TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction
Power is the ability to influence or control people or events. It involves getting someone to
do something they may not otherwise do. Power can be derived from various sources,
including someone's position or role in an organization, their expertise or knowledge, their
ability to reward or punish others, their charisma or personality, or systems of social
stratification like gender, class, race, etc.
There are different forms or bases of power, such as coercive power (based on fear), reward
power (based on ability to offer rewards), legitimate power (from one's formal authority),
expert power (based on one's expertise), and referent power (based on personal charisma).
Defining power and its types
Here are some key points about defining power and its types:
 Power can be defined as the potential or ability to influence behavior, to change the
course of events, to overcome resistance, and to get people to do things that they would
not otherwise do.
 There are different types or dimensions of power:
1. Personal power - Derived from personal attributes like charisma, confidence, expertise,
etc. This includes referent and expert power.
2. Position power - Derived from one's position in a power hierarchy, like a manager or
leader. This includes legitimate and reward power.
3. Power over - Coercive and controlling power used to force compliance and get one's way.
4. Power to - Empowering power that enhances abilities and resources to achieve goals
without controlling others. It focuses on empowerment.
5. Direct power - Overt and direct ways of influencing like rewards, punishments, orders,
directives.
6. Indirect power - Covert and subtle ways of impacting decisions like building alliances,
controlling resources, influencing norms and perceptions.
Unit one: Theories of Power
Power over vs power to theories
Power-over: This refers to the ability of those with more control over material, human,
intellectual and financial resources to affect the lives, actions and thoughts of those with less
access to and control over such resources. Power-over is the most commonly recognized
form of power, and is associated with hierarchy, repression, force, coercion, discrimination,
corruption, and abuse. Social hierarchies are about power-over, based on social divisions
linked to gender, age, caste, class, ethnicity/race, nationality, and sexuality and reinforced by
the law, the economy, the family, religion, education, and the media. At its most basic,
power-over operates to privilege certain people (e.g. men) while marginalizing others (e.g.
women); it means the power that one person or group uses to control another person or
group.
This paper proposes to critically reconsider how existing power theories relate to change and
to formulate empirical questions on the relations between power and processes of social
change and innovation. This is done by first carefully considering the different ‘family
members’ of the power concept, as discussed in social and political theory. Rather than
making a futile attempt to provide an overview of all power inter- pretations, the paper
discusses seven prevailing points of contestation in academic debates on power:
(1) Power ‘over’ versus power ‘to’ Who is exercising power over whom? How are which structures of
domination/oppression/dependence changed or (re)produced?
(2) Centred versus diffused Another classical debate on power is the one between ‘pluralists’
and ‘elitists’. One side emphasized that elites possess power over
society, while the other side stressed that political power concerns a
struggle between plural interest groups.
(3) Consensual versus conflictual Debates on power often revolve around the question whether power
is consensual or conflictual (Haugaard Citation2002). This relates to
the question whether power is distributive or collective. In the
distributive model, power is ‘zero-sum’, i.e. gained by one actor at
the cost of another actor.
(4) Constraining versus enabling Power plays an important role in the agent-structure debate. The
point of contestation is whether power lies mostly on the ‘agent

(5) Quantity versus quality
(6) Empowerment versus
disempowerment
(7) Power = knowledge versus power ≠
knowledge
side’ (as that which enables actors to make a difference), or on the
‘structure side’ (as that which predetermines and constrains the
behavioural options of actors). Within certain debates, ‘power and
structural constraint are theorized as opposite ends of a continuous
spectrum. At one end of the spectrum social relations are contingent
(…) whereas at the other they are determined (…) at the contingent
end there is power (A could have acted differently) and, at the
determined end, there is structure (A had no possibility of acting
differently)’ (Haugaard Citation2002:38, emphasis added). For some,
power is inherently agent-centric, as formulated by Lukes:
Notions of power often come with quantitative connotations of
having more or less power. Even when distinguishing between
power over and power to, both have quantitative implications for
thinking about power relations and (in)equalities. Indeed, most of
the power literature has focused primarily on two type of power
relations: (1) A has/exercises power over B, and/or (2) A
has/exercises more/less power than B to achieve something. In my
own work on power, I have argued that there is a third type of
power relation that tends to be overseen: (3) A and B exercise
a different type of power to/over (Avelino and
Rotmans Citation2009).
We can find yet another variation of the contestation over power as
enabling versus power as constraining, in the discussion of
empowerment and disempowerment. Like power, empowerment
has no agreed-upon definition and is often used to capture ‘a family
of somewhat related meanings’ (Thomas and
Velthouse Citation1990, p. 666). Generally speaking, empowerment
refers to a person’s belief that ‘he or she can direct (…) events
towards desired ends’ (Elmes and Smith Citation2001:34). While
literature based on earlier research still defines empowerment in
terms of delegating decision-making authority (Boje &
Rosile Citation2001:93), recent research has defined empowerment
in more psychological terms, where empowerment is related to
processes self-determination and intrinsic motivation (Spreitzer et
al. Citation1999:511, Conger and Kanungo Citation1988, Thomas and
Velthouse Citation1990, Avelino et al. Citation2020).
The relation between power and knowledge is one of the most
contested in social theory (Garcia Citation2001). According to
Bourdieu ‘the power to impose and to inculcate a vision of divisions,
that is, the power to make visible and explicit social divisions that are
implicit, is political power par excellence’ Citation([1989]2002, p.
142). Or in other words, by developing and communicating
knowledge about society, one is exercising power. Barnes
even defines power as ‘the distribution of knowledge’ within society,
claiming also that ‘to possess power an agent must be known to
possess it’ (Barnes Citation[1988]2002, p. 126). The author explicitly
distinguishes knowledge from individual belief, stating that ‘every
individual in a society may be in error about some aspect of social
power (…), so that none of them truly knows where power lies
overall, and yet power will lie, necessarily, by its nature, where it is
 known to lie’ (ibid:126). In a way, both Bourdieu and Barnes argue
that knowledge defines power. This, however, is different from
saying that power defines knowledge. To what extent power defines
knowledge, is an age-old discussion, illustrated by notorious debates
between ‘Habermasians’ and ‘Foucauldians’, and reminiscent of the
differences between positivistic paradigms and post-positivism
Power to theories
Even if one holds that power is exercised rather than possessed (Foucault
[Citation1977]2002), the question remains what is exercised; is it a capacity ‘to’ act and
achieve something, or is it a social relationship in which A exercises power ‘over’ B? In this
regard Morriss points out that power is derived from the Latin word potere – ‘to be able’ –
and claims that in philosophical and linguistic terms, power ‘is always a concept referring to
an ability, capacity or dispositional property’ (Citation[1987]2002, p. 283). According to
Morriss, ‘everything that needs to be said about power can be said by using the idea of the
capacity to effect outcomes’ (Morris [Citation1987]2002, p. 299). This definition of power
as a capacity to act, does not exclude conflictual or violent dimensions: ‘if we are interested
in the “conflictual aspect” of power, we can very easily look at someone’s power to kick
others around, or their power to win conflicts’ (ibid). Nevertheless, theories that focus on
power as a capacity (as in e.g. Parsons and Arendt) are criticized for ignoring the relational
or oppressive aspects of power ‘over’ others (Lukes Citation[1974]2002), or for ‘fail[ing] to
account for individuals or groups in the community who, though they do not exercise power,
nonetheless have power, in the sense that many people try assiduously to anticipate their
reactions’ (Dahl Citation[1968]2002:20 in reference to Bachrach and Baratz Citation1962).

The previous citation points to another question, i.e. to what extent power exists before its
exercise; does an actor already have power if he or she has the potential to exercise it, or can
an actor only be considered powerful once he or she actually exercises power? According to
Barnes, power is both ‘a potential or capacity which may or may not be used’, as well as
something that ‘is possessed’ (Citation[1988]2002, p. 125), the relevant point being that
power always ‘resides in the social context and outside its possessor’ (ibid:127). Or as Clegg
puts it; people ‘possess power only in so far as they are relationally constituted as doing so’
(Clegg Citation[1989]2002, p. 257). The same could be said about the exercise of power;
that it resides in the social context and outside of its exerciser, and that people only exercise
power in so far as they are relationally constituted in doing so. Thus it seems that power
‘over’ and power ‘to’ are not mutually exclusive; both can be ‘possessed’ and ‘exercised’,
and both are ‘relationally’ constituted in some way or another.

Some authors have proposed to nuance and elaborate the distinctions between ‘power over’
and ‘power to’, by e.g. elaborating power with as a third type, distinguishing between power
over (coercion and manipulation), power to (resistance and empowerment) and power with
(cooperation and learning) (cf. Partzsch Citation2015). The argument made is that ‘there are
situations in which power is neither attributed solely to A nor to B, but to both’, however
that ‘power with is not exercised independently from power over dimensions’, and that we
need to analyse how these different types of power are intertwined so as to remain attentive
to conflicts of interests and values that often remain invisible or hidden (Partzsch and
Fuchs Citation2012).
Lasswell and Kaplan's power types

French and Raven's power taxonomy

What is the difference between leadership and power? The answer to that question might not
be quite as easy at is seems at first. In fact, the more you think about it, the more you likely
come to the realization that leadership and power might be the same thing. In any situation
where one person is deemed to be the 'leader', they are likely also the person with the most
power to make decisions. If you find yourself in a position of leadership within your
organization, it is safe to say that you have a good deal of power as well. In 1959, the Five
Forms of Power research was conducted by John French and Bertram Raven. This research
was important because it attempted to determine what it is that makes someone powerful in a
given setting. While that might seem like an obvious question, the answer isn't always as
straightforward as you might think. Consider your current work situation - are there people in
your office who wield more power than others, for no obvious reason?

Likely, it is because they fall within one of the five classifications put forward by French and
Raven.

1:Reward power
This is one of the more common types of power. The 'reward' can take many different forms,
but it is typically financial when talking about a leader within a company. If you have the
ability to reward your team members with things like bonuses or raises, you have the ability
to command their attention through those rewards. Assuming the team members you lead are
interested in achieving the rewards that you can offer, they will be likely to work well with
you in order to improve their chances of receiving the rewards One of the problems that can
arise from using rewards to command power is when you aren't able to offer rewards that are
appealing to those whom you lead. For example, if you don't have the power in your
company to offer financial rewards of any significance, you have to try to appeal to your
team with other benefits and perks that might not be as desirable to them. In order for reward
leadership to be effective, the leader must be able to offer rewards that the team members are
 striving to receive.

2: Expert power
Another common type of power, this one is achieved when you find yourself in a position of
expertise based on your knowledge or experience. For example, if you are working on a
project with a group of co-workers whom are normally your peers - but you happen to be an
expert in the specific field that you are dealing with - you may find yourself elevated to a
position of authority and power. However, often times this type of power is informal rather
than official. You might find that you are commanding more attention in meetings and your
opinion is being given more weight, but you might not have received any of the other typical
signs of leadership.

Coming into power through being an expert in your field is something that can have long
lasting benefits for your career. Because this kind of power is more organic than others -
such as reward power - it is more likely to remain long after a specific project or task is
completed. When others know that you are an authority on a given subject, that reputation
should follow you throughout your career.

3.Legitimatepower
This might be the most recognized form of power and leadership. It could also be referred to
a 'title power', because it is the power that comes along with being appointed to a specific
position. Why does the President have power? Because he holds the title of President, and all
of the authority that comes with it. In this case, the power is granted more because of the title
that the person holds as opposed to the person themselves. Within company, the legitimate
power tends to fall with the people who hold titles like Owner, CEO, Executive, and other
similar positions. This kind of power can be extremely useful while it is held, but it tends to
go away as soon as the title is taken back and given to someone else.

4.CoercivePower
This is the opposite of reward power - with coercive power, the leader is able to control their
team members by the ability to take things away. If you can fire someone based on their lack
of performance on the team, for example, you have coercive power to influence their
actions. They are likely to try to impress you and meet your expectations in order to keep
their job. In many cases, coercive power is only good enough to get people to do the
minimum required to avoid punishment. Unlike reward power, where team members may
strive for excellence in order to achieve certain rewards, coercive leaders are more likely to
get the bare minimum from their team who is simply hoping to stay out of trouble

5.ReferentPower
Referent power can be thought of as something of an 'x-factor', because it is power that is not
come to for any obvious reason. Frequently, those who have referent power are simply well-liked
by others based on their attitude, charm, or even good looks. They don't necessarily have any
logical reason for having come to power, yet they still hold sway over many people for some
reason. If you are naturally a person that others gravitate towards and want to talk to, there is a
good chance you already have a measure of referent power.
Understanding what kind of power you have as a leader - and why you have it - is a valuable
lesson that can be used to better lead people. Most likely, you will have some combination of the
five types of power that are outlined above. For example, a leader who has reward power,
probably has coercive power as well. Think about what kind of power you already have in your
position, and what kind of power you should be working toward achieving to further your career

Unit three: Power Dynamics in Organizations

Formal vs informal power structures

Power Structure All types of communities with its diverse social systems have people or
groups of people who control decision-making functions. These people can be called key leaders
or power actors. Power structure in the community refers to the roles that these key leaders or
“power actors” perform. They act together to get things done and affect change that will
significantly contribute to the goal of making the lives of the community better. In order for
community social action projects initiated by the power actors to be a success, it is important to
involve other key people in the community or the community at large. Power structure is
categorized into formal power and informal power structure.
1.Formal Power Structure –Authority or power comesfrom the legal authoritative basis of
elected and appointed government officials and leaders of civic organizations. Power actors in
this category are referred to aslegal- authoritative decision-makers. They are individuals or
bodies whose authority is based on formal rules and institutions. They are the mayors, council
members, barangay captains, etc. who occupy positions of authority through legally mandated
processes like elections or formal political appointments.

2.Informal Power Structure –This exists alongside the formal-institutional power structure.
Power actors in this structure are known asinfluencers. They have power primarily because of
their influence, not just their positions of authority. These are individuals or groups who do not
have direct authority or title but are capable of shaping decisions that affect the community. They
can propose, pressure and effect decisions made by the decision makers according to their
interests and agenda. According to USDA-NRCS (2005), influence and power are usually
characterized by past achievements, source of ideas, human relations skills, contact with others,
access to needed resources, influence within community organizations, past participation in
community groups, length of residence in the community, occupation, education, control of jobs,
wealth, credit, and mass media.

Centralization vs decentralization of power

Centralization refers to the process in which activities involving planning and decision making
within an organization are concentrated a specific leader or location. In a centralized
organization, the decision-making powers are retained in the head office and all other locations
are directed from this main office resulting in communication flowing in a top-down manner. In
contrast, a decentralized setup empowers teams or departments to make decisions, promoting
communication in all directions.

Many businesses in rapidly changing technological environments have a centralized form of

management structure. Decentralization on the other hand may be effective in businesses that
need individualized customer service, usually at the point of contact with customers or who have
different business locations.

Advantages of Centralization
1. Clear Chain of Command

A streamlined and well-defined hierarchy ensures efficient decision-

making. Everyone in the organization knows who to report to and who
to approach whenever they have questions. This clarity ensures prompt
responses to concerns from employees. Senior executives follow a clear
plan of delegating authority to employees who excel in specific
functions. The executives also gain the confidence that when they
delegate responsibilities to mid-level managers and other employees,
there will be no overlap. A clear chain of command is beneficial when
the organization needs to execute decisions quickly and in a unified
manner.

2. Focused Vision

Centralized management aids in communicating and delivering the

organization’s vision, and the clear lines of authority enable consistent
message delivery. There are clear lines of communication and senior
executives can communicate the organization’s vision to employees and
guide them towards achievement of that vision.
 3. Reduced Costs

A centralized organization follows standard procedures and methods

that lead to reduced office and administrative costs. The administrative
costs and minimize operational expenses. The organization does not
need to incur extra costs to hire specialists for other parts of the
organization since critical decisions are made at the head office and
then communicated outwards. The clear chain of command reduces
duplication of responsibilities that may result in additional costs to the
organization.

4. Quick Implementation

A centralized structure allows for faster decision making from the top
since decisions are made by a small group of people and then
communicated to the lower-level managers. The involvement of only a
few people makes the decision-making process more efficient since they
can discuss the details of each decision in one meeting.

5. Improved Quality of Work

The standardized procedures and better supervision in a centralized

organization result in improved quality of work. Supervisors in each
department ensure that the work outputs are uniform and of high
quality.

Disadvantages of Centralization
1. Bureaucratic Leadership

As decision making is restricted to individuals at the headquarters level, employees are

unable to contribute to the decision-making process of the organization, and they are
merely implementers of decisions made at a higher level. This lack involvement in
shaping decisions results in a loss of creativity, reduced performance, and motivation.
Furthermore when the employees face difficulties in implementing some of the decisions,
senior executives will not understand because they are only decision makers and not
implementers of the decisions.

2. Remote Control
 The organization’s executives are under significant pressure to formulate decisions for
the organization and they lack control over the implementation process leading to
inefficiencies. The failure of senior managers to decentralize the decision-making process
contributes significantly to their workload.

3. Delays in Work

Centralized communication may lead to productivity losses as employees rely on

information flowing to them from the top to guide project implementation. This means
that the employees will be less productive if they need to wait long periods to get
guidance on their next task.

4. Lack of Employee Loyalty

Employees become loyal to an organization when they are allowed initiative in the work
they do. Employee loyalty can decline in a centralized structure as their limited autonomy
stifles creativity and loyalty due to the rigidity of the work.

Key Factors Influencing the Choice

Several factors must be considered when deciding between centralization and decentralization.

Strategy and Vision

The organization’s strategy and vision play a key role as centralization may be preferable for
organizations with clear and stable strategies and environments, while decentralization suits
those that value innovation and operate in unpredictable contexts. Decentralization can also
provide some advantages for managing change such as increased flexibility and responsiveness
to customer needs and market conditions

Size and Complexity

The extent of an organization’s scope, structure, and interdependence influences this decision as
smaller, focused organizations might find efficiency in centralization, while larger and complex
ones might benefit from decentralized flexibility.

Culture and Values

Centralization aligns with cultures that embrace a hierarchical, conformity-focused approach ,

whereas decentralized organizations align more closely with those valuing autonomy and
collaboration.

Technology and Systems

Technology’s role in facilitating communication and coordination, influences the choice. For
example , centralization thrives where streamlined data supports central planning and monitoring
, reducing uncertainty and risk, whereas a decentralized approach benefits from technology and
systems that provide diverse data that supports decentralized experimentation and feedback.

People and Skills

The nature of the organization’s workforce matters and centralization is more aligned to an
organization where the roles and skills are specialized and standardized, following clear
procedures, whereas a decentralized approach may be better suited to a generalist workforce that
perform complex and creative tasks that adapt to changing and ambiguous situations.

External Environment

The external environment that the organization operates will influence the decision.
Centralization works more effectively with stable environments, while decentralization adapts
well to a dynamic environment.

Choosing between centralization and decentralization requires a deep understanding of an

organization’s strategy, size, culture, technology, employee engagement, external environment
and the evolving nature of work.

Recognizing the advantages and disadvantages of each approach allows organizations to shape
their decision to their unique context and objectives.

A well-informed choice in organizational design can lead to effective communication,

streamlining decision making, and drive efficiency, innovation, and growth, leading to long-term
success.

Other resources

CFI is a leading provider of training and career advancement for finance professionals. To keep
learning and advancing your career, the following CFI resources will be helpful:

 Corporate Strategy
 Groupthink
 Corporate Development
 Leading by Example

Decentralization of power
Decentralization is known as the distribution of functions among several units. It is an
interconnected system where no single entity has complete authority. It is the architecture in
which the workloads, both hardware, and software, are distributed among several workstations.
The functions are distributed among several machines in a decentralized system instead of
relying on a single server. They have multiple central owners. The owners can store the
resources so that each user can have access. The system can be imagined in a graphical manner.
Each user’s machine can be visualized as nodes that are connected to one another. Each node has
a copy of another node’s data and the multiple owners have copies of all the nodes as well so as
to reduce the access time. So whenever an update or change is made in a node’s data, the
changes are reflected in the copies as well. Let us illustrate with the help of examples: Bitcoin is
the latest technology and a prime example of a decentralized system. It is a blockchain where no
central authority exists. Anyone and everyone can become a part of the network get involved in
transactions and take part in voting. The decision is taken on the majority of votes. Dogecoin is a
cryptocurrency that is decentralized and peer-to-peer that allows us to do transactions.
We must have a clear concept of decentralization, centralization, and distributed networks. In a
centralized network, there is a central network authority who takes the decisions. In a
decentralized system, there are multiple owners. Distributed systems are a further extension of
decentralization. Here there is no concept of owners. All users are owners and all have equal
rights.
Importance of Decentralization
Decentralization is very important because of the following reasons:
 Optimization of Resources: Each user does not have to have all resources. The
decentralized setup allows the user to share his burden with others at a lower level.
 Greater output: Since all users have the same authority, therefore each and every user work
with greater efficiency so as to enhance the maximum productivity.
 Flexibility: Users can share their own views as there are no restrictions imposed by any
central authority. They also have the flexibility to change their decisions.
Working of Decentralization
In a decentralized network, a user wants to share some data. The user doesn’t have to take
permission so has the full authority to publish something. In the network, each user is
connected to one another. So when the user shares the data, the data is shared among the other
peers with the help of protocols. Peers approve the data. When the data is approved the
protocols update the database. A database is maintained so as to keep track of all information .
Need of Decentralization
Nowadays, technology is advancing day by day and the number of users is also increasing. For
the administration of the system, the centralized system is failing to meet all the criteria. So
Decentralized system is becoming very useful day by day. It creates an efficient, secured, and
reliable administration. It improves peer-to-peer networks. It ensures the right of each user.
Each individual has the right to decision-making. Users also have access to the database. The
biggest advantage of decentralization is if a part of the network crashes, the whole network
will work uninterrupted. The main reason why decentralization is better than centralization is
the flexibility and data to adapt to market demands quickly.
Is Decentralization secured?
Decentralization is highly secured. Since there is no central authority, there is no central
server. Each user’s server act as a central server. Therefore there are multiple servers. Hacking
all the servers is not a feasible option. Therefore many organizations are now switching to a
decentralized network. The prime example is Google. The products of Google from online
search to mobile Android are given the freedom to work independently.
Benefits of Decentralization
 The main benefit is if some nodes fail or the main node fails, the whole system doesn’t
crash.
 The decision-making process is done on the basis of voting.
 They are usually open development platforms and there is less censorship.
 More machines can be added to the network.

Power tactics and strategies

The Concept of Power Tactics
There are 9 organizational power tactics. These tactics are ways in which individuals translate
power bases into specific actions. The 9 influence tactics are legitimacy, rational persuasion,
inspirational appeals, consultation, exchange, personal appeals, ingratiation, pressure and coalitions.
 Rational persuasion. A tactic that is used to try and convince someone with a valid reason,
rational logic, or realistic facts.
 Inspirational appeals. A tactic that builds enthusiasm by appealing to emotions, ideas
and/or values.
 Consultation. A tactic that focuses on getting others to participate in the planning process,
making decisions, and encourage changes.
 Ingratiation. A tactic that emphasizes on getting someone in a good mood prior to making a
request. It includes being friendly, helpful, and using praise or flattery.
 Personal appeals. A tactic that refers to friendship and loyalty while making a request.
 Exchange. A tactic that suggests that making express or implied promises and trading
favours.
 Coalition tactics. Refers to a tactic that prescribes getting others to support your effort to
persuade someone.
 Pressure. A tactic that focuses on demanding compliance or using intimidation or threats.
 Legitimating tactics. This tactic suggests that basing a request on one’s authority or right,
organizational rules or policies, or express or implied support from superiors, is a best.

Unit four: Abuse and Misuse of Power

Abuse of power is the misuse of authority to gain an unfair personal advantage in a company,
public office, or private organization. Power is the ability to influence others to achieve
something. Abuse of power or authority is mainly based on deceit, highly common with
inadequate superior supervision

Corruption and unethical use of power

Power is an all-pervasive, and fundamental force in human relationships and plays a valuable
role in social, political, and economic interactions. Power differences are important in social
groups in enhancing group functioning. Most people want to have power and there are many
benefits to having power. However, power is a corrupting force and this has been a topic of
interest for centuries to scholars from Plato to Lord Acton. Even with increased knowledge of
power’s corrupting effect and safeguards put in place to counteract such tendencies, power abuse
remains rampant in society suggesting that the full extent of this effect is not well understood. In
this paper, an effort is made to improve understanding of power’s corrupting effects on human
behavior through an integrated and comprehensive synthesis of the neurological, sociological,
physiological, and psychological literature on power.

Power has a monumental effect on the behavior of the powerholder [ 2,48].

The corrupting effect of power is well known and has been a topic of
interest for centuries to scholars. Plato advocated for the exclusion from
office with consequential power, individuals who may misuse power for
self-serving reasons, and only those with a well-developed sense of
justice be allowed to wield power [ 49]. In recent decades, the corruption
cases involving CEOs of large corporations, entrepreneurs, politicians,
and autocrats/dictators have sparked both scholars’ and public interest
in the corrupting effects of power [50–55] and this has triggered significant
research into the effects of power on human behavior. Still, the full
extent of power’s effect on behavior is not well understood. The
monumental role that power plays in human interactions and life makes
the need to better understand its effect on behavior both in
powerholders and subordinates extremely important.

Leadership failures and power trips

Counterproductive use of coercive power

Unit five: Mitigating Power Imbalances

Checks and balances

Shared and distributed power models
Empowerment and capacity building
Unit six: Power in Different Contexts

Power differentials in gender, age, class etc.

Power dynamics in politics, business etc.
Community and grassroots power
Conclusion

Key findings on sources and effects of power

Areas for further research
References
Appendix (if required)