Three Misconceptions About Power
- Yevgen Nebesov
- Feb 5
- 4 min read
Have you ever seen an obviously necessary change stall — not because it was wrong, but because it simply never reached the point where a decision could be made? Have you watched brilliant initiatives get buried under the slow wheels of bureaucracy? And have you ever been told to “communicate better” or “build more influence” while knowing that the real constraints were structural, not personal?
Most professionals believe that if they just do great work, the results will speak for themselves. When that fails, they blame “office politics” or “bad leadership.” But the problem is rarely a lack of competence or effort.
The problem is a lack of power literacy.
Power is the invisible dark matter of our professional lives. It holds everything together, yet we rarely talk about it openly. Because of this silence, dangerous misconceptions flourish — misconceptions that keep us stuck.
The Three Misconceptions
1. Power is evil.
Power is commonly associated with coercion, domination, and Machiavellian ruthlessness. However, power itself is neutral. It underpins conflict and cooperation, oppression and empowerment. Without power, we cannot buy ice cream, teach our children to brush their teeth, or share ideas. Power is like electricity: it can electrocute you, or it can light up your home. The morality lies in the user, not the current.
2. Power games are to be avoided.
Many talented professionals leave organizations because they are frustrated by “power politics.” They want to do great work, not play games. But there is a flaw in this moral high ground: transforming organizations is a political act. It requires rallying support and, when necessary, overcoming the friction of opposition and resistance. If everyone with a vision for the future avoids the struggle, who is left to do the transforming? Refusing to engage doesn’t make politics disappear; it simply cedes the field to others.
3. Power requires authority.
This is the most pervasive misunderstanding. We tend to view power as a personal attribute — something possessed by a President (formal authority) or a charismatic visionary (informal authority). In our era of individualism, we fixate on human agency.
But consider a traffic light.
It compels drivers to stop. It wasn’t elected. It has no charisma. It receives no salary. Yet, it exerts undeniable power over human behavior.
This reveals a crucial truth: Humans are not the only carriers of agency. Power is embedded in so-called “actants” — artifacts, rules, metrics, tools, and processes. Power landscapes are not merely social; they are sociomaterial.
The Blind Spots of Discourse
Many benevolent people recognize the need to master the world of power. However, when searching for advice on how to increase influence, the mainstream literature — management books, leadership training, psychology — usually points in one of four directions:
Workplace Politics: Suggests being a reliable, nice person and building networks.
Leadership: Teaches how to inspire others through vision, guidance, and servitude.
Communication: Reveals rhetorical best practices to persuade and negotiate.
Personal Branding: Revolves around self-optimization to attract followers.
These are reasonable entry points, but they share a structural flaw. They treat power as a dispositive capacity (something you have). They focus on how to play the game better, rather than challenging the game board itself.
This leaves us with two massive blind spots.
The first blind spot is the obsession with human agency. We assume that to get things done, we must gain the capacity to influence people. We study emotional intelligence and persuasion. But as the traffic light demonstrates, behavior is often shaped more by the environment than by the people in it.
The second blind spot is the presumption of authority. Many management and leadership books advise that the best organizations are inclusive and meritocratic, where people are empowered through the removal of hierarchies and the establishment of psychological safety. However, this advice is only actionable when encouraged by someone who already has enough power to implement it.
Essentially, these books offer advice to a psychotherapist on how to heal patients. But let’s not forget: psychotherapy only works on patients who go to the doctor and entrust them with the power to help. But who will care for those who don’t acknowledge they are sick, or who simply don’t prioritize healing?
The Takeaway: Stop Playing the Game, Start Reading the Board
So, what does this mean for you the next time you face a blocked initiative or a stalled decision?
It means you need to shift your focus. When we lack power literacy, we personalize structural problems. We blame a “bad manager” or a “toxic culture.” We try to shout louder or communicate better.
Instead, look at the architecture of power around you.
Identify the Actants: Stop looking only at the people. Look at the metrics, the meeting cadences, the document templates, the compliance rules, and the operating procedures. Often, it is a silent process document, not a loud executive, that is blocking your innovation.
Don’t Wait for Permission: You don’t need formal authority to start reshaping these non-human agents. You can often change a template, introduce a new metric, or alter a meeting structure easier than you can change a person’s mind.
Engage: Stop viewing politics as a distraction from your “real work.” Designing the environment where good work can happen is the work.
Power is not a dirty word. It is simply the energy required to move things. If you want to build something that lasts, you need to learn how to harness it.
Further resources
The upcoming book The Architecture of Power introduces dozens of practical tactics for identifying or creating actants and structurally engaging with power landscapes. You can subscribe for early access under the link.
Comments