In the last two blog posts I've introduced ideas around organizational structure and power, which I'm calling Kane's Law. This law and it's corollaries refer to power. But what is actually meant by power in this context?
In the context of Kane’s Law, power refers to the ability within an organization to influence decisions, control resources, and drive strategic direction. It is not simply about formal authority tied to titles or hierarchy, but rather how decision-making authority is distributed within the structure of an organization and how this authority enables or constrains individuals or teams to act, innovate, or adapt.
There are many dimensions to power. Let's look as a few of them ...
1. Power as Decision-Making Authority
Power in an organization is often tied to who gets to make decisions—whether it is centralized in leadership or distributed across teams. In hierarchical structures, power is concentrated at the top, which means most critical decisions are made by a select few, often far removed from the front lines. This centralization of power can slow down decision-making, create bottlenecks, and stifle innovation.
In contrast, in more decentralized structures, power is distributed across various levels, with teams or departments having the authority to make decisions within their domain. This can lead to faster decision-making and greater autonomy for individuals, enabling more flexibility and responsiveness to change.
2. Power and Control Over Resources
Power also includes control over resources—both financial and human. In traditional structures, those higher in the hierarchy control the allocation of resources, determining who gets funding, access to personnel, or prioritization in projects.
In a distributed power model, teams might have greater control over their own budgets, hiring, and resource allocation, allowing them to respond to their specific needs without seeking approval from centralized leadership.
3. Influence Over Organizational Culture
According to Kane’s Law, power not only affects decision-making but also influences organizational culture. Those who hold power set the tone for how work is done, how collaboration happens, and what behaviors are rewarded or discouraged.
In a centralized power structure, culture tends to reflect hierarchy, with a strong emphasis on compliance, control, and stability. In contrast, when power is more distributed, the culture often shifts toward collaboration, innovation, and autonomy, as teams are empowered to make decisions and take risks.
4. Power Dynamics and Resistance to Change
Power dynamics are central to understanding why organizations often resist structural changes. Kane’s Law suggests that those who hold power within a given structure are likely to resist changes that threaten their influence. For example, middle management may push back against efforts to flatten hierarchies or implement Agile methodologies, as these shifts redistribute decision-making power downward, reducing their control.
Power holders in centralized structures may also resist innovation and decentralization because it involves giving up some of their decision-making authority to lower-level teams or cross-functional groups.
5. Power as a Limiting Factor for Adaptability and Innovation
Kane’s Law implies that centralized power tends to limit an organization’s ability to innovate and adapt. If decision-making is slow and restricted to top leaders, the organization becomes less agile in responding to external changes, such as market shifts or disruptive technologies.
By contrast, organizations with distributed power are often better positioned to innovate because teams can experiment, make faster decisions, and iterate on ideas without waiting for approval from upper management. This fosters a more adaptive, innovation-driven culture.
6. Structural Change as a Mechanism for Redistributing Power
Power in Kane’s Law is about who holds decision-making authority, controls resources, and sets cultural norms within an organization. Centralized power leads to slow decision-making and resistance to change, while distributed power enables agility, innovation, and faster responses to market demands.
Structural changes are essential for redistributing power, allowing organizations to become more adaptive, innovative, and flexible. In this sense, power is deeply tied to structure, and only by reshaping the structure can power be redistributed in a way that drives real innovation and adaptability.
This discussion about structure and power is all very interesting, but unless there are some useful practical conclusions these ideas remain academic. Next week we'll look at some likely predictions we can make with Kane's law.