Power and politics shape everyday organizational life, influencing who speaks, who decides, and what remains unsaid. Leadership accounts that ignore this reality, or romanticise conversation, misread risk, silence, and the uneven costs of openness. Conversational Leadership offers a modest practice for engaging power without denying authority or pretending politics disappear.
Power and Politics Are Not Optional
Power and politics are unavoidable features of organizational life. Any approach to leadership that ignores them or treats them as unfortunate side effects is naïve.Politics is life. Politics is the basis for real can do, as opposed to the imaginary sort brought to you by “strong leaders.”
At the same time, approaches that reduce organizations to little more than arenas of manoeuvring and control tend to normalise behaviour that quietly corrodes trust, learning, and judgment.
Hard Power Still Matters
Hard power is a reality in organizations. Formal authority, budgets, performance systems, promotion decisions, and the ability to hire or fire all shape what can safely be said and by whom. No amount of good conversation dissolves these realities.
In some settings, conversational initiatives are tolerated only so long as they do not disturb existing power arrangements. When they do, authorities can curtail or shut them down with little consequence.
Politics Is Not Always Benign
Politics is not confined to mild differences of perspective or competing interests. It can involve bad faith, deliberate ambiguity, scapegoating, and the silencing of inconvenient voices.
Many people learn early in their organizational lives that speaking openly carries risk. In that context, silence is often a rational survival strategy rather than a failure of courage or integrity. Conversational Leadership does not erase this risk, and it should not pretend otherwise.
What Conversation Can and Cannot Do
Good conversation offers no protection from organizational politics. Nor can it guarantee safety, fairness, or better outcomes. Simply creating a conversational space does not automatically redistribute power.
Conversation can, however, surface issues that an organization is structurally unwilling to address. It can also backfire, increasing cynicism when people are invited to speak and then ignored, or later punished for their openness.
Why Conversation Still Matters
Power is not exercised only through formal authority. It also operates through everyday patterns of interaction, through what is normalised, rewarded, or rendered unsayable.
While conversational practices cannot override structural power, they can make its operation more visible. They can expose how decisions are framed, and whose knowledge routinely counts and whose does not.
In that sense, conversation is not a soft alternative to leadership. It is a way to intervene in organizational politics without resorting to manipulation or coercion.
Unequal Risks and Unequal Access
The freedom to engage openly in conversation is not equally available to everyone. Those with positional authority, reputational capital, or facilitation roles often have more room to speak and act than those closer to the edge. That asymmetry matters.
Practising Conversational Leadership means recognising these differences. Speaking openly carries greater risks for some than for others, and choosing not to speak can sometimes be the most responsible option available.
Conversation and Structural Change
Conversation alone does not change systems. Insight alone does not alter incentives, governance, or accountability. If these remain untouched, conversational learning may dissipate as soon as attention moves on.
For conversation to make a lasting difference, what emerges from it needs, where appropriate, to inform decisions and find expression in structures, policies, and practice.
The Limits of Conversation
Conversation is not always the primary consideration. Some situations require decisive authority and a quick decision. Conversation may still have a part to play, but extended dialogue can sometimes be inappropriate or even irresponsible.
Conversation also does not provide an escape from organizational politics. It offers a way to engage with them while staying aware of constraints, risks, and the possibility of failure. Its promise is modest but real: that power might be exercised with greater awareness, greater restraint, and a clearer sense of its consequences.
We should stay alert to how power operates in everyday interaction. We should choose when to speak, when to listen, and when silence is sensible. We should treat conversation as a serious practice, tied to authority and structure, not as a guarantee of safety.
(Public Domain)The Gurteen Knowledge Letter is a free monthly newsletter with over 20,000 subscribers that I have been publishing by email for over 20 years.
Learn more about the newsletter and register here.