In organizations, we often encounter common situations where leaders ask their teams to provide thoughts and ideas, calling for brainstorming sessions. If and when some good ideas are collected and identified, the next step is for these leaders to have their teams implement the ideas as projects while they monitor the results. Eventually, any success from these projects is counted as the leader’s accomplishment, even though the team members may be praised and rewarded.
This process is what we call “management.” A good analogy is any sport like baseball. Team members are players, and the leader serves as the team manager. In this setup, the manager does not need to participate in the game directly. Their role is to “utilize” the players to achieve victory. As such, all players are expected to follow the instructions of their manager. Similarly, in military organizations, the commander directs the soldiers. For the soldiers, orders and instructions are non-negotiable and must be followed without question.
Power flows in one direction—from the higher level to the lower. As long as you are part of the organization, this power dynamic is a given. Everyone is expected to adhere to this structure; otherwise, the organization risks instability.
***
The challenge arises when there are too many managers and too many teams. Power becomes heavily imposed across the organization. Ideally, all teams should collaborate toward one unified mission and vision. However, in reality, subtle or even overt competition and conflicts frequently emerge among teams, despite collaboration being a core organizational value. Leaders often become more power-focused, and team members feel increasingly pressured.
This is less about individual personalities and more about systemic issues. When leaders perceive themselves as holding power over their teams and believe they must use it to accomplish their goals, it is natural for their behavior and mindset to become power-oriented.
At the end of the day, the only leverage leaders have is their “power” to direct their teams. They cannot achieve results without the efforts of their team members. Ultimately, it is the team members who deliver tangible contributions, while leaders rely on those outputs to demonstrate success.
***
To mitigate systemic and potential issues of power abuse, a new concept has emerged: servant leadership. Instead of acting as commanders, leaders adopt the role of serving their teams. Their responsibility is to provide the bigger picture, clarify and articulate organizational goals, missions, and visions, and translate these into actionable details tailored to the team’s context.
This approach has been gaining traction for decades, yet the issue of power-driven leadership persists.
There is a subtle issue here: when power-focused leaders attempt to act as servant leaders, they may still fall back on their authority. They might direct their teams to provide the bigger picture, articulate organizational goals, and translate them into actionable plans. As such, team members are not only expected to execute tasks but also to handle the knowledge work typically reserved for leadership.
At first glance, this seems like a bottom-up, collaborative approach. In reality, team members often end up dedicating extra time to these workshops, leaving them feeling used—similar to the cycle of brainstorming, ideation, and implementation mentioned earlier. As a result, even in servant leadership, power-driven tendencies can resurface, creating pseudo-servant leaders.
***
Power, indeed, is a systemic issue. It’s almost inevitable. If someone holds power, it’s difficult not to use it—especially when power is perceived as the primary tool for achieving organizational goals.
In management, power is necessary. However, it is also a dangerous attribute. No one is entirely immune to its addictive nature. This is evident across all types of human groups, from families to tribes, communities, and corporate organizations. On a broader scale, history is filled with examples of power abuse, from ancient civilizations to modern nation-states, often with devastating consequences.
What is power?
It is the ability to influence or move others. In physics, it is a neutral concept. But in human societies, it carries risks. Imagine being able to move anyone as you wish, with “anyone” having no choice but to comply. It’s a famous, even clichéd phrase, but we should remember:
With great power comes great responsibility.
When organizations have too many hierarchical layers, there are inevitably too many managers. And not all of them live up to the ideal of “great responsibility.” Despite the wisdom of the proverb, power remains a systemic issue, and many fall into its misuse.
***
This recognition has led to a bold recent push to flatten organizations, reducing the number of hierarchical layers. In this model, organizations resemble a rhizome rather than a tree. Instead of rigid management clusters, individuals connect flexibly and dynamically, resembling a neural network. In this setup, everyone is viewed as a “player,” contributing directly through their work rather than through indirect “management” actions.
This does not imply anarchy. Like neural clusters in the brain, “temporary” or “ad-hoc” teams can form as needed. These teams share goals and objectives democratically and collectively. Once the mission is accomplished, the team dissolves. Ad-hoc teams emerge and disappear as required, much like the electrochemical clusters that form in the brain during deep thought. In this way, a flattened organization mirrors the brain’s mechanisms.
At the very least, this approach acknowledges the systemic power issues in management—an enduring challenge for humanity. The concept is fascinating, and recent technological innovations like the internet and AI may help facilitate this shift toward brain-like organizational dynamics.
Image by hainguyenrp
Tom’s Blog 