Power and influence in program management

[Adam Taylor]

As you all know, Program Management is sometimes about simply getting s*** done! In many cases however we don't have formal authority, so in absence of this, how do we still make things happen?

In a 1959 study, John French and Bertram Raven noted that power is divided into 5 forms (and they later added a sixth). By understanding the types of power and consciously picking which to utilise we can maximise our chances of influencing actions/outcomes. Below I'll summarise the different types of power and their pros/cons.

Legitimate & reward power

Legitimate power is sometimes known as 'positional power' and is easy to recognise as it relates to power generally afforded to individuals through hierarchy. For example, a manager has authority over what work to allocate to people in their team. Reward power goes hand in hand because it's primarily at the availability of people with legitimate power e.g. a manager might be able to offer a bonus to someone.

The pros of these types of power are that they work. At least, they do primarily in the short term. People are required to comply with the command, and so the required action takes place.

But, as mentioned in the introduction, program managers often don't have this type of power available to them. What's more, what these types of power provide in terms of compliance, they usually lack in terms of developing engagement. When you think about the longer term (and programs usually are longer term efforts), I think there's a strong argument to say that you want people to feel a sense of responsibility, to 'buy-in', and to think freely and contribute ideas - and these characteristics all come from developing engagement.

This is not to say that these types of power should never be used - just to recognise that there's a time and a place for them.

Coercive power

When people don't comply, sometimes people can resort to coercion. Coercion can be subtle through use of phrases like 'be a team player', but they can also be overt in the form of threats. Regardless of the nature of the coercion, the point is that they state or imply consequences.

I would argue that it's probably never suitable to use this type of power - certainly not in the workplace, and I think the consequences are clear.

Referant

Referent power is very different to the above types. It's about people's respect and trust in you, making it an extremely potent form of power.

This to me is one of the most important forms of power to build as a program manager. You develop it over time through consistently demonstrating trustworthy action, and behaving in ways that show people you've got their back. Ultimately, you're a person of integrity who people can depend upon.

The downside is not so much about the form of power, but more that to develop it requires you to be genuinely trustworthy and of integrity - there's no faking here. That requires listening to feedback, introspection, and self development as much as anything else, which is not always easy work.

Expert

Expert power is as you might expect - it's power through competency. When as a program manager you demonstrate that you have the skill to comprehend situations, and use solid judgement to guide action, then people are likely to listen and be influenced by you.

There's no real downside to this form of power, though we obviously need to be mindful that people do not always act rationally, and so sometimes making a rational argument through expertise is not always enough to influence action.

Informational

The last form of power - the one subsequently added after the initial publication by French and Raven - is informational power. This form of power is about possessing knowledge that others need or want. For example, if there's a decision with 2 options, and if you can demonstrate that one option has a far better return on investment, then that's information which influences people towards that option. There are of course ways to misuse informational power, such as withholding key information from people as leverage.

So what do you think? Does this resonate with you? Are you mindful about the types of power you're using in your programs? Let me know in the comments below :) 

[KALOS]

Your post presents an excellent reflection on the nature of power in Program Management. The categorization of power forms proposed by French and Raven is undoubtedly fascinating and analytically useful, but allow me a provocation: isn’t power, rather than being neatly divided into categories, an art of adaptation and interpretation—more akin to Aristotle’s rhetoric than to Euclidean geometry?

You argue that, lacking formal authority, the Program Manager must rely on various forms of influence to “make things happen” (which is already an intriguing euphemism to avoid the more pragmatic “preventing everything from falling apart”). But one must ask: are we certain that power, in its classical sense, is still the most appropriate unit of measurement to describe the workings of modern organizations?

1. Power Is Not Static; It Is Liquid

French and Raven’s categories suggest that power is something static, a trait that an individual can exercise at will—much like a magician choosing which spell to cast. However, anyone who has managed a program knows that power is, rather, a fluid entity that shifts depending on the context, the actors involved, and even the time of day (what seems impossible in the morning often becomes “feasible” after a well-orchestrated meeting and a strong coffee).

A Program Manager, then, is not a holder of power but a cartographer of influence: they do not impose; they map out pathways.

2. Is the Absence of Formal Power Really a Problem?

You emphasize that Program Managers often lack hierarchical legitimacy. But this is not necessarily a problem. History teaches us that some of the greatest leaders, philosophers, and strategists exercised their influence without holding formal positions of command. Socrates had no official chair, yet he changed Western thought through dialogue alone.

Perhaps the issue is not the absence of formal power but the inability to create a context in which consensus and collaboration emerge naturally. Rather than struggling to find the right lever of power, a Program Manager should act as a facilitator of a process where stakeholders are naturally drawn to converge on common goals.

3. Coercion: A Philosophical Misunderstanding

You rightly condemn coercion, but perhaps the concept has been misunderstood. Coercion is not always about violence or imposition; it is also about the subtle ability to shape debate and perceptions of what is possible. Consider the Socratic method: was it intellectual coercion? Certainly, because it led the interlocutor to reconsider their biases without directly imposing a truth.

Similarly, a Program Manager can “coerce” without imposing—simply by asking the right questions, limiting the number of available options, or crafting a narrative in which one choice appears more natural than another. After all, as semiotics teaches us, there is no need for an imperative when the structure of discourse inevitably leads to a single conclusion.

Conclusion: From Power to Symbolic Leadership

Rather than discussing which form of power is most effective, perhaps we should ask whether the Program Manager is truly a leader in the traditional sense. Their role may be closer to that of a medieval cleric who influences kings without directly ruling, or a storyteller who guides decisions not through force but by giving coherence and meaning to information.

Ultimately, a Program Manager’s real influence does not lie in possessing a particular form of power but in making others realize that their decisions were already made the moment they understood the project’s underlying logic. After all, the best strategist is not the one who visibly wields power but the one who makes everyone believe they had it all along.

P.S. I sincerely thank Adam Taylor for his post, which provided me with a valuable opportunity for discussion. In nearly a decade of being on this Atlassian social platform, I believe this is one of the rare articles—countable on the fingers of a severed hand—that are both intelligent and truly focused on the topics I expect to find here.

[Adam Taylor]

Hey @KALOS  👋

Please forgive my slow response.

Firstly, what a wonderful comment. Thank you for taking the time to share that with me and the community.

With your 3 overarching points, and the general conclusions, I wholeheartedly agree.

I particularly enjoyed your perspective on 'coercion', and how it's not always negative. I like how you reframe it in the context of influence.

Thanks again for taking the time to reply and for your feedback. I'm really glad you find my post insightful.

[Justin Townsend]

@Adam Taylor sounds good and formalising the different natures of power is extremely useful for awareness as a PM.

My own experience in working with clients, one often has a budgetary responsibility attached to the work. This might differ from client to client of course, but being in charge of the "purse" also infers power (perhaps Expert, Informational, dare I say it Coercive).

I think the practical application of power, however, should appear natural to the people on the receiving end. This helps avoid confusion or an impression of manipulation.

Companies run with a commercial mandate though, this means deadlines (the vast majority of which need to be met... aka Don't F**k The Customer), reminding everyone on the program of the timeline can occasionally come with a more direct approach. What power type might this be?

Having been in the "box seat" a few times, if you can combine Expert and Referant for the most part then you're onto a winner.

Cheers,

Justin

[Adam Taylor]

Hey @Justin Townsend 👋

Thanks a lot for your reply.

I used to work in an agency setting, so am very familiar with having clients/budgets and the power dynamics in those types of relationships.

In terms of your specific question about reminding people of the program timeline and what power category this falls into, I think it depends on the context. For example, if it's provided to the program in the spirit of genuinely supporting the team/program with clarity to help everyone make good decisions, then I'd say it that'll help to develop one's 'referant power'. My rationale is that genuine actions to help people, consistently performed over time, builds respect and trust (the basis of this power type). The devil really is in the detail however - there are certainly ways to talk about timelines which fall into other categories.

Thanks again for the comment 😀