On Power

Definition of Power

In the process of managing rights within an organization, specific individuals (members) possess the authority to allocate the organization’s rights, and this authority is not fully constrained by organizational rules (i.e., the behavioral path is not singular), allowing these individuals to exercise initiative in their allocation decisions. This is when power emerges. When an individual has such non-singular decision-making paths, we can conclude that they possess certain powers within the organization. It can be said that power arises from the non-standardized process of allocating and distributing rights within an organization. Suppose the redistribution of rights is mandatory and unalterable (i.e., a singular path). In that case, individuals can only passively follow rules during execution (able to execute but not decide), and in such cases, power does not exist. Therefore, under the framework of Intelligenism, power is contingent upon the organization. If individuals are isolated and not part of an organization, they only possess rights (control over their own possessions) but not organizational power.

The dominance (power) of an individual within an organization is not inherent but primarily granted by organizational rules, with the following characteristics:

1.1: Sources of Organizational Power

For example, determining whether the mining rights of a mine belong to Zhang San or Li Si theoretically requires a final decision-maker (a specific organizational individual). This decision-maker has the authority to decide the ownership of the mining rights, and if this authority is exclusive, it can be considered a form of power. Suppose the decision-making authority for mining rights can be held by A, B, or any of dozens of individuals within the organization without requiring approval from others. In that case, the power associated with the mining rights decision becomes weaker. In this scenario, we cannot say that a matter decidable by dozens of individuals is not power; instead, the power is diluted because exclusivity does not equate to uniqueness. The power still exists within the organization, but at the individual level, it is weakened. However, from the perspective of the entire organization, this power remains exclusive but not unique. To extend this further with a more extreme example, if an organization has 100 members and 97 of them have the authority to decide mining rights while the remaining 3 do not, the 97 individuals still hold exclusivity over the 3 in matters of mining rights. However, when the decision-making power is distributed among 97 individuals, the power of any single individual is significantly reduced. Suppose these 3 individuals aim to secure the mining rights, which would yield a 1 million surplus benefit. If the decision-making power rests with only one person, that individual would likely claim the majority of the 1 million surplus. If 97 individuals hold the decision-making power, they face a prisoner’s dilemma in competing for the 1 million surplus. They might collectively agree to split the surplus equally, or one individual might betray the group, accepting a 100,000 benefit to grant the mining rights. Regardless, the dilution of power affects the ability to secure the benefits tied to that power.

1.2: Degree of Power

Continuing with the case from 1.1, whether the mining decision-making power is held by one individual or distributed among 97 individuals, exclusivity objectively exists. Thus, I propose that the primary prerequisite for power is exclusivity, but this only explains the formation of power from 0 to 1. To evaluate the magnitude of power, we need to discuss it further. This section introduces the concept of the “degree of power” to assess the ability of power to claim benefits. Assuming exclusivity implies the existence of power, from the perspective of measuring the strength of individual power, the degree of power must lie somewhere between absolute power (1) and absolute lack of power (0). When a single individual holds the decision-making power in mining, their degree of power in this matter is closer to 1. If 97 individuals have it, each individual’s degree of power approaches 0. As subsequent sections unfold, the concept of the degree of power will be referenced frequently.

1.3: Power and Benefits

Based on the scenario involving the 1 million surplus benefit from section 1.1, applying the degree of power concept from 1.2 leads to a straightforward conclusion: the degree of power determines the distribution of benefits. This means that when the degree of power for a specific matter within an organization approaches or reaches 1, the individual with that power can claim a larger share of the benefits in that matter—conversely, a lower degree of power results in a smaller share of benefits.

1.4: Power Dispersion

Further exploring the example from 1.1, in an organization of 100 members where 97 hold the mining decision-making power, the dispersion of this power is extremely high. This leads to more potential for internal competition within the group, significantly reducing the ability of the power-holding group (the 97 individuals) to claim benefits from the other 3 (those competing for mining rights). The exclusive group might only secure 50% or even 10% of the 1 million surplus, rather than the majority (e.g., 80% or more). If the power-holding group consists of only 3 individuals or even 1, the power dispersion is lower, allowing the exclusive group to claim a larger share of the surplus. Thus, the degree of power dispersion is inversely proportional to the share of surplus benefits obtained by the power-holding group: higher dispersion leads to a lower share of benefits, and vice versa.