The Power Dynamics of Leadership

A lot of leadership theory—and the way we view leadership—boils down to how we perceive power dynamics. How leaders hold power over followers. How followers “influence up.” The fine line between managers and leaders.

Our relationship with leaders is deeply tied to how we define them. And that definition shapes how we interact with them. It also shapes what we expect from our leaders—and how we ourselves become leaders. This makes it vitally important to consider how language and theory influence:

• What we expect from our leaders, and

• How we become leaders.

Our expectations of leadership have shifted dramatically over time—both in who we consider leaders and what we expect them to do. Political figures, for example, weren’t always seen as “leaders” in the way we think of them today. They were rulers, enforcers, or individuals who held power. But over the years, more and more figures of authority have transitioned into being seen as leaders. This shift grants them another pillar of influence: recognition.

Starting in the 1980s, political figures began appearing on campaign posters—a trend that didn’t exist before. Previously, voters aligned with a group or an idea, not a single person. But as identity politics gained traction, people rallied behind individuals. Today, it’s hard to imagine a political campaign without a face at its center.

But what did this shift do for those individuals? Instead of being associated with a party, a set of ideas, or policy work, they became the face of it. They amassed power by being larger than the work itself—not the other way around. Recognition became a point of influence. At one time, politicians might have been consulted for their policy expertise. Now, they’re expected to campaign and present as the policy itself.

This has contributed to the current state of the world. When someone dislikes a politician, they’re less likely to value their policies. Instead of questioning the ideology behind a platform, people cling to the person. Our ideas of leadership—whether applied to politicians, managers, or decision-makers—have warped the definition of leadership over the last 50 years. So much so that the only common thread in many definitions is “decision-maker.”

Ironically, that’s not a requirement for leadership.

Many people make decisions without being leaders. For example, your daily choices—what to do with your time—don’t necessarily make you a leader (though I’d entertain arguments to the contrary). A stronger example: people we might consider “classic followers”—constituents, team members, or those without executive power—do make decisions. Unless every decision-maker is a leader, there must be another differentiating factor.

I believe the answer is simple: A leader is someone with followers.

No matter the context, this definition holds. Some might argue that this reduces the importance of leadership qualities, frameworks, or advice—but that’s not the case. Developing leadership styles is still critical to gaining followers. However, we’ve overemphasized leadership’s association with power.

Linking leadership to power has several consequences:

• It allows passivity in those without power.

• It frames decision-making as the true influence in groups and teams.

• Most critically, it distorts the structures we live within, warping both leadership and followership so that they go unnoticed.

To explore this further, we’ll delve into:

• How this plays out in everyday leadership dynamics (managers, groups, and friendships),

• How toxic leadership exploits power dynamics—and how to spot “natural” leadership, and

• How our everyday group dynamics can reveal power structures meant to mystify.