas get attributed correctly, who receives developmental opportunities
Compare: Power distance vs. gender dynamics—both involve unequal power distribution, but power distance reflects cultural acceptance of hierarchy while gender dynamics often reflect bias within systems that claim to be meritocratic. An exam might ask you to distinguish between legitimate cultural variation and problematic discrimination.
Decision Power: Where Authority Meets Action
This concept addresses how power manifests in the concrete act of making organizational choices.
Decision-Making Processes and Power Distribution
- Centralized decision-making concentrates power at the top, enabling speed and consistency but limiting input and buy-in
- Decentralized approaches distribute power to those closest to the work, enhancing responsiveness but risking inconsistency
- Clarity about decision rights matters more than the model chosen—ambiguity about who decides creates conflict and paralysis
Compare: Centralized vs. decentralized decision-making—both are legitimate design choices, but they create fundamentally different power distributions. High power distance cultures often expect centralization; low power distance cultures may resist it. Match your structure to your cultural context.
Quick Reference Table
|
| Positional Power Bases | Legitimate power, hierarchical dynamics, reward/coercive power |
| Personal Power Bases | Expert power, referent power, charismatic leadership |
| Structural Power Sources | Network centrality, resource dependency, formal/informal structures |
| Political Dynamics | Coalition building, resistance, power shifts during change |
| Cultural Influences | Power distance, cross-cultural dynamics, gender and diversity |
| Decision Architecture | Centralized vs. decentralized, clarity of decision rights |
| Power Maintenance | Information control, resource control, relationship building |
| Power Challenges | Employee voice, resistance movements, legitimacy crises |
Self-Check Questions
-
Which two power bases are personal rather than positional, and what distinguishes them from each other?
-
Compare network centrality and resource dependency as sources of structural power. In what type of organization would each matter most?
-
An employee with no direct reports consistently influences major strategic decisions. Which power concepts best explain this phenomenon, and how would you investigate further?
-
How might high power distance culture affect the effectiveness of a leader who relies primarily on referent power? What adjustments might be necessary?
-
FRQ-style prompt: A company undergoing digital transformation experiences significant resistance from middle managers. Using at least three power concepts from this guide, analyze the likely sources of resistance and recommend strategies for managing the transition.