Power and Innovation

I read an article that spoke of “power” of individuals within organizations, and it struck me that the use (or abuse) of power is often a force that prevents an organization from being innovative.

Specifically, power is developed over time. The word “experience” is often misused when the issue is actually one of power.   A newcomer to an organization has no power, and cannot contribute his ideas until he becomes accepted – he must play by the rules.   As his tenure increases, he goes through the stages in power development – first testing the waters by covertly ignoring the rules, then overtly challenging the rules, and eventually matriculates into a position to be a rule-maker.

The problem is that it may take many years for a person to have sufficient power to even suggest their ideas.   This is likely the reason that organizations with a long employee tenure are not capable of being innovative.   There are too many rule-makers, who are devoted to preserving the status quo that has placed them in a position of power.   Newcomers, who bring fresh ideas in from the outside, have too little power to be heard. An employee with an innovative idea must wait until he has sufficient tenure even to suggest it, and by that time he has become institutionalized.

Part of the problem is in the perception of power – and since power is itself a matter of perception (a person’s belief about their own power as compared to that of others), the perception becomes the reality.   Consider the author’s four-stage model of power development:

1. Powerless – An individual who has no power, makes not attempt to exercise power, and allows others to manipulate him.
2. Autonomous – An individual who has no power, makes no attempt to exercise power, but does not allow others to manipulate him
3. Assertive- An autonomous individual who has no power, but occasionally attempts to influence others.
4. Powerful – An assertive individual who usually attempts to influence others and is generally successful in so doing.

My sense is that this mashes together two qualities that should be kept well separated – influencing others and being influenced by them.   Such a model supports a mindset in which a person wins power by getting their way without helping others – or in less flattering terms, a “powerful” person is encouraged to be a useless manipulator.   And I would have to agree that this is a very reasonable and realistic perspective on the manner in which power is applied.

A collaborative person commands the service of others and is willing to serve them as well, and that seems to me a better and more productive perspective.   Ideally, a person with power would use that ability to serve the organization rather than their own self-interests by helping those who are less powerful to get a fair hearing when they have an innovative idea – rather than discouraging and suppressing beneficial ideas because it is not in their personal interest.

But that is speaking of ideals – and my sense is that truly innovative organizations attempt to do this, whereas organizations that are incapable of innovating do not.   In the end, it is not the existence of power but the manner in which it is used that makes it beneficial or harmful – and in a culture where power means ignoring others while pursuing a personal agenda, innovation simply cannot occur.