Power Dynamics in the Workplace: Cultivating High-Functioning Teams Through Intentionality
- Kate Stitham
- May 5
- 7 min read
In 2019, I first explored the often-overlooked realities of power dynamics in the workplace by defining what power is, where it comes from, and how it shapes the realities of employees and the way decisions are made within an organization. While these dynamics remain relevant, today’s workplace conversations are evolving.
Organizations find themselves navigating an increasingly complex landscape, with pressure to innovate and problem solve on a number of levels with fewer staff, limited resources, and a burned out work culture tired of hearing about yet another initiative that will fix everything.
"Executives today face a volatile business environment, including sustained talent shortages, rapid technological advancements, and intense change fatigue in the workforce." (HBR, 2025).
In this evolution, the most successful organizations can't just rely on identifying power dynamics; they must leverage an awareness of them to build stronger, more effective teams where diverse perspectives fuel innovation and collaboration thrives.
The Hidden Forces Shaping Team Effectiveness
Every team has an undercurrent of informal influence. You know, who gets heard, whose ideas gain traction, and who sets the unwritten norms. These subtle power dynamics can create barriers that at best stifle collaboration and creativity, and at worst exclude, silo, and alienate members of the team, increasing competition, dishonesty, and disconnection.
Research shows that in many high-performing teams, it is not necessarily those with the most experience or technical expertise, but rather those where psychological safety is highest that perform the best. Safety is directly impacted by how power, both formal and informal, is distributed and navigated within a team and leaders who understand this can unlock a competitive edge.
Rethinking Team Leadership: From Authority to Influence
Traditional leadership models often focus on the positional power that flows from a title or role, ascribing it to a single or handful of individuals. As in, "I am the boss, therefore I make all the decisions."
But in collaborative-power models, leadership is dynamic and distributed. This does not mean leaders themselves have no power or control. The strongest leaders are those who recognize when to come forward and when to create space for others.
Teams that function at their best in this model share three key characteristics:
Fluid Leadership Roles
Different individuals may take the lead at different times, depending on their expertise, experience, and the needs of the moment. Roles and responsibilities are tied to tasks, events, or projects rather than to positions and titles.
Ex: Meeting Management (Facilitation, Agenda design, Documentation, Follow-up, Decisions) rotates to different members of the team based on the project or quarter.
Transparent Decision-Making
There are clear, structured processes for decision-making to reduce ambiguity and foster trust. Everyone on the team can understand how decisions get made and when and how they are able to contribute ideas if appropriate. Decisions are not all consensus-based or collaborative; but they are intentional and clear.
Ex: An upcoming decision about a change in benefits is posted where all employees can access. It has a timeline listing two public forums as well as the option to complete anonymous surveys. There is a committee named who will present a proposal to senior leadership based on feedback from staff. There is an external auditor who will present a business financials report. Senior leadership will make a decision and discuss impact and rollout following.
Feedback as a Norm
Regular, reciprocal feedback builds a culture of learning and adaptability. It is not just about having opportunities to collect this feedback. Attention and care must be paid to whether people feel safe to be honest, to when and how such information is sought. Information must also be used and acted upon, or people will stop providing it. It has to be a living, breathing part of the culture if it is to be effective at all.
Creating Conditions for Collaboration and Innovation
Understanding power dynamics isn’t about disproportionate response or ignoring majority perspectives. It's about designing environments where each person’s unique skills and perspectives contribute meaningfully to shared goals. This can be done with intentional activities that ensure balanced participation, such as structured group work, round-robin discussions, or delegated tasks that rotate influence.
When we cultivate this level of awareness, we begin to ask different questions. We notice when certain perspectives are missing from the conversation, when an initiative favors dominant voices, or a decision made has significant ramifications for only members of a certain group (like when the meal planned for an event lacks options for vegetarians).
Organizations that cultivate this kind of intentional team culture see benefits in:
Increased creativity – Diverse input leads to stronger, more innovative solutions.
Better retention – Employees who feel heard and valued are more likely to stay engaged.
More resilient teams – Teams with a foundation of trust and adaptability can better navigate uncertainty and change.
So how do we build these environments that actively address power dynamics? Here are just a few ideas:
Create Opportunities for Growth
One of the types of informal power is experiential power, the power we gain from having had experience with something. This is something often afforded to certain groups in our society (in the form of internships, social clubs, and so on) as well as the opportunity for mentorship, which also builds relational power (the influence you get from "who you know"). You can create services like this for employees within your organization to help disrupt the imbalanced power dynamics present.
Present Choice, When Possible
It doesn't have to be limitless, but even 3-4 options can make a tremendous difference for employees. Have a uniform? Offer two cuts of shirt or two types of shoes. Throwing an office party? Instead of pizza, how about a chipotle-style option where people can build what they want that includes all dietary options?
Create the Most Inclusive Policy
When designing a policy, consider the person who may be most disadvantaged by informal power dynamics and design with them in mind. This ensures that all individuals can benefit from the policy.
Notes From the Field: Addressing Power Dynamics in Practice
As a consultant, I work with organizations trying to move from theory to action and it is not always easy to implement these concepts in practical ways. Something I hear a lot from clients is that seeking out options or addressing the interests of the few is just too time consuming, expensive, or difficult. These are valid concerns, but I find that often it is the initial reaction to change rather than a well thought out reflection, and innovative solutions are possible.
A perfect example of this was with a client a few years ago who was having trouble in their hiring process. They wanted to hire more immigrants from their area, but the candidates who were making it to the second round of interviews were not showing up to them, unlike their US-born counterparts. This was initially used as a justification that they were simply uninterested or unable to enter the workforce. When pushed to think of the systemic policies and power dynamics that might be at play, we discussed the following:
Their hiring process was to inform all applicants, no matter how they applied, of their interview with a single email. If they did not respond within one week, their applications were rejected.
This included positions that were manual labor entry-level positions that required no formal education and where limited english proficiency would have been sufficient for the role.
This process is easier for individuals who a) come from a society that has the same type of hiring process as the US, b) speak english as a first language, c) have access to a computer and the internet at home, d) knew someone within their organization already and understood the process.
I proposed a different protocol where applicants received an email, phone call, text, and follow up email before getting dismissed. We also discussed adding a question to the application that said "to contact me I prefer: email, phone, text" or an optional interviewing tutorial session once a month. This would not just apply to immigrant applicants, but to all applicants. While more work for hiring manager, it resulted in much higher response rates from all applicants and ultimately a larger, more diverse pool of candidates which is better for the organization.
A second point I would like to make is about what the role of an organization should be when it comes to this work. From some clients I hear an underlying moral conviction that it is an individual's responsibility to speak up if they don't like something, to speak against the tide if you will. In these environments "no news is good news" and the lack of complaints is viewed as agreement. This is a tempting stance, because it puts the burden of addressing these dynamics away from the organization and leaders.
To this I will say that power dynamics, particularly when intersectional and compounding, do not feel insignificant to those experiencing them, even if not formalized into policy. A manager who has "zero tolerance policy" but who, everyone knows, goes out for drinks after work with four of the team members, is not likely to hear about something going wrong with any of those individuals. And imagine what you might be losing! Just this past year, I witnessed a situation in which a director spoke over and dominated a brainstorming session about a data collection strategy for a planning meeting. I had the opportunity to speak with one of the IT staff following the discussion and they had solutions and better questions to almost every point raised, but never felt able to interject during the meeting.
In my experience, people often vote with their feet. If you are not getting feedback but are witnessing high turnover, or are seeing turnover from one specific group (say women or BIPOC individuals), then there is likely a deeper problem on your team. Not addressing psychological safety and the way individuals step up and contribute is a team issue, not just an individual challenge.
Moving Forward: The Role of Leaders and Organizations
The most forward-thinking organizations are no longer asking if power dynamics matter but how to harness them for better outcomes. Leaders who prioritize team dynamics as a strategic advantage rather than as a compliance exercise will build teams that are more innovative, agile, and effective in the long run.
For organizations looking to take the next step, the question is: How are your team structures, communication norms, and leadership practices either exacerbating or balancing the power dynamics at play? Addressing this question is not just about avoiding dysfunction, it’s about creating the conditions where the best ideas rise, the strongest teams form, and the most impactful work gets done.
This article is a continuation of our work exploring the mechanics of workplace power. At Integrative Inquiry, we specialize in helping organizations build leadership capacity and team cultures that drive meaningful results. Let’s talk about how we can support your team’s growth.
Commenti