The Power Equation—Influence, Indifference, and Leadership
While reading Song of Solomon by Toni Morrison, I came across this quote about dominion, aka “power”, and it stopped me in my tracks:
“Dominion won by fear and secured by fear was still sweeter than any could be got another way. Except for women, whom they liked to win with charm, but keep with indifference.”
The power dynamics of relationships are always in play, yet the topic seems to be limited to discussions about politics. The reality is that power dynamics are just as prominent in the workplace, at home, and in our subconscious—sometimes, we don’t even recognize our behaviors as attempts to use power.
Power—whether in leadership or personal relationships—shapes how we engage with others and how we define our agency. It shows up as control, influence, or disengagement. More importantly, the wielding of power is central to both conscious leadership and intentional relationships.
Morrison’s words highlight a familiar pattern: fear secures dominance. Many have experienced this—whether under an authoritative manager or in personal connections where threats of losing something that matters to us (pay, friendship, community) influence our behavior. Understanding how power operates in relationships and across contexts can help us move beyond reacting—often angrily—to its demands and instead inform how we wield it to build connection and gain influence.
How Power Manifests in Leadership on the Clock
The power tool that a leader chooses—fear, influence, or indifference—to get their desired outcomes reflects how vulnerable they believe they are to the people they lead; i.e., How hard is it to replace them? Can I do this without them? Do they have a quality or strength that would have a noteworthy and positive bearing on what I’m hoping to accomplish?
This is why it’s a fallacy to conflate leadership with authority. A leader’s tool tells you what and whom they both value and fear. It also signals whether they recognize the connection between their power style and whether a team thrives or becomes stagnant—and whether they believe a truly collaborative environment is possible or even necessary.
- Fear-based leadership creates compliance, often malicious compliance, and fosters resentment and disengagement.
- Malicious compliance occurs when team members do exactly as instructed, without objection—despite knowing the directive won’t achieve its intended outcome.
- Influence-based leadership, on the other hand, builds trust and encourages innovation because it fosters collaboration and iterative improvement.
- Iterative improvement thrives in environments with ongoing discussions and refinement of processes and goals—but it rarely happens in teams lacking psychological safety.
- This style requires the most time, intention, and ongoing nurturing.
- Indifference in leadership is perhaps the most damaging. When leaders detach rather than guide, teams feel unseen and undervalued.
- Like fear-based leadership, indifference fosters disengagement.
- When people feel unseen, they either fight for visibility, wilt in place, or leave—and paradoxically, they’re sometimes pushed out for wilting.
Consider this: if your role changed and you became responsible for a significant project, but you no longer had formal authority over your team—AND it was clear you had no ability to retaliate—how would you approach your work and relationships? Suddenly, fear-based leadership loses its value, and indifference means your project may not get done. The reality is leaders are vulnerable, even when they believe they can operate purely on authority.
What do you think “quiet quitting,” sabotage, resistance, and passive-aggressive behavior are?
What’s more, resentful employees may go beyond mere presenteeism (coming to work but producing very little); some even become motivated to see their leader fail. One employee told me she wrote a speech for her boss and intentionally filled it with difficult-to-pronounce words and academic jargon. She knew he’d stumble while delivering it, and she was confident he’d be too embarrassed to reprimand her.
Power Dynamics When It’s NOT About the Job
Most people are comfortable hearing hard truths about leadership—like:
“Consultants and business leaders must recognize how their power behaviors shape morale. The goal should not be dominance but effective influence, ensuring employees and collaborators feel invested rather than controlled.”
Yet, when it comes to personal relationships, these conversations feel much harder. Many hesitate because they don’t want to own their behavior—or they don’t want to see the people they love as controlling. Nevertheless, the truth is that personal relationships often mirror leadership structures:
- Some people exert control.
- Some influence.
- Some withdraw.
Many have experienced what Morrison describes—straight-out fear, which includes passive-aggressive manipulation and indifference. It takes tremendous introspection and restraint to respect mutual agency in relationships. When people don’t get what they want, the cycle Morrison speaks of—becoming distant and exerting power through absence—can emerge. Whether this behavior is a warning that distance will become permanent unless certain behaviors change, or part of an abusive power game, it is still about demanding compliance.
For both consulting and life coaching clients, the key is awareness:
- Are you caught in dynamics that reinforce power imbalances rather than foster mutual respect?
- How do you engage with others—through fear (including guilt-tripping), influence, or disengagement?
- Are you allowing relationships to evolve naturally, or are you trying to control them?
Indifference vs. Intentional Letting Go
Something to bear in mind: Indifference is not the same as allowing someone to act freely.
- Indifference is disengagement, often stemming from frustration, resentment, or avoidance.
- Intentional letting go is different—it is a conscious choice to release control, allowing someone space to act in their own way, even if you disagree.
Intentional letting go is a choice to share power in a relationship.
Control vs. Protection
Many struggle with power in relationships because they mistake control for care or protection.
- They believe that intervening, correcting, or directing another’s choices keeps them safe or aligned.
- But true respect lies in trusting others to navigate their own paths, just as a skilled leader allows their team to rise to challenges without micromanagement.
The shift from control to respect is transformational. Letting go doesn’t mean becoming passive—it means balancing autonomy with the understanding that you cannot force anyone to do anything. You might get malicious compliance, you might end a relationship, or terminate employment, but you won’t get their best. They must want to give it.
The Case for Conscious Leadership & Intentional Relationships
Power is most sustainable when it is shared, not hoarded. Whether in the boardroom or in personal relationships, leaders must:
- Assess their power habits—do they assert authority or nurture motivation?
- Recognize their engagement styles—do they rely on fear, charm, indifference, or genuine connection?
