This is such a clear and practical way to make power legible.
The Power Mapping Mad Libs exercise is brilliant. love how it surfaces the gaps between responsibility, authority, and influence without turning it into blame.
Seeing power clearly like this is the difference between reacting blindly and responding strategically.
Thank you. It's nearly impossible to implement anything meaningful when you're blind to how things actually operate in an organization. Even if that reality is disappointing.
Loved this! Especially the mad libs throwback. From an investigations lens, power mapping explains so much of what we see play out in real time (who feels safe to speak, who gets protected, and why certain issues stay quiet). Once you look at a situation through power instead of just policy, a lot of “confusing” behavior suddenly makes a lot of sense.
Nice post, Jennifer. This is a useful tool. I especially like the Mad Libs exercise because it makes power visible without turning it into a theory. It helps people stop personalizing outcomes and see how authority, protection, and risk actually move in real organizations. I have seen many capable people burn energy trying to “do it right” inside systems where responsibility and authority were never aligned. Making that map explicit is often the first moment where someone can make a clearer choice about what to push, what to accept, and what to walk away from. I know firsthand what a tough pill that is to swallow when you know the right thing to do and can't do it.
It's such a tough pill to swallow. In my early days, I ended up frustrated and angry, but at this point in my career, I understand how to use power dynamics to reach better outcomes.
I think this is one of the most difficult aspects of working in HR. How to fight the person that passes the Law in situations when said law does not work for him. Sometimes you can, sometimes you don’t and you have to live with it… Great perspective on this challenging topic :)
Jennifer, you name something general HR education avoids: the people formally responsible for decisions often lack the authority to make them. The Power Mapping tool makes this visible and useful for anyone who's trying to understand what's actually happening in a conflict or a high-stakes decision.
What cultural intelligence adds is the question underneath. Essentially, what determines how this organization constructs authority, trust, and credibility in the first place?
Those rules aren't universal. The dynamics you describe, precisely where strategic proximity overrides formal process, where claiming neutrality ends up protecting whoever already holds power, follow a particular cultural logic. Readers from countries outside North America or the UK might interpret this logic differently. The tactics might shift. Overall, does that count as a credibility shift? What "neutrality" signals shifts.
Your framework helps you see power clearly where you are. A CQ lens helps you understand why power works differently somewhere else—and how to lead across that difference.
Indeed. That flow of power can shift quickly, too. Before a recent merger, power up through HR to execs was largely relational. As the L&D manager with strong relationships throughout the company, my approach gave me easy access to executive leadership. Since the merger, power is awarded to those who are systematic and process oriented yet not well versed in leadership practices like empathy and mental health. It’s isolating, and I’m very aware of my “contrast” with new power flow.
Oh, I have been there. Situations where I was embedded in those power dynamics, and others where I was completely shut out. It's incredibly challenging, but better to be aware than oblivious.
Thanks Jennifer, this is such a great explainer of power literacy and how people can take advantage of it when they know the system. In academia, I've actually seen it used to great effect by trade union members who take to task senior academics who have not bothered to fully engage with the literature of the contracts am governance. For me, this is a really powerful example of where this approach can be used for good. 🙏
It is so interesting how hard it is, to be accountable without authority. It’s always what I seek in a role, for those two factors to be commensurate either each other.
And the example you gave with Roman and Maya is why it sometimes feels like HR is *wielded* by the corporation rather than a source of support for the employees.
Let me ask: in the context of your article, is power primarily a credibility- or authority-shaped force?
To illustrate my question, a few examples come to mind:
1 / when power is a consequence of organizational dependency (expertise, a critical function, safety),
2 / when power is coercive and comes from “risk leverage” (the ability to make a conflict or problem public, threats of reputational damage, or potential legal consequences)
Such a great question. For this post, I’m primarily speaking to your second example.
While power tied to critical functions, and institutional knowledge is a very real thing, it only holds as long as it doesn’t clash with the type of power you name in your second example. That’s because this type of power is fundamentally about influence...narrative, which risks are acceptable, which issues can be escalated/surfaced, political influence, etc.
In my experience, people in the first category are described as “indispensable” right up until they butt heads with someone in category 2. All of a sudden, they become very easily replaceable.
Overall I like it, especially the mad libs throwback, and agree except on a few points:
1. > power mapping clarifies that the organization is not willing to act in alignment with its core values.
An organization **cannot** act outside its true values. It can certainly act outside or against its **stated** values, sure, but all that means is the "value" statement is likely a feel-good piece or outright cover [read: lie]. At that point it's time to go anyway.
2. With sufficient cynicism birthed from firsthand experience in how shitty humans can truly be, the mad lib is unnecessary. Soon as someone else higher up stepped in, the situation and likely surrounding issues popped clear as day in my head. Cynicism verified, sorry.
3. Whether you do it instinctually like I do, or use a tool like you do, people don't like having "truth mirrors" held up to them. This tool should come with a warning: "You will learn to see things in a vastly different way. Once you get there you cannot go back. NO MATTER WHAT, **do not** share your revelations with anyone, lest you find yourself on the outs with no recourse and doors closing in your face everywhere."
I SO appreciate your comments. They are real, and unapologetic to the core. I agree that once you open this door, there’s no going back - it’s a bit of a pandora’s box.
You see something very few others can see without being directly involved in the games, but you can't say anything to the perpetrators because they'll actively work to get rid of you, and you can't say anything to the unseeing because they won't believe you.
I am lucky to be able to report to CHRO who was willing to balance the power. She mapped the leaders who overused. They were eventually let go. I did not understand that back then I really appreciate everything I learned from her.
This is such a clear and practical way to make power legible.
The Power Mapping Mad Libs exercise is brilliant. love how it surfaces the gaps between responsibility, authority, and influence without turning it into blame.
Seeing power clearly like this is the difference between reacting blindly and responding strategically.
Thank you. It's nearly impossible to implement anything meaningful when you're blind to how things actually operate in an organization. Even if that reality is disappointing.
Loved this! Especially the mad libs throwback. From an investigations lens, power mapping explains so much of what we see play out in real time (who feels safe to speak, who gets protected, and why certain issues stay quiet). Once you look at a situation through power instead of just policy, a lot of “confusing” behavior suddenly makes a lot of sense.
Exactly! Once I've fully understood the power dynamics at play, I've been able to modify processes for a more desirable outcome. It works.
Nice post, Jennifer. This is a useful tool. I especially like the Mad Libs exercise because it makes power visible without turning it into a theory. It helps people stop personalizing outcomes and see how authority, protection, and risk actually move in real organizations. I have seen many capable people burn energy trying to “do it right” inside systems where responsibility and authority were never aligned. Making that map explicit is often the first moment where someone can make a clearer choice about what to push, what to accept, and what to walk away from. I know firsthand what a tough pill that is to swallow when you know the right thing to do and can't do it.
It's such a tough pill to swallow. In my early days, I ended up frustrated and angry, but at this point in my career, I understand how to use power dynamics to reach better outcomes.
I think this is one of the most difficult aspects of working in HR. How to fight the person that passes the Law in situations when said law does not work for him. Sometimes you can, sometimes you don’t and you have to live with it… Great perspective on this challenging topic :)
Thank you :) The living with it part can be tough.
Jennifer, you name something general HR education avoids: the people formally responsible for decisions often lack the authority to make them. The Power Mapping tool makes this visible and useful for anyone who's trying to understand what's actually happening in a conflict or a high-stakes decision.
What cultural intelligence adds is the question underneath. Essentially, what determines how this organization constructs authority, trust, and credibility in the first place?
Those rules aren't universal. The dynamics you describe, precisely where strategic proximity overrides formal process, where claiming neutrality ends up protecting whoever already holds power, follow a particular cultural logic. Readers from countries outside North America or the UK might interpret this logic differently. The tactics might shift. Overall, does that count as a credibility shift? What "neutrality" signals shifts.
Your framework helps you see power clearly where you are. A CQ lens helps you understand why power works differently somewhere else—and how to lead across that difference.
I thin a CQ lens is fundamental to the equation, absolutely.
Indeed. That flow of power can shift quickly, too. Before a recent merger, power up through HR to execs was largely relational. As the L&D manager with strong relationships throughout the company, my approach gave me easy access to executive leadership. Since the merger, power is awarded to those who are systematic and process oriented yet not well versed in leadership practices like empathy and mental health. It’s isolating, and I’m very aware of my “contrast” with new power flow.
Oh, I have been there. Situations where I was embedded in those power dynamics, and others where I was completely shut out. It's incredibly challenging, but better to be aware than oblivious.
Thanks Jennifer, this is such a great explainer of power literacy and how people can take advantage of it when they know the system. In academia, I've actually seen it used to great effect by trade union members who take to task senior academics who have not bothered to fully engage with the literature of the contracts am governance. For me, this is a really powerful example of where this approach can be used for good. 🙏
Thanks, Doc. How do you think a mad libs exercise would go over in academia? 😂
About as well as you could possibly imagine. I genuinely feel for our HR colleagues. Academics are the absolute worst. 😨
You’re not!
Thanks Jennifer! Alas I am not really a typical academic in any sense of the word. 🤣
This poem perhaps says it best (one of my all time faves):
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/52125/a-position-at-the-university
This is incredible! It’s the Escher’s relativity piece in poetry form
Exactly, and I am so glad you like it! Sharing poetry is my absolute favourite thing to do! 🙏
It is so interesting how hard it is, to be accountable without authority. It’s always what I seek in a role, for those two factors to be commensurate either each other.
And the example you gave with Roman and Maya is why it sometimes feels like HR is *wielded* by the corporation rather than a source of support for the employees.
Stay Uncompliant!
Great article, Jennifer!
Let me ask: in the context of your article, is power primarily a credibility- or authority-shaped force?
To illustrate my question, a few examples come to mind:
1 / when power is a consequence of organizational dependency (expertise, a critical function, safety),
2 / when power is coercive and comes from “risk leverage” (the ability to make a conflict or problem public, threats of reputational damage, or potential legal consequences)
Such a great question. For this post, I’m primarily speaking to your second example.
While power tied to critical functions, and institutional knowledge is a very real thing, it only holds as long as it doesn’t clash with the type of power you name in your second example. That’s because this type of power is fundamentally about influence...narrative, which risks are acceptable, which issues can be escalated/surfaced, political influence, etc.
In my experience, people in the first category are described as “indispensable” right up until they butt heads with someone in category 2. All of a sudden, they become very easily replaceable.
Overall I like it, especially the mad libs throwback, and agree except on a few points:
1. > power mapping clarifies that the organization is not willing to act in alignment with its core values.
An organization **cannot** act outside its true values. It can certainly act outside or against its **stated** values, sure, but all that means is the "value" statement is likely a feel-good piece or outright cover [read: lie]. At that point it's time to go anyway.
2. With sufficient cynicism birthed from firsthand experience in how shitty humans can truly be, the mad lib is unnecessary. Soon as someone else higher up stepped in, the situation and likely surrounding issues popped clear as day in my head. Cynicism verified, sorry.
3. Whether you do it instinctually like I do, or use a tool like you do, people don't like having "truth mirrors" held up to them. This tool should come with a warning: "You will learn to see things in a vastly different way. Once you get there you cannot go back. NO MATTER WHAT, **do not** share your revelations with anyone, lest you find yourself on the outs with no recourse and doors closing in your face everywhere."
Good stuff overall!
I SO appreciate your comments. They are real, and unapologetic to the core. I agree that once you open this door, there’s no going back - it’s a bit of a pandora’s box.
It's the worst part for me.
You see something very few others can see without being directly involved in the games, but you can't say anything to the perpetrators because they'll actively work to get rid of you, and you can't say anything to the unseeing because they won't believe you.
I am lucky to be able to report to CHRO who was willing to balance the power. She mapped the leaders who overused. They were eventually let go. I did not understand that back then I really appreciate everything I learned from her.