<h2><strong>Executive Summary</strong></h2><ul><li><p>For HR leaders, effectiveness increasingly depends on understanding how power and politics operate within organisations in addition to delivering functional outcomes.</p></li><li><p>HR’s limited strategic influence reflects weak structural power and an over-emphasis on efficiency over value creation.</p></li><li><p>Power is exercised through exerting decision making, agenda-setting and ideological influence, but the deepest level of influence lies in shaping norms and assumptions.</p></li><li><p>Although HR leaders often lack traditional sources of influence such as budget authority and decision rights, AI provides an opportunity to rebuild structural power through unique workforce intelligence.</p></li><li><p>As AI reshapes people decisions, HR’s influence will depend on its ability to interpret systems, govern their use and set ethical and organisational boundaries.</p></li><li><p>Power will accrue to those who create irreplaceable value by shaping the rules of the game rather than merely operating within them.</p></li></ul>.<p>Concerns over HR’s strategic relevance have persisted for years. These often reduce to a basic question: does the function attract the best talent and consistently create value? As a function, HR has often prioritised efficiency over value, relying on measurable outcomes, such as training hours rather than outcomes that protect or enhance shareholder value. As a result, much of HR’s work remains difficult to quantify and is therefore undervalued. At a recent India CHRO Forum session, Anand Vijayasankaran, Assistant Professor of Organisational Behaviour at the Indian School of Business examined how power and politics operate within organisations and how HR leaders can systematically think about it and leverage it in an era increasingly shaped by AI.</p><h2>Senior Leaders Today: Power, Politics and Possibility</h2><p>Why think about power? The simple answer is that, if you don’t, you’re dead. Progression to senior leadership is rarely determined by technical competence alone. Those who rise tend to understand how decisions are made, how information is interpreted and how signals such as access, compensation and visibility reflect influence. Strong leaders pay attention to what is said, but also to what is not said. For HR leaders, this ability is central both to adding value and to earning a seat at senior leadership levels.</p><p>At a more philosophical level, thinking about power helps make you happier and helps you avoid doing terrible things. Given the porous boundaries between work and life, if you are powerless at work, you will inevitably transfer this into domains outside of work. A sense of powerlessness may cause you to lash out at your family, or even strangers – or to do other things you regret later. To ensure you’re not in a position of powerlessness is therefore vital. At a deeply pragmatic level, thinking about power avoiding a position of structural powerlessness is therefore essential in terms of personal effectiveness and stability.</p><h2>The Three Dimensions of Power</h2><p>British political scientist Steven Lukes defined power along three dimensions:</p><p>• <strong>Visible Power</strong>: The ability to make someone do something they would otherwise not do. Given that conflicts of interest exist almost everywhere, visible power enables individual A to win over individual B in direct conflicts, such as over budgets, promotions or policies.</p><p>• <strong>Agenda Power</strong>: A second level of power is determined by non-decision metrics, such as the ability not to allow a question to come up in the first place. Say, for instance, that you and your partner are arguing about where to eat. You want Chinese food and your partner wants Indian. Exercising agenda power is about reframing the agenda in such a way that what the other person wants is taken off the table. This can be achieved, for instance, by asking, ‘Which CHINESE restaurant do you want to go to?’ What gets discussed, i.e. setting the agenda, is therefore a key element of power.</p><p>• <strong>Ideological Power</strong>: This third (and most powerful) dimension of power is about who shapes beliefs, norms and what people see as ‘neutral. ’ By exercising such power, a person can ensure that certain questions don’t even come up, removing any impression that conflicts of interest even exist.</p><h2>Case Study: The Tobacco Industry</h2><p>In the early 1960s, when the US Surgeon General first announced that there was evidence of strong linkages between tobacco usage and lung and heart disease, cigarette sales were close to their peak. The industry responded with a multi-pronged counterattack, exercising power across various dimensions:</p><p>• <strong>Salience undermining/broadening</strong>: At the first (visible) level, tobacco companies ensured that the issue was treated as unimportant. They did this by arguing that it was not smoking that was the real cause of lung/heart disease but lifestyle choices, such as a lack of exercise. Equally, they made the argument that, if smoking in public places was banned, it would impact tourist arrivals and therefore the broader economy.</p><p>• <strong>Salience shifting</strong>: At the second (agenda) level, while agreeing to put warning labels on cigarette packs, companies made the argument that debating the issue too openly would impact sales, hurting the earnings/employment of tobacco farmers. By bringing in a peripheral issue, they ensured that the real issue never got discussed.</p><p>• <strong>Salience capture</strong>: Finally, at the third (ideological) level, cigarette companies countered the attack on them by strongly associating smoking with values such as freedom and liberalism. This blunted criticism, even debate, around cigarette smoking, for decades.</p><h2>What Can You Do as a Leader?</h2><p>Broadly, there are two areas where CXOs should focus their attention: the ‘Big I’, or influence without influencing and the ‘Small I’, or influence through practice. The first is about ‘What you have’, while the second is about ‘What you do.’</p><p>Power in organisations does not stem from a single source. It flows from different forms of capital, which together shape who is able to influence decisions and outcomes. Formal roles, reporting lines and control over resources provide organisational and economic capital. An understanding of how things really work builds cultural capital. Titles and mandates confer symbolic capital, while visibility and credibility create network and reputational capital. Exclusive or aggregated insight generates knowledge capital. Finally, the ability to shape or redesign systems creates institutional capital, the most enduring form of power.</p><p><strong>The Small i: Influence through practice</strong></p><p>While capital provides the foundation, influence is exercised through practice. Principles such as reciprocity, authority and commitment shape outcomes without overt confrontation. Political skill is also critical. This includes the ability to put others at ease, build relationships and read the room—understanding where influence truly resides rather than where it formally appears to sit. Apparent sincerity matters. For HR leaders, credibility depends on being seen as acting in the organisation’s long-term interest.</p><h2>From Power to Practice in the Age of AI</h2><p>As AI increasingly informs people decisions, HR’s role has broadened from just providing answers to interpreting systems. Influence now lies in explaining outputs, highlighting trade-offs and setting limits on what technology should and should not decide. Legitimacy depends more on judgement and transparency than technical control.AI has also altered HR’s internal power landscape. As algorithms absorb routine decisions, traditional sources of influence will weaken over time. Power increasingly accrues to those who can interpret systems, govern their use and shape the questions they are asked. This creates three priorities for HR leaders: redefining expertise beyond functional knowledge; rebuilding trust through transparency and ethical oversight; and reclaiming influence by developing analytics capabilities and contributing to AI governance. Power ultimately flows to those who create value that cannot easily be replaced. AI has changed what that value looks like for HR. The question is whether HR leaders will shape the rules by which it is defined.</p>
<h2><strong>Executive Summary</strong></h2><ul><li><p>For HR leaders, effectiveness increasingly depends on understanding how power and politics operate within organisations in addition to delivering functional outcomes.</p></li><li><p>HR’s limited strategic influence reflects weak structural power and an over-emphasis on efficiency over value creation.</p></li><li><p>Power is exercised through exerting decision making, agenda-setting and ideological influence, but the deepest level of influence lies in shaping norms and assumptions.</p></li><li><p>Although HR leaders often lack traditional sources of influence such as budget authority and decision rights, AI provides an opportunity to rebuild structural power through unique workforce intelligence.</p></li><li><p>As AI reshapes people decisions, HR’s influence will depend on its ability to interpret systems, govern their use and set ethical and organisational boundaries.</p></li><li><p>Power will accrue to those who create irreplaceable value by shaping the rules of the game rather than merely operating within them.</p></li></ul>.<p>Concerns over HR’s strategic relevance have persisted for years. These often reduce to a basic question: does the function attract the best talent and consistently create value? As a function, HR has often prioritised efficiency over value, relying on measurable outcomes, such as training hours rather than outcomes that protect or enhance shareholder value. As a result, much of HR’s work remains difficult to quantify and is therefore undervalued. At a recent India CHRO Forum session, Anand Vijayasankaran, Assistant Professor of Organisational Behaviour at the Indian School of Business examined how power and politics operate within organisations and how HR leaders can systematically think about it and leverage it in an era increasingly shaped by AI.</p><h2>Senior Leaders Today: Power, Politics and Possibility</h2><p>Why think about power? The simple answer is that, if you don’t, you’re dead. Progression to senior leadership is rarely determined by technical competence alone. Those who rise tend to understand how decisions are made, how information is interpreted and how signals such as access, compensation and visibility reflect influence. Strong leaders pay attention to what is said, but also to what is not said. For HR leaders, this ability is central both to adding value and to earning a seat at senior leadership levels.</p><p>At a more philosophical level, thinking about power helps make you happier and helps you avoid doing terrible things. Given the porous boundaries between work and life, if you are powerless at work, you will inevitably transfer this into domains outside of work. A sense of powerlessness may cause you to lash out at your family, or even strangers – or to do other things you regret later. To ensure you’re not in a position of powerlessness is therefore vital. At a deeply pragmatic level, thinking about power avoiding a position of structural powerlessness is therefore essential in terms of personal effectiveness and stability.</p><h2>The Three Dimensions of Power</h2><p>British political scientist Steven Lukes defined power along three dimensions:</p><p>• <strong>Visible Power</strong>: The ability to make someone do something they would otherwise not do. Given that conflicts of interest exist almost everywhere, visible power enables individual A to win over individual B in direct conflicts, such as over budgets, promotions or policies.</p><p>• <strong>Agenda Power</strong>: A second level of power is determined by non-decision metrics, such as the ability not to allow a question to come up in the first place. Say, for instance, that you and your partner are arguing about where to eat. You want Chinese food and your partner wants Indian. Exercising agenda power is about reframing the agenda in such a way that what the other person wants is taken off the table. This can be achieved, for instance, by asking, ‘Which CHINESE restaurant do you want to go to?’ What gets discussed, i.e. setting the agenda, is therefore a key element of power.</p><p>• <strong>Ideological Power</strong>: This third (and most powerful) dimension of power is about who shapes beliefs, norms and what people see as ‘neutral. ’ By exercising such power, a person can ensure that certain questions don’t even come up, removing any impression that conflicts of interest even exist.</p><h2>Case Study: The Tobacco Industry</h2><p>In the early 1960s, when the US Surgeon General first announced that there was evidence of strong linkages between tobacco usage and lung and heart disease, cigarette sales were close to their peak. The industry responded with a multi-pronged counterattack, exercising power across various dimensions:</p><p>• <strong>Salience undermining/broadening</strong>: At the first (visible) level, tobacco companies ensured that the issue was treated as unimportant. They did this by arguing that it was not smoking that was the real cause of lung/heart disease but lifestyle choices, such as a lack of exercise. Equally, they made the argument that, if smoking in public places was banned, it would impact tourist arrivals and therefore the broader economy.</p><p>• <strong>Salience shifting</strong>: At the second (agenda) level, while agreeing to put warning labels on cigarette packs, companies made the argument that debating the issue too openly would impact sales, hurting the earnings/employment of tobacco farmers. By bringing in a peripheral issue, they ensured that the real issue never got discussed.</p><p>• <strong>Salience capture</strong>: Finally, at the third (ideological) level, cigarette companies countered the attack on them by strongly associating smoking with values such as freedom and liberalism. This blunted criticism, even debate, around cigarette smoking, for decades.</p><h2>What Can You Do as a Leader?</h2><p>Broadly, there are two areas where CXOs should focus their attention: the ‘Big I’, or influence without influencing and the ‘Small I’, or influence through practice. The first is about ‘What you have’, while the second is about ‘What you do.’</p><p>Power in organisations does not stem from a single source. It flows from different forms of capital, which together shape who is able to influence decisions and outcomes. Formal roles, reporting lines and control over resources provide organisational and economic capital. An understanding of how things really work builds cultural capital. Titles and mandates confer symbolic capital, while visibility and credibility create network and reputational capital. Exclusive or aggregated insight generates knowledge capital. Finally, the ability to shape or redesign systems creates institutional capital, the most enduring form of power.</p><p><strong>The Small i: Influence through practice</strong></p><p>While capital provides the foundation, influence is exercised through practice. Principles such as reciprocity, authority and commitment shape outcomes without overt confrontation. Political skill is also critical. This includes the ability to put others at ease, build relationships and read the room—understanding where influence truly resides rather than where it formally appears to sit. Apparent sincerity matters. For HR leaders, credibility depends on being seen as acting in the organisation’s long-term interest.</p><h2>From Power to Practice in the Age of AI</h2><p>As AI increasingly informs people decisions, HR’s role has broadened from just providing answers to interpreting systems. Influence now lies in explaining outputs, highlighting trade-offs and setting limits on what technology should and should not decide. Legitimacy depends more on judgement and transparency than technical control.AI has also altered HR’s internal power landscape. As algorithms absorb routine decisions, traditional sources of influence will weaken over time. Power increasingly accrues to those who can interpret systems, govern their use and shape the questions they are asked. This creates three priorities for HR leaders: redefining expertise beyond functional knowledge; rebuilding trust through transparency and ethical oversight; and reclaiming influence by developing analytics capabilities and contributing to AI governance. Power ultimately flows to those who create value that cannot easily be replaced. AI has changed what that value looks like for HR. The question is whether HR leaders will shape the rules by which it is defined.</p>
