The types of organisational power and how each operates. 'Politics' sounds negative, but it just means how people exercise influence and navigate competing interests — and pretending it doesn't exist is itself a losing strategy.
▸ Try the interactive toolThis tool maps the types of organisational power and how each one operates. 'Politics' carries a negative connotation, but organisational politics simply refers to how people exercise influence and navigate competing interests in a shared environment. Pretending it doesn't exist doesn't make you above politics — it makes you bad at something that affects your work regardless.
Power in an organisation comes from many sources, and the org chart shows only one of them (positional power). The others — expert, relational/network, resource, informational, reputational — often matter more, and they're frequently held by people whose titles wouldn't suggest it. A PM who reads only the formal hierarchy misjudges where decisions really get made and who really needs to be persuaded. Understanding the full map of power — especially the informal kinds — is what lets a PM navigate an organisation effectively rather than being repeatedly surprised by it.
Organisational politics = how people exercise influence and navigate competing interests in a shared environment. It's not optional or avoidable. Power comes from many sources; the org chart shows only positional power, and rarely the most decisive kind.
PMs who consider themselves 'above politics' simply navigate it badly — power exists and shapes their work whether or not they choose to understand it, and refusing to see it just means being blindsided.
| The shortcut | What it costs | What it gives you instead |
|---|---|---|
| Pretending to be above politics | Refusing to engage doesn't make you immune — just blindsided. | Understanding power lets you navigate it deliberately. |
| Reading only the org chart | The formal hierarchy hides where decisions really happen. | Mapping informal power reveals the real decision-makers. |
| Assuming title equals power | Influential people often lack the title to match. | Recognising all power types finds the actual influencers. |
| Ignoring informal networks | Relational and informational power steer outcomes invisibly. | Mapping the network surfaces the hidden levers. |
The org chart shows only positional power — the other types are often informal, often more decisive, and frequently held by people whose titles wouldn't suggest it.
| Power type | Where it comes from | How a PM works with it |
|---|---|---|
| Positional / formal | A person's title and place in the hierarchy | Respect it, but don't assume it's the only power in the room |
| Expert | Deep knowledge others depend on | Build your own; recognise and enlist others' |
| Relational / network | Who someone knows and is trusted by | Map the informal network, not just the org chart |
| Resource | Control over budget, headcount, or tools | Understand who controls what you need |
| Informational | Access to knowledge others lack | Use the cross-silo view; know who else holds key information |
| Reputational | Track record and how others regard them | Build your own reputation; it compounds into power |
A PM mapped their stakeholders strictly by the org chart, assuming the most senior titles held the most sway. They were repeatedly surprised when decisions went differently than the hierarchy predicted — a mid-level person seemed to carry disproportionate weight, and a senior title's apparent backing didn't move things as expected.
The org chart had shown only positional power. The mid-level person held deep expert and informational power — they knew things everyone depended on — plus a strong relational network, making them far more influential than their title suggested. Once the PM mapped the full range of power types, including the informal ones, the organisation's real decision dynamics became legible, and they stopped being surprised by who actually mattered.
The deliverable is a map of who holds which kinds of power — especially the informal kinds the org chart hides.
| Beyond the org chart, ask… |
|---|
| Who has expertise others depend on? |
| Who is trusted and well-connected (network)? |
| Who controls the resources you need? |
| Who holds information others lack? |
| Whose reputation makes their word carry weight? |
Organisational power is real, multi-sourced, and largely invisible on the org chart — and a PM who refuses to understand it on principle simply navigates it badly. Seeing the full map of power is what makes an organisation legible.
The honest reframing of 'politics' is the unlock. Treated as a dirty word, politics becomes something high-minded PMs feel they should rise above — but you can't rise above the reality that people exercise influence and navigate competing interests, and pretending otherwise just means being repeatedly blindsided by dynamics you refused to see. Understanding power isn't the same as playing dirty; it's reading the room accurately. And the key practical insight is that the org chart shows only positional power, which is frequently not the most decisive kind. Expert, relational, informational, and reputational power are often concentrated in people whose titles wouldn't predict it, and they often determine outcomes more than formal authority does. The PM who maps all of it — especially the informal kinds — knows where decisions really get made and who really needs to be brought along.
You're not immune, just blindsided. Understand power to navigate it well.
It shows only positional power. Map the informal kinds too.
Influential people often lack the matching title. Look past the hierarchy.
Relational and informational power steer outcomes invisibly. Map them.
Power is what political capital (Tool 12) is built and spent within.
Reading power is essential to the situations in Tool 07.
The power types overlap with the influence sources (Tool 01) — viewed organisationally.
Real power, not just title, should inform the stakeholder map (Tool 04).
Think of an organisation you know. Name one person who holds more influence than their title suggests — and identify which power type (expert, relational, informational) explains it.
Then ask: if you'd mapped only the org chart, would you have missed them?
If the org chart would have led you to overlook someone genuinely influential, you've seen why positional power is only part of the picture — and why reading the informal kinds keeps you from being blindsided.