Power Dynamics and Ethics

My clients share two characteristics that, in combination, create an intriguing challenge: 1. They hold positions of significant influence 2. They don't see themselves as "powerful people" These are exceptional humans who make wonderful leaders precisely because they view themselves as equals rather than superiors. Yet this admirable quality can become their blind spot. Being unconscious of power dynamics leads to misreading crucial situations: ・You leave a discussion believing it went well because there was agreement. But was there agreement on the merits, or agreement because you're the boss? ・You think there is ultimate trust in your relationships. Yet you hold influence over livelihoods. The fact you disagree with this statement is, precisely, your challenge. ・You believe your open-door policy ensures honest feedback. However, your position inherently shapes what others feel safe to express. The insight that transforms leadership effectiveness: Being naive about your power doesn't diminish its impact. It simply makes you vulnerable to its unintended consequences. Consider: • When you're unconscious of power dynamics, you miss subtle signs of intimidation • What you perceive as trust might be carefully managed compliance • Your 'casual' comments likely carry more weight than you realise The solution isn't to embrace hierarchical authority. Rather, it's to become more conscious of how your position influences: • The information you receive • The responses you elicit • The dynamics you unconsciously create The most effective leaders maintain their humility while acknowledging their impact. They understand that being conscious of power doesn't make you power-hungry—it makes you power-wise. ・ Supporting thoughtful leaders in navigating the complexities of influence and impact. #LeadershipDevelopment #HighPerformanceCoach #ExecutiveLeadership #HumanBehaviourSpecialist

When Leadership Crosses the Line: A South African Labour Law Perspective By Marizaan Bredenkamp – HR Consultant, Unite360 South Africa (Pty) Ltd Over the weekend, a video surfaced showing the CEO and Head of HR of a global company dancing intimately at a public event. Both are married—to other people—and one reports to the other. A third HR team member was also present. The fallout? Public scrutiny, internal distrust, and executive resignations. From a SA employment law and Code of Good Practice perspective, this is more than just a viral moment. It is a case study in leadership accountability, workplace ethics, and organisational culture. 1. An Integrity Breach – Not Just a PR Disaster In terms of the Code of Good Practice on the Prevention and Elimination of Harassment in the Workplace (2022), leaders are expected to model ethical behaviour at all times—When a CEO and CPO are seen in a compromising position, it calls their moral and professional integrity into question. This affects employee morale and undermines trust in leadership. 2. Power Imbalances Are Legally and Ethically Risky Even in consensual relationships, South African courts and CCMA decisions have consistently scrutinised romantic relationships where a reporting line exists. Power dynamics may create perceived coercion—directly contradicting the Employment Equity Act’s aim to promote fairness and eliminate abuse of authority. 3. HR Cannot Be Neutral When Integrity is Compromised When HR is silent in the face of misconduct, it becomes complicit. HR practitioners are bound by both ethical duties and fiduciary responsibilities. Failure to report or act on inappropriate behaviour—particularly when policy or ethics are compromised—can be deemed dereliction of duty, especially under the BCEA and LRA. 4. Policy Gaps Don’t Excuse Poor Judgment While the Basic Conditions of Employment Act does not explicitly ban workplace relationships, many leadership contracts include morality clauses, codes of conduct, and conflict of interest provisions. If your company doesn’t have a formal relationship policy, your leadership should still behave in ways that uphold organisational values—publicly and privately. 5. The Ripple Effect of Broken Trust • Can the CEO discipline the CPO fairly? • Can HR still lead culture authentically? • Will employees feel safe to report concerns? Once ethical cracks appear at the top, organisational culture starts to erode silently beneath. In South African case law, even the perception of bias, favouritism, or abuse of authority is sufficient grounds for constructive dismissal claims or allegations of unfair labour practice. What Should South African Employers & Boards Do? ✅ Introduce a Workplace Relationships Policy ✅ Review all leadership contracts for integrity clauses ✅ Train executives on public conduct, power dynamics, and ethical leadership ✅ Ensure HR’s independence and accountability ✅ Act decisively—because silence protects power, not people.

Something I have seen a number of times sadly : a respected, occasionally brilliant leader suddenly disappears from their role—no announcement, no acknowledgment, no explanation. When this is done for political reasons, vanity, or personal agendas, it’s more than just a personnel change. It’s a red flag for organisational decay—and a glaring indictment of the ethics of those involved. Here’s what such actions scream: 1. Power Trumps Merit When competence is sacrificed for loyalty or convenience, institutions lose their edge. Expertise and results take a backseat to sycophancy. 2. Fear of Accountability Secrecy suggests the decision can’t withstand scrutiny. If the reasoning were ethical or performance-based, transparency would be the norm. 3. A Toxic Culture Thrives Backroom deals and whispered politics erode trust. Teams become cynical, disengaged, and fearful of who’s next. 4. Short-Term Wins Over Legacy Discarding institutional memory for fleeting political gains undermines long-term stability. Progress stalls when experience is dismissed. 5. Disrespect for Service Failing to honor a leader’s contributions tells employees: “Your dedication is disposable.”Morale plummets. 6. Democracy Erodes in Silence In public institutions, secrecy breeds public distrust. Citizens rightly ask: “What are they hiding?” What It Reveals About the Ethics of Those Involved Silencing and sidelining leaders without explanation isn’t just unprofessional—it’s a moral failure Here’s what it says… - Integrity is negotiable - When leaders prioritise self-interest or political survival over fairness, they reveal that their principles are for sale. - The public good is secondary- Ethical leadership requires stewarding power for collective benefit—not weaponising it to silence dissent or rivals. - Deception is a strategy- Concealing the truth is a choice. It shows a willingness to manipulate stakeholders (employees, citizens, partners) to avoid accountability. - Courage is lacking - Ethical leaders own their decisions, even unpopular ones. Quiet removals are acts of cowardice, not conviction. - Trust is a casualty - As Aristotle said, “Ethics is not about what we do, but who we become.”Those who normalise secrecy and dishonesty corrode trust in every institution they touch. Jack Welch famously said, “You manage people out as well as you manage in” Hannah Arendt warned, the “banality of evil” often starts with small, unexamined abuses of power. When leaders act in shadows, they normalise dysfunction—and everyone pays the price. Ethical leadership isn’t a buzzword—it’s the bedrock of sustainable success. When we see silent removals, let’s speak up. When we witness disrespect, let’s demand better. Because cultures built on fear and secrecy will never outlast those rooted in trust and transparency. #Leadership #TransparencyMatters #EthicalLeadership #Accountability

𝗣𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗿 𝘃𝘀. 𝗥𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆: 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗧𝗵𝗶𝗻 𝗟𝗶𝗻𝗲 𝗧𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗗𝗲𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀 𝗟𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽 In any organization, power and responsibility are inseparable. The moment they drift apart, things start to break—culture, trust, and eventually, the entire business. When leaders understand that 𝗽𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗿 𝗶𝘀 𝗯𝗼𝗿𝗿𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗱, 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗶𝘀 𝗼𝘄𝗻𝗲𝗱, the system works. But when 𝗲𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗶𝘀 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗱—𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗼𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘄𝘀. 𝗧𝗼𝗼 𝗠𝘂𝗰𝗵 𝗣𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗿, 𝗡𝗼 𝗥𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 → Leads to ego-driven decisions, exploitation, and lack of accountability. 𝗥𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗪𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗣𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗿 → Creates burnout, frustration, and stagnation in leadership. The Right Balance → Drives trust, sustainable growth, and a team that thrives. 𝗠𝗮𝗸𝗲 𝗔𝗰𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗡𝗼𝗻-𝗡𝗲𝗴𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 Power should always come with ownership. If you make a decision, own the consequences—good or bad. 𝗗𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗮𝘁𝗲, 𝗕𝘂𝘁 𝗗𝗼𝗻’𝘁 𝗗𝗶𝘀𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗿 Passing responsibility isn’t about offloading work—it’s about empowering others while staying involved in the bigger picture. 𝗨𝘀𝗲 𝗣𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗼 𝗘𝗻𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲, 𝗡𝗼𝘁 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗹 Power should unlock potential, not suppress it. The best leaders use their authority to create opportunities, not dictate every move. 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝘆 𝗢𝗽𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗼 𝗖𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗺 If no one challenges your decisions, you’re leading in an echo chamber. Build a culture where feedback flows both ways. 𝗟𝗲𝗮𝗱 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗜𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗰𝘁, 𝗡𝗼𝘁 𝗘𝗴𝗼 Your position isn’t about proving you’re in charge—it’s about delivering results and lifting others along the way. "𝗣𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗿 𝗶𝘀 𝗮 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗲. 𝗥𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗶𝘀 𝗮 𝗱𝘂𝘁𝘆. 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝗳𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝘄𝗼 𝗶𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽 𝗳𝗮𝗶𝗹𝘀." #Leadership #PowerVsResponsibility #BusinessEthics #OrganizationalGrowth #TrustAndAccountability

After years of coaching leaders and presenters on storytelling and executive presence, I had an epiphany (thanks in great part to the work of Julie Diamond). As soon as I had it, I felt ashamed that I hadn’t fully realized the truth sooner. What I always knew was that personal presence is just one source of power. There are many others: 🫡 Formal authority (titles and roles) 📚 Subject-matter expertise (what we know) 👯 Relational power (who we know) 🌟 Social status (shaped by race, gender, class, etc.) 💪 Physical strength or even physical appearance In our work at Koppett we often focus on developing personal presence because it’s within our control—we can adjust how we speak, move, and engage in real-time. Other types of power, like organizational authority or social status, are less immediately malleable: few of us can give ourselves promotions, for example, or get a PhD in engineering in the middle of a conversation. What I failed to fully appreciate initially, and what I believe we talk about too infrequently, is how these sources of power intersect. For example, 👉 When a CEO is late to a meeting, it’s assumed they have something critical to attend to. A junior contributor arriving late might be reprimanded instead. 👉 (Evans et al., 2019) show that humor is interpreted differently depending on gender: men’s status tends to rise when they joke, while women are often labeled “disruptive” or “insecure.” This complexity means there is no single formula for demonstrating presence or power. “Executive presence” is a co-created narrative—it’s shaped as much by the perceptions of others as it is by the leader’s actions. The same behaviors that enhance one person’s influence may diminish another’s. Power isn’t static. It’s dynamic, relational, and deeply contextual. As leaders and facilitators, this awareness can lead us to: 💥 Examine our power sources. How do authority, expertise, and identity play into how we’re perceived? How can we lean into our strengths? What obstacles might we have to overcome? What might we be getting away with that we wouldn’t tolerate in others?  👀 Pay attention to dynamics. Are our assumptions or reactions different based on someone’s role, identity, or experience? 👫 Co-create presence. Understand that “executive presence” is a shared perception influenced by others. What demands are we making on folks to fit a mold that might not work for them?  🏆 Leverage power to empower. Remember to use our position to amplify others’ voices and create equitable opportunities. What types of power do you see at play in your work? How do you navigate them? #Leadership #Facilitation #PowerDynamics #ExecutivePresence #Inclusion #Equity #Coaching

A contradiction I keep reading about: Everyone says they want to “shift power” but most capital still demands control. Here’s a 2x2 I made to decode the power dynamics behind funding -- whether you’re raising for a startup, fund, or nonprofit. I. The Ghost Investor (Transactional + Passive) “Send me the quarterly update, maybe I’ll read it.” – Wants optics, avoids risk – Extractive logic in slow motion – Shows up on the funder slide, disappears in real life – THINK: CSR arms, passive family offices, legacy aid channels II. The Benevolent Overseer (Transactional + Active) “We believe in your leadership once you pivot to match our KPIs.” – Drives strategy, defines success – Loves control: KPIs, veto rights, milestone gates – Deep pockets, but deeper strings – THINK: PE impact funds, DFIs, corporate VCs, institutional LPs III. The Silent Ally (Transformational + Passive) “We trust you. Keep doing the work.” – Gives space, but not structure – Great ethics, weak legs – Sovereignty yes, scalability no – THINK: aligned HNWIs, community funds, legacy foundations IV. The Power-Shifter (Transformational + Active) “We back your leadership, not just your pitch deck.” – Funds core (nonprofits) + reserves follow-ons (for-profits) – Sits with discomfort, shares power – Harder to find, but gold if aligned – THINK: radical philanthropy, participatory funds, locally-led capital pools 🗣️ Founders, fund managers, nonprofit leads: use this grid. – Quadrant IV is the language of panelists. But the real ones are in the trenches. – Quadrant I is legacy capital’s comfort zone especially in Africa and South Asia. – Quadrant II gives money. And takes your voice. – Quadrant III hugs your mission, but won’t hold your budget. 💸 How does this shift how you think about your own funders—or the kind you want? What’s the right mix for what you’re building? Every dollar has a worldview. And some of it costs more than it gives. #ImpactInvesting #VentureCapital #Philanthropy #Startups #GlobalDevelopment #InternationalDevelopment #DevelopmentFinance

On power moves and how to navigate them. Every time you talk to someone, there is a power dynamic. If you need something from them, they have the upper hand. The same is true if they are a high-status individual (politicians, investors, people with a history of success, etc.). Whatever your request is, they have the leverage. There is nothing wrong with that. In most human transactions, there is a power play. The problem is that many people act like they are in a position of power when they are not… Think of these scenarios: - You're a first-time founder without much traction asking a VC for investment - Reaching out to a stranger on LinkedIn to sell your product - Proposing a call with a potential partner or client without sufficient trust-building - Requesting a colleague to undertake tasks outside their responsibilities In these situations, you're not just making a request but navigating a delicate balance of power. A common mistake is to act as if you're in a position of power when you're not. This approach can come across as presumptuous and may turn people off. So, how do you make your request effectively without overstepping? - Be respectful — This goes a long way across cultures. - Offer context — Clearly explain why you're reaching out and what led you to them specifically. - Build trust — Establish a connection before making significant requests. Trust is a currency in professional relationships. - Be authentic — Share your genuine reasons for needing help. Authenticity can bridge many gaps in power dynamics. - Make it clear you're asking for a favor, and they're not obligated to comply. That would not guarantee success, but it’s a better start. Acknowledging the power dynamic isn't a sign of weakness; it's an understanding of the natural power plays in human interactions.