Power

What is power…control, authority, influence, impact? According to Merriam-Webster, power is defined as “possession of control, authority, or influence over others,” AND as “the ability to act or produce an effect.” These definitions reflect both the ability to have influence over others and the capability to connect and bring about change. Power structures can feel like boundaries, but they also create spaces for relations, agency, resistance, and growth. Each conversation and decision, and even your mindset, subtly shapes or even challenges the structures we often take for granted as fixed. Power isn’t just something that happens to us; it’s something we’re all part of creating.

What is power?

The concept of power has evolved significantly over time, reflecting shifts in philosophical, cultural, and social beliefs. Historically, Western theories of power emphasized control and governance and were typically rooted in hierarchical structures. By contrast, Indigenous and feminist perspectives underscore relationality and interconnectedness. Let’s look into this further.

Ancient Western Views of Power

In ancient Greece, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle explored the idea of power and linked it to virtue, governance, and the moral character necessary to use it responsibly. Socrates argued that those who hold power should be virtuous and educated in philosophy to govern ethically. Plato, in The Republic, envisioned a society led by “philosopher kings” whose right to rule stemmed from their expertise in governance, rather than wealth or popular approval. In Politics, Aristotle offered a typology of government—monarchy, aristocracy, polity, tyranny, oligarchy, and democracy—each system evaluated on its potential for justice and balanced power distribution. These classical perspectives positioned power as something to be exercised by those deemed morally and intellectually fit to lead. This focus on authority and control can be seen in later Western thought, where power was often associated with maintaining order and enforcing hierarchy.

Modern Western Theories of Power

Over time, modern Western theories introduced further depth to the concept of power. Dahl’s (1957) pluralist model of power defined it as a “person’s or group’s direct influence over the behaviour of others”. French and Raven (1959), theorized about sources of that influence such as reward, coercive, legitimate, reference, and expert power. Steven Lukes (1974) added another nuanced layer by introducing his three-dimensional model of power, which considers not only direct and indirect influence but also the ways power can shape beliefs, desires, and the very issues up for debate. The discourse expanded further with scholars like Michel Foucault, (1978) who argued that power is not only centralized within institutions but exists across everyday social interactions, embedded in relationships and practices. For Foucault, power is active, exercised through relationships between individuals and groups, marking a departure from earlier associations with top-down control.

Feminist Theories of Power

Feminist perspectives on power enrich our understanding by examining how power is interwoven with identities, structures, and cultural norms and is both a force of domination and a source of empowerment. For instance, early feminist approaches viewed power as a distributable resource, with the goal being its equal distribution between men and women. In contrast, Iris Marion Young, critiqued this model, arguing that power should be viewed relationally, not merely as a possession (Young 1990). Similarly, intersectional feminism, introduced by Kimberlé Crenshaw, challenges single-axis frameworks by exploring how overlapping identities (such as race, gender, and class) compound experiences of domination and disadvantage (Crenshaw 1991). Offering another perspective, Bartky describes how women, influenced by societal expectations, often self-regulate their behavior and bodies, internalizing norms that reinforce patriarchal power structures (Bartky 1990). This understanding of power as an internalized force shows how domination can occur through subtle, everyday practices rather than overt acts.

On the other hand, some feminists argue for conceptualizing power as “power-to” or empowerment rather than merely “power-over.” Jean Baker Miller and Virginia Held, for example, propose that women often view power through the lens of caregiving and relational capacity, seeing it as a way to uplift and empower others rather than as a tool for dominance. This “power-to” model highlights the potential for agency and collective growth rather than competition and control (Miller 1992; Held 1993).

Indigenous Epistemologies of Power

Indigenous epistemologies provide a different interconnected view of power. Perspectives that emphasize relational harmony over hierarchy, balance over domination, and stewardship over accumulation. Unlike Western traditions, which often define power in terms of control and competition, Indigenous perspectives position power as a force inherent in all of life, manifesting through relationships among humans, the natural world, and spiritual traditions. Dana Hickey’s (2020) research, which centers on Indigenous views of power in communities from the Sudbury and Manitoulin Island areas, emphasizes that the essence of power in Indigenous epistemologies is relationality—a deep-seated understanding that one’s existence is interwoven with all that surrounds them, both seen and unseen. In this view, power is not an individual resource but a collective, relational energy that arises from mutual respect, balance, and shared knowledge.

Power and the Workplace

Power and history deeply shape our society, including our understanding of work, influencing how roles are defined, values are prioritized, and organizational cultures are built. Historical developments in society, industry, and technology have shaped the hierarchical models, values, and norms that persist in workplaces today.

Historically, western work has been structured around concepts of authority, efficiency, and productivity—rooted in the Industrial Revolution’s factory model, where work was standardized and power highly centralized. This led to hierarchical organizations where top-down decision-making and clear reporting lines were seen as crucial for order and productivity. The history of these structures can influence contemporary perceptions of work as a place of control rather than collaboration, impacting how people view their roles and the extent to which they feel they can exercise agency.

Power’s complexity in organizations is also reflected in its forms, which have evolved over time. Initially, organizations exercised power through coercive means: clock-punching, surveillance, and rigid oversight—methods that imposed clear boundaries around employee behavior. While rooted in Taylorism, these coercive controls can be said to persist in modern corporations where technology-driven monitoring systems continue to regulate productivity and conduct. Over time, however, a shift toward consensual power emerged. Unlike coercion, this form of power does not seek to directly control behavior but instead to shape beliefs and values. Here, employees are encouraged to internalize organizational ideologies, aligning their personal motivations and values with corporate goals, often without realizing the extent of this influence.

Recognizing the various forms of power—from coercive and consensual to relational and governmental—helps employees become more aware of the structures influencing them, equipping them to engage constructively. However, integrating feminist and Indigenous insights can help us envision a more holistic approach to power that values relationships, mutual empowerment, and the interplay between individual agency and collective purpose. Through awareness, employees can exercise agency in subtle ways that reshape organizational practices, fostering workplaces that prioritize creativity, inclusion, well-being, ethics and social good.

Structuration and the CCO Perspective

Giddens’ structuration theory (human actions both shape and are shaped by social structures through ongoing, recursive practices) reminds us that these shifts are ongoing and require consistent reflection and dialogue, as the structure of power is reshaped by daily interactions. Power, then, becomes less about control and more about co-creation, supporting a workplace where each individual’s agency contributes to a continuously evolving and ethically grounded structure.

The communicative constitution of organizations (sees communication not just as a tool within organizations, but as the very process through which organizations are continuously created and sustained) reminds us that history and power relations are not only embedded in formal structures but are actively reproduced in daily interactions. In other words, through repeated actions, conversations, and adherence to established norms, individuals reinforce historical power dynamics, often unconsciously. For instance, long-standing assumptions about leadership—what leadership is, who should lead, how decisions should be made, or what qualifies as “appropriate” work behavior—are often rooted in historical models that emphasize conformity and hierarchy.

However, understanding work through a historical and power-conscious lens also opens up the possibility of change. By recognizing that current structures were socially constructed—and thus can be reconstructed—people can question entrenched power dynamics and advocate for more collaborative, flexible, and human-centered approaches to work. For those new to the workplace, recognizing power structures is a first step in understanding how you can navigate, contribute to, and even reshape these dynamics.

Reflection

As a newcomer, recognizing power structures can help you understand not only who holds formal authority but also how power circulates informally. Listen for cues in meetings about who leads discussions, whose ideas are acknowledged, and how decisions are justified. Observe the unspoken norms around email, chat, and other communication channels—these are often where power subtly operates and where agency can emerge.

To exercise agency, start by building credibility and rapport through open, respectful communication. For instance, sharing observations, asking clarifying questions, and offering suggestions are ways to assert your presence and add value. Even small actions, like congratulating team successes or highlighting challenges in productive ways, can subtly reshape power dynamics. Over time, these actions create space for your voice to be heard and influence how structures function.

Reflect

• How do I personally define power? In what ways have I experienced or exercised power in my own life?
• In my workplace, what are the visible forms of power, and where do they come from? How do these sources of power shape daily interactions, and in what ways might they reflect or contrast with formal authority?
• How do I observe power expressed in workplace communication, whether through language, tone, or formal channels? How do communication styles affect who is heard or ignored?
• What values do I see reflected in my organization’s power structures? How might these values align with or differ from those I prioritize?
• How do my own background, values, and identity influence my perception of power in the workplace? Which experiences or beliefs have shaped my view of power as control, influence, or empowerment?
• Reflecting on Indigenous and feminist perspectives, how do relationships and interconnectedness contribute to power dynamics in my workplace? How might I foster positive relational power to support collaboration and mutual respect?
• In what ways do I see opportunities for agency within power structures? Where might small acts of resistance or new approaches allow me to bring about positive change or open conversations?
• How can I use my own strengths, skills, and experiences to shape the dynamics around me? Are there areas where I feel empowered to influence outcomes, and how can I expand those opportunities?
• Where could I advocate for cultural shifts that promote inclusion, well-being, or ethical behavior?

References

Allen, A. (2021). Feminist perspectives on power. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2021 Edition). Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminist-power/

Hickey, D. (2020). Indigenous Epistemologies, Worldviews and Theories of Power. Turtle Island Journal of Indigenous Health, 1(1), 14-25. https://doi.org/10.33137/tijih.v1i1.34021

Mumby, D. K., & Plotnikof, M. (2019). “Organizing power and resistance.” In J. McDonald & R. Mitra (Eds.), Movements in organizational communication research: Current issues and future directions (35-55). Routledge.

Zoller, H. M., & Ban, Z. (2020). “Power and resistance”. In A.M. Nicotera (Ed.), Origins and traditions of organizational communication: A comprehensive introduction of the field (228-249). Routledge.

Supplementary material

Kang, D., & Long, Z. (2024). Organizing as Tong: Decolonizing organizational communication from the roots. Management Communication Quarterly, 38(3), 595-622.

McDonald, J. (2015). Organizational communication meets queer theory: Theorizing relations of “difference” differently. Communication Theory, 25(2015), 310-329.