The lines between political science and organizational culture continue to blur. Those who venture into organizations need to become well versed in the dynamics of power. One such explanation of these dynamics is Steven Lukes’ the “Three Faces of Power”.
Three Faces of Power
1. Decision Making – The power to make and implement decisions
2. Non-Decision Making – The power to set agendas and therefore limit what is even being discussed
3. Shaping Desires – The power to manipulate what people think they want
Lukes’ work is an extension of Max Weber’s Three Types of Authority, in which Lukes argues that Weber only focused on the first face of power, Decision Making.
Others such as Kenneth Boulding have described these power dynamics as the carrot, the stick and the hug.
Regardless of the names used, by simply being informed about these types of power you can become more aware of your surroundings.
The Engineering Manager ordered the Developer to change his task estimate.
An order from a Manager to a Developer is the most public form of power and is an example of how the Manger wants to be perceived. This first face of power is rather easy to spot and diagnose.
This meeting lead by the Director of Engineering only had task estimation standards on the agenda.
A Director who is controlling the meeting agenda is a bit more subtle and requires a level of awareness to see. What is it that they hope to accomplish by limiting the agenda in such a fashion? Limiting the agenda is a technique used to prevent issues that could cause opposition. Do they address issues if they arise in the meeting or do they misdirect? The second face of power tends to leverage delay, inconclusive questions and bureaucracy to avoid the needs of the weaker team members. Sound familiar?
The CTO convinced his team that accurate task estimates are the key to hitting quarterly goals.
A CTO who has convinced his management team that his interests are in their best interests is far more difficult to identify and diagnose. It isn’t always obvious that the actions of the team are a result of coercion from their boss. They can convince people that their wants and needs are actually harmful to them. This third face of power is often aligned with ideological institutions.
These are just a few examples of the faces of power you may experience every day in a large organization.
I believe that being aware of these faces of power help me become oriented during an organizational transformation. Perhaps you’ll find value in them as well.


#1 by David J Bland (@davidjbland) (@davidjbland) (@davidjbland) on January 12, 2012 - 12:30 am
Faces of Power in the Organization: http://t.co/W5R4AOkM
#2 by Cathy Carleton (@MktgMeetsIT) on January 12, 2012 - 8:10 am
RT @davidjbland: Faces of Power in the Organization: http://t.co/W5R4AOkM
#3 by ScuzzaMan on January 26, 2012 - 5:57 am
Hi David.
My view is that the 3rd face of power is simply the 1st face in disguise. It your example, the CTO is using the management team to avoid openly giving orders and showing his 1st face. But in all likelihood, if the ARE convinced that accurate task estimates are essential to their own success, they WILL order their own staff to improve their task estimation, and may even begin to tie compensation to task estimation accuracy.
The 2nd face is a combination of two “1st face” orders: (1) You WILL discuss this, and (2) You WILL NOT discuss that.
In the end, there is only one power, and it has one true face although it often seeks to wear many false faces.