Rethinking power: beyond control, towards collaboration
When we hear the word “power,” it’s easy to picture someone in authority issuing orders, making decisions, holding the reins. Power, in that version of the story, is something you wield over other people. And yet, in more than twenty years of working with coaches, leaders, and teams, I’ve come to think that framing is both limiting and costly.
The organisations and individuals who struggle most are rarely short on authority. What they’re often short on is the kind of influence that doesn’t require compliance, the kind of leadership that draws people in rather than directing them from above. That distinction, between power as control and power as something altogether more human and more collaborative, is what I want to explore here.
Power over vs. Power with
“Power over” is the classic version: authority, control, the ability to direct or dominate. It’s often rooted in hierarchy, such as managers over teams, institutions over individuals. At its best, it provides clarity and structure. At its worst, it stifles the kind of thinking that organisations most need and breeds resentment that is easy to miss until the damage is already done.
Contrast this with “power with”. A collaborative, shared approach where influence isn’t a finite resource to be hoarded but something that grows when it is shared. It’s about partnership, co-creation, and the belief that we are stronger working together than alone.
There are two more dimensions to talk about here. “Power to” refers to the individual capacity to act, create, and influence. The sense that we are able to make a difference, that our contribution matters. “Power within” is something more interior. It’s the self-belief and groundedness that fuel meaningful action, even when the circumstances aren’t easy. Each of these brings something vital to how we show up in our workplaces and relationships, and good coaching pays attention to all four.
Power isn’t force
Power and force are frequently confused, and conflating them leads to a particular kind of leadership that exhausts everyone involved, including the person exercising it.
Power, as I think of it, is about potential, our ability to influence, inspire, or support change. It works with people’s motivation rather than against it. Force, on the other hand, is about compulsion, making something happen regardless of whether others are willing. Force might produce short-term results. It rarely produces commitment, and it almost always produces resistance over time.
Think about the people you may have admired in a professional context. The chances are that they led with power rather than force. They invited rather than imposed. Their influence endured precisely because it was built on trust and on a genuine respect for the people around them. This kind of influence doesn’t require a title, and it doesn’t require compliance.
In my coaching work, I often find that the leaders who are most frustrated by their lack of traction are those who have been relying on force without realising it. They have the authority. What they want is the buy-in. Those are two different problems, and they need different solutions.
Why this matters now
The “power over” model is running out of steam in today’s workplaces, and I say that not as a critique but as an observation. People want to feel engaged, not merely directed. They want to contribute, have a sense of purpose, collaborate, and be treated as thinking partners rather than as resources to be allocated. When that’s not happening, the signals tend to be familiar: high turnover, low morale, meetings that feel like performances, and a conspicuous absence of the kind of honest conversation that moves things forward.
When we shift from “power over” to “power with,” something changes. We create spaces where people’s strengths are valued, where leadership can come from anywhere in a team rather than only from the top, and where the messy, generative process of working through disagreement becomes possible rather than something to be avoided. That shift doesn’t happen automatically. It requires intention, and it often requires someone to model it first.
This is where coaching comes in, both individual coaching and team coaching. I often notice in my work that much of what looks like a structural or strategic problem is a relational one. Teams that are stuck often aren’t stuck because of poor processes or unclear goals. They’re stuck because the conditions for open dialogue don’t exist, and the conditions for honest dialogue depend heavily on how power is held and shared.
What this looks like in practice
Shifting from a “power over” to a “power with” approach isn’t a single decision. It’s a series of smaller ones, many of which feel counterintuitive at first. It means asking questions rather than providing answers, even when we have an answer. It means being genuinely interested in what your team thinks rather than performing curiosity while already knowing what you want them to conclude. It means being willing to have our assumptions challenged and treating that as useful rather than threatening.
It also means attending to the interior dimension of leadership, the “power within.” Leaders who have done the work of understanding their own reactions, assumptions, and blind spots tend to be more effective not because they’ve become perfect, but because they’re less likely to mistake their own anxiety or defensiveness for good judgment. That self-awareness is, in my experience, one of the most reliable foundations for the kind of collaborative leadership that actually works.
None of this is easy. Relinquishing a familiar model of authority takes courage, especially in contexts that still reward the performance of certainty. But the leaders I see doing the most interesting work are those willing to sit with that discomfort, to invite genuine collaboration, and to discover that sharing power deepens their influence rather than diminishing it.
A question worth asking
So, next time you find yourself in a position of influence (at work, in a conversation, anywhere you have the opportunity to shape what happens next), the question is worth asking: am I working with the people around me, or at them? Am I building something together, or directing something from above? Am I partnering or dictating?
The future belongs to those who choose partnership over dominance, and who understand that real influence only grows when it is shared. It is, I’d argue, one of the most practically useful things a leader can internalise.
If any of this resonates with where you are right now (whether you’re a coach working with leaders, or a leader trying to work differently), I’d love to hear your thinking. These conversations are almost always better when they go both ways.
About Amanda
Amanda Livermore is the founder of LORE Consultancy Ltd and a Professional Certified Coach (PCC) with the International Coaching Federation (ICF). With over 20 years of experience in coaching, training design and facilitation, Amanda specialises in helping individuals and teams develop the skills to work even more effectively together. As both a trained mentor coach and coach supervisor, she supports coaches in their own professional development whilst helping organisations create more inclusive, psychologically safe environments where different perspectives are valued and heard.