Power structures have always been designed and maintained by those in power, particularly socioeconomically privileged men (especially White, cisgender, tall, with low voices, heterosexual full-time working men above 50). This ‘hegemonic masculinity’ explains how such particular groups of men “inhabit positions of power and wealth, and how they legitimate and reproduce the social relationships that generate their dominance” (Donaldson, 1993).
From an evolutionary perspective, men have always needed and sought (as they still need and seek) resources that increase their potential or real value in the race and market of mating and reproduction (Finuras, 2019). This drive to secure and control resources, such as food, territory, and social status, has shaped male behavior and social structures. In contemporary societies, this evolutionary impetus can be seen in how men seek positions that offer financial stability and influence, which are still perceived as attractive qualities in the context of mating and reproduction.
Since ancient times, the image of the ‘heroic’ leader has been persistent. The earliest known human stories that healed and inspired the ancients were stirring accounts of the exploits of heroes and heroic leaders (Allison & Goethals, 1978). Popularized as a term in 19th and early 20th centuries largely through the ’Great Man Theory’, heroic leadership built on these epic stories of extraordinary individuals (Carlyle & Gunn, 1893). A hero is “defined as an individual who (a) voluntarily takes actions that are deemed to be exceptionally good, or that are directed toward serving a noble principle or the greater good; (b) makes a significant sacrifice, and (c) takes a great risk” (Allison, 2016). However, a hero is also characterized by features like individualism, assertiveness, and control, all of which strengthen hegemonic masculinity and exclude women and other marginalized groups (Fletcher, 2004).
In 1959, social psychologists John French and Bertram Raven defined power as the ability to influence or impose one’s will upon others to control their actions (French & Raven, 1959). They identified five bases of power, divided into personal and organizational categories. Legitimate, reward, and coercive powers are organizational, defined by company policies and procedures. For example, this occurs when a manager assigns tasks to team members, gives a bonus for excellent performance, and issues a warning for failing to meet deadlines. In contrast, expert and referent powers are personal, stemming from an individual’s character and influence. An example is when team leaders are highly respected for their expertise and knowledge, and their charismatic and approachable personality.
These forms of power are still evident in today’s workplaces, though their distribution and arrangement depend on the organization’s structure. Power structure represents the formal and informal relationships, hierarchies, and mechanisms through which authority, influence, and decision-making are exercised and shared among individuals or groups. They define who holds power and how that power is exercised. Power structures can be hierarchical, with decision-making power concentrated at the top, or they can be decentralized, with decision-making power distributed more broadly across the organization (Kanter, 1977; Kanhaiya, 2023). Moreover, power structure affects the organizational culture significantly, including how employees behave, communicate, and collaborate.
In most organizations, power is concentrated at the top in the hands of a small group of leaders making decisions that affect the entire company. This often manifests as a hierarchical structure where the highest levels of management control, to a significant extent, strategic decisions, resource allocation, and organizational policies, structures, and culture.
In short: The current hierarchical power structures were historically designed to exclude women and other marginalized groups from accessing positions of power. This design was not accidental; it was a systematic exclusion meant to uphold patriarchal norms that favored men in positions of power (Castro et al., 2023). Riane Eisler calls the patriarchal system the “dominator model”, which features “power over” (rather than “power with”) others. You fight to stay on top or you’re a loser (Eisler, 1988).
This form of power thrives in a hierarchical organization, where there are fewer positions available with increasing seniority, their scarcity increasing their desirability. Hierarchies are thus integral to the distribution of power and nowadays remain the basic structure of most, if not all, large, ongoing human organizations. As Nigel Nicholson posits: “Why do hierarchical models persist [in a business context]? The disturbing answer is that structures and systems are chosen by the people who prefer them and the people who do best in them: Men will sustain the systems in which they have been successful”(Nicholson, 2010). Indeed, ”old habits are like the undead; they just won’t stay buried. As companies aim to flatten their structures, the remnants of past hierarchies can linger, haunting the change effort” (Anicich et al., 2024).
Not only is it difficult to move outside this framework because norms are “sticky”, those in power also want to hold on to power (Finuras, 2019). Power, once gained, is jealously guarded, creating a substantial reservoir of influence. For example, in the so-called and resembling “old boys’ clubs,” men are more likely to secure positions of power through increased face-to-face interactions with their managers, compared to their female colleagues (Cullen & Perez-Truglia, 2023). This situation is exacerbated by the fact that men tend to withhold knowledge more often than women (Andreeva & Zappa, 2023); or that they are significantly more likely to request a referral from a pal (Tockey & Ignatova, 2018).
In this context new forms of power should be considered which are generated collectively by many individuals, embracing openness and participation. These fluid, open, and participatory power structures have objective not to amass it but to direct and channel it effectively. For instance, the concept of relational power, also known as the power of networking, has gained prominence in the business world. Relational power often surpasses hierarchical power, allowing individuals without specific titles to attain influence, while those in senior positions are not automatically assured of it (Lingo & McGinn, 2020).
So why don’t women simply “network more”? Study after study indicates that women’s networks are just less powerful than men’s, and women are less able to utilize the networks they do have (Monica L. & Dougherty, 2004; Lalanne & Seabright, 2011). That’s because how we network is also male-coded. When networking, women don’t necessarily seek out the most powerful employee or most senior manager. Instead of considering how a potential network member might help them advance their career, women seem to focus on the social aspect of networking, desiring networks with interesting or likable members, or with individuals where they see a mutual benefit. Networking opportunities open happen after-hours, and childcare responsibility can make participation more prohibitive to women. Moreover, this exclusion is amplified by the lack of women in powerful roles which reduces opportunities to network with them. Finally, people tend to prefer to network with those like them, which can make it easier for men to access networks of power (Greguletz & Kreutzer, 2019).