Lead with Power Moves: Using Political Economy Insights for Everyday Leadership

Lesson 1

1.1 Why Good Plans Fail: The Case for Political Thinking

01

QUADRAEDGELead with Power Moves

Module 1 · Lesson 1.1

Why Good Plans Fail: The Case for Political Thinking

Most initiatives do not fail because the analysis was wrong. They fail because nobody worked out whose interests the change touched, and what those people would do about it.

DiagnosePositionAct

The gapTechnically sound proposals stall for reasons the plan never mentions.

The lensPolitical economy analysis asks who gains, who loses, and who decides.

The claimPolitical skill is a leadership competence, not a character flaw.

Origin

A development discipline that travels

Political economy analysis grew out of international development, where donors kept funding technically excellent reforms that went nowhere. The diagnosis was consistent: analysts had mapped the problem but not the interests, incentives and power relations surrounding it. The same method — structures, institutions and actors — works just as well on a restructuring, a systems migration or a budget cycle in a 40-person organisation. The approach is often called thinking and working politically.

Definition

Three layers, one question

Structural factors are the slow-moving things you inherit: funding model, ownership, geography, history, market position. Institutions are the rules, formal and informal, that shape what is possible. Actors are the people and groups with interests and the means to act on them. Underneath all three sits one question: who gains, who loses, and who gets to decide?

Reframe

Political is not a synonym for dishonest

In everyday use, calling a colleague political is an accusation. Used precisely, it just describes how decisions actually get made where resources are scarce and preferences differ — which is everywhere. Refusing to engage politically does not make you neutral; it makes you unable to protect the work you believe in. Module 3 deals directly with where influence ends and manipulation begins.

Key takeaway

Plans fail politically far more often than they fail technically. The first leadership move is to ask who gains, who loses and who decides — before the rollout, not after.

Practical Exercise

Choose a live initiative. Write a half-page diagnosis covering the structural factors you cannot change, the rules shaping what is possible, and the three actors whose interests are most affected.

Summary

Political economy analysis examines structures, institutions and actors to explain why sound plans stall. For leaders it turns resistance from a mystery into a diagnosable pattern.

Resources for this lesson

Web link

Lesson content: 1.1 Why Good Plans Fail: The Case for Political Thinking

Open resource

Lesson 2

1.2 Formal Rules, Informal Norms and How Things Really Get Done

02

QUADRAEDGELead with Power Moves

Module 1 · Lesson 1.2

Formal Rules, Informal Norms and How Things Really Get Done

Every organisation runs two operating systems. The written one is in the handbook. The other one decides what actually happens.

DiagnosePositionAct

FormalPolicies, mandates, delegations, org charts, approval thresholds.

InformalNorms, history, favours, precedent, who gets consulted first.

The gapWhere the two diverge is where your real constraints live.

Diagnosis

Read the gap, not just the handbook

The formal system tells you who is authorised to decide. The informal system tells you who is consulted before the decision, whose objection stops things, which precedents are treated as binding and which policies are quietly ignored. New leaders who work only from the org chart make avoidable errors in their first six months — going to the wrong person, skipping a courtesy consultation, or invoking a rule everyone else has agreed to treat as dormant.

Method

How to see the informal system

You cannot read it in a document, so observe instead. Who speaks last in meetings and changes the outcome? Whose name comes up in sentences beginning 'we should probably check with'? Which decisions get made before the meeting? Where do people go for a real answer rather than an official one? Ask a trusted colleague who has been there longer what they wish they had known in their first month — the answer is almost always informal.

Use

Working with the grain

Once you can see both systems you have three options: use the formal route where it is genuinely authoritative, work through the informal route where it is faster and legitimate, or change the rule when the gap between them is causing real damage. Choosing the third every time exhausts your credit; choosing it never means you preside over rules nobody follows.

Key takeaway

Leaders who see only the formal system are working from an incomplete map. The informal system is where speed, resistance and real authority actually sit.

Practical Exercise

Map the formal and informal decision path for one significant decision in your organisation. Identify three points where the informal route determined the outcome and note whether that helped or hindered.

Summary

Organisations run formal and informal systems in parallel. Reading the gap between them reveals real constraints, real authority and the fastest legitimate route to a decision.

Resources for this lesson

Web link

Lesson content: 1.2 Formal Rules, Informal Norms and How Things Really Get Done

Open resource

Lesson 3

1.3 Mapping Actors: Interests, Incentives and Positions

03

QUADRAEDGELead with Power Moves

Module 1 · Lesson 1.3

Mapping Actors: Interests, Incentives and Positions

Stakeholder lists tell you who exists. Actor mapping tells you what they want, what rewards them, and what they are likely to do next.

DiagnosePositionAct

InterestWhat they actually want — not the stated position.

IncentiveWhat their environment rewards and punishes.

PositionChampion, ally, neutral, sceptic or blocker — and how firmly.

Distinction

Positions are stated; interests are underlying

A finance director's stated position may be 'this project is not a priority this year'. The interest behind it might be avoiding an overspend that lands in an audit, protecting a team already at capacity, or not having been consulted early enough to feel ownership. Positions are hard to move by argument; interests can often be met another way. Most negotiation failures come from arguing with the position instead of asking what sits behind it.

Incentives

Ask what their week looks like

People behave rationally within the incentives they face, which are frequently not the ones the organisation intends. A manager measured on quarterly delivery will not release staff to a transformation programme, however much they believe in it. If you want different behaviour, either change the incentive or design your ask to fit the one that exists.

Placement

Sort by power and interest, then act differently

The classic power–interest grid is crude and useful. What matters is that each quadrant gets a different strategy: you do not manage a high-power sceptic the way you manage an enthusiastic junior ally. Map positions honestly — including people who are against you — and revisit the map, because positions move.

High power · High interestEngage closelyCo-design with them. They can make or break the initiative and they care about the outcome.

High power · Low interestKeep satisfiedBrief them early and briefly. Surprise is what turns them into blockers.

Low power · High interestInvolve and informYour source of energy, evidence and legitimacy. Often becomes your coalition.

Low power · Low interestMonitorLight touch — but check the map again when circumstances shift.

Power to affect the outcome · Interest in the outcome

Key takeaway

Map interests and incentives, not just names and job titles. Positions are what people say; interests are what you can actually work with.

Practical Exercise

Build actor cards for five people relevant to a live initiative, place them on a power–interest grid, and identify one person whose position you believe could shift and what would shift it.

Summary

Actor mapping records stated positions, underlying interests, incentives and likely moves, then sorts actors by power and interest so each quadrant gets a different strategy.

Resources for this lesson

Web link

Lesson content: 1.3 Mapping Actors: Interests, Incentives and Positions

Open resource

Lesson 4

2.1 Where Power Actually Comes From

04

QUADRAEDGELead with Power Moves

Module 2 · Lesson 2.1

Where Power Actually Comes From

Authority is only one source of power, and rarely the strongest. Knowing the other five tells you what you already have and what you need to borrow.

DiagnosePositionAct

InventorySix sources, most of them available without a promotion.

AsymmetryDifferent actors hold different sources — and value them differently.

BuildNetwork and narrative power can be grown deliberately.

Sources

Six kinds, drawn from decades of research

The classic bases of power described by French and Raven — position, reward, coercion, expertise, reference and information — still hold up, with two additions that matter in modern organisations: network power and narrative power. Most leaders instinctively reach for the source they hold most of, which is why senior people over-rely on authority and specialists over-rely on expertise.

Practice

Match the source to the situation

Positional authority works for routine decisions inside your remit and fails across boundaries. Expertise persuades peers but irritates those who feel lectured. Network power — being the person who connects others — is often decisive in matrix organisations where nobody can instruct anybody. Narrative power decides which problems get treated as urgent at all.

Growth

What you can build in a quarter

Expertise, network and narrative are the buildable ones. Deliberately invest in a small number of cross-boundary relationships before you need them; make yourself the person who reliably knows what is happening in two directions; and get your framing of the problem into circulation early, because the first credible framing usually sets the terms of the argument.

PositionFormal authority to decide, approve or allocate. Strong inside your remit, weak across boundaries.

ResourceControl of budget, staff, time, access or tools others need. Quietly the most common form of leverage.

ExpertiseKnowledge others depend on. Persuades peers; can provoke resistance if used to close down debate.

RelationshipTrust, reputation and the willingness of others to give you the benefit of the doubt.

NetworkPosition between groups that do not otherwise talk. Brokers see earlier and connect faster.

NarrativeThe ability to define what the problem is. Whoever frames the question shapes the answer.

Key takeaway

Authority is one source among six. Leaders with limited formal power win by building expertise, relationships, network position and narrative.

Practical Exercise

Score yourself and two key counterparts across the six power sources. Identify one source you will deliberately build over the next quarter and the specific actions you will take.

Summary

Power comes from position, resources, expertise, relationships, network position and narrative. Matching the source to the situation matters more than holding a senior title.

Resources for this lesson

Web link

Lesson content: 2.1 Where Power Actually Comes From

Open resource

Lesson 5

2.2 Coalitions: Allies, Brokers and Loyal Opponents

05

QUADRAEDGELead with Power Moves

Module 2 · Lesson 2.2

Coalitions: Allies, Brokers and Loyal Opponents

You rarely need everyone. You need enough of the right people, connected in the right order, before the decision is taken.

DiagnosePositionAct

SequenceWho you talk to first shapes what everyone else hears.

BrokersThe people who connect groups are worth more than their rank suggests.

OpponentsA respected opponent improves your proposal and legitimises it.

Composition

Build for credibility, not just for numbers

A useful coalition combines someone with formal authority, someone with technical credibility, someone trusted by the people who will have to implement, and ideally someone whose support is surprising. That last one carries disproportionate weight: when a known sceptic backs your proposal, it stops being your proposal and starts being a shared one.

Sequencing

Order is a strategy

Approach the person whose early support unlocks others, and approach them privately, with something to react to rather than a finished plan. People who shape a proposal defend it; people presented with one critique it. Take care with sequence sensitivities — someone who learns about your initiative from a colleague rather than from you may oppose it purely on that basis.

Opposition

Engage your opponents early

Loyal opponents — people who disagree openly and argue in good faith — are an asset. They surface the weakness your allies are too polite to mention, and if you incorporate their point genuinely you often convert them or at least neutralise them. Ambushing an opponent in a meeting may win the meeting and will cost you the next three.

Key takeaway

Coalitions are built by sequence and composition, not by broadcast. Bring opponents in early and give every ally something concrete to do.

Practical Exercise

Write a coalition plan for a live objective: four members with distinct forms of credibility, the order you will approach them, what each unlocks, and how you will engage your most credible opponent.

Summary

Effective coalitions combine authority, expertise, implementer trust and surprising support, are built in a deliberate sequence, and engage opponents early rather than around them.

Resources for this lesson

Web link

Lesson content: 2.2 Coalitions: Allies, Brokers and Loyal Opponents

Open resource

Lesson 6

2.3 Framing: Making Your Issue Their Issue

06

QUADRAEDGELead with Power Moves

Module 2 · Lesson 2.3

Framing: Making Your Issue Their Issue

The same proposal succeeds or fails depending on which problem it is presented as solving. Framing is the cheapest lever you have — and the easiest to misuse.

DiagnosePositionAct

TranslateConnect your objective to what your audience is measured on.

CompeteAttention is scarce; your issue competes with everything else.

Stay honestFraming selects emphasis. It does not invent facts.

Principle

Same substance, different entry point

A data quality project is a compliance risk to the board, a reporting burden to programme staff, an audit exposure to finance and a credibility question to the donor. All four are true. Choosing which to lead with for which audience is translation, not spin — provided every version would survive being read by the others.

Craft

Three things a frame needs

A problem the audience already accepts as real, a causal story linking it to your proposal, and a proportionate ask. Frames fail when the audience does not accept the problem, when the link feels contrived, or when the ask is bigger than the problem justifies. Concrete beats abstract: one traceable example usually moves a room further than a summary statistic.

Timing

Frames travel through people

The first credible framing of a new problem tends to set the terms for everyone who arrives later, which is why getting yours into circulation early matters. Give allies a short, repeatable version they can carry into rooms you are not in — if your framing only works when you deliver it, it will not scale.

Key takeaway

Framing translates your objective into the problems your audiences already care about. Legitimate framing survives all its versions being read together.

Practical Exercise

Write four one-sentence frames of a live objective for four different audiences, then have a colleague read all four and confirm none contradicts another.

Summary

Framing connects an objective to problems the audience already accepts. It selects emphasis honestly, travels through allies, and must survive comparison across audiences.

Resources for this lesson

Web link

Lesson content: 2.3 Framing: Making Your Issue Their Issue

Open resource

Lesson 7

3.1 Timing, Windows and the Discipline of Small Wins

07

QUADRAEDGELead with Power Moves

Module 3 · Lesson 3.1

Timing, Windows and the Discipline of Small Wins

The same proposal that dies in March passes in September. Political skill is largely the ability to recognise and prepare for that difference.

DiagnosePositionAct

WindowsOpenings created by budgets, crises, arrivals and departures.

ReadinessWindows favour those with a worked-up proposal already waiting.

Small winsMomentum and evidence beat a single decisive push.

Openings

What creates a window

John Kingdon's account of policy change describes windows opening when a recognised problem, an available solution and political willingness align. In organisations the triggers are mundane and predictable: budget cycles, strategy refreshes, a new senior arrival looking for a signature initiative, an audit finding, a near-miss, a competitor's move, a departure that removes a blocker. Most of these are visible weeks or months ahead.

Readiness

Have the solution ready before the problem lands

Windows close fast and reward preparation, not invention. Keep your proposal drafted, costed and reviewed so that when the opening appears you are attaching a ready answer to a newly urgent problem. The leader who produces a credible two-page option within a day of a crisis usually sets the agenda for the response.

Sequencing

Small wins compound

Where a big ask will not pass, a small reversible one often will — a pilot, a single team, one quarter. Small wins generate the evidence that makes the larger case, build the coalition through participation, and reduce the perceived risk of the next step. They also fail cheaply, which is what makes sceptics willing to let you try.

Key takeaway

Timing is a skill, not luck. Watch for windows, keep a worked-up proposal ready, and use small reversible wins to build the case for the large one.

Practical Exercise

Identify three windows in the coming year for a live objective. For the most promising, write a backwards plan covering what must be prepared, who must be aligned, and one small win you could secure beforehand.

Summary

Change happens when problem, solution and willingness align. Leaders prepare proposals in advance, watch predictable openings, and use small reversible wins to build evidence and coalition.

Resources for this lesson

Web link

Lesson content: 3.1 Timing, Windows and the Discipline of Small Wins

Open resource

Lesson 8

3.2 Influence or Manipulation: Drawing the Line

08

QUADRAEDGELead with Power Moves

Module 3 · Lesson 3.2

Influence or Manipulation: Drawing the Line

Every technique in this course can be used to serve an organisation or to serve only yourself. The line is real, and it is worth being able to state precisely.

DiagnosePositionAct

TransparencyWould you be comfortable if they knew what you were doing?

AgencyDoes the other person keep a genuine ability to say no?

PurposeWhose interest does the outcome serve?

Test

Three questions that hold up under pressure

First, the disclosure test: if this person saw your actor map and your sequencing plan, would you be embarrassed? Preparation is legitimate; concealment of purpose is not. Second, the agency test: are you giving them information and reasons, or engineering a situation where refusing is effectively impossible? Third, the purpose test: if the initiative succeeds, who benefits — the mission, the organisation, or mainly you? Any one failure is a warning; two is a decision to reconsider.

Distinction

Power over and power with

Power over compels or constrains. Power with builds shared capability and legitimacy. Both exist in every organisation and both are sometimes necessary — sometimes you must simply use your authority. But leaders who default to power over accumulate compliance and lose discretionary effort, which is precisely the thing no organisation can compel.

Culture

You are also setting the norm

How you use political skill teaches everyone watching what is normal here. A leader who wins by ambush creates an organisation of ambushes. One who wins by early consultation, honest framing and genuine incorporation of opposition creates a place where good proposals surface earlier. Your method outlasts your individual wins.

LegitimateInfluenceUnderstanding interests, sequencing conversations, framing honestly, building coalitions, choosing timing.

Not legitimateManipulationWithholding material information, misrepresenting positions to third parties, engineered ambushes, exploiting dependence, private commitments that contradict public ones.

Key takeaway

Influence respects the other person's information and their freedom to refuse. If your plan only works while hidden, it is manipulation and it is fragile.

Practical Exercise

Write your own three-line standard for political practice — what you will always do, what you will never do, and how you will check yourself. Share it with one colleague who will hold you to it.

Summary

The line between influence and manipulation runs through transparency, the other party's genuine agency, and whose interest the outcome serves. Method sets organisational norms.

Resources for this lesson

Web link

Lesson content: 3.2 Influence or Manipulation: Drawing the Line

Open resource

Lesson 9

3.3 Everyday Practice: Meetings, Budgets and Reorganisations

09

QUADRAEDGELead with Power Moves

Module 3 · Lesson 3.3

Everyday Practice: Meetings, Budgets and Reorganisations

Political economy analysis is not an annual exercise. It is a set of habits you apply to the ordinary decisions that make up a leadership week.

DiagnosePositionAct

BeforeFifteen minutes of actor thinking before any consequential meeting.

DuringWatch positions move; the room is data.

AfterUpdate the map. Positions change and yours will go stale.

Routine

Three settings where it pays immediately

Meetings: know before you walk in who needs to speak, who must not be surprised, and what a good outcome looks like if you cannot get everything. Budgets: the budget is the organisation's real strategy, and the conversation is about relative position as much as absolute numbers — understand what each holder is protecting. Reorganisations: these are the most political events in organisational life, because reporting lines, status and job security move at once. Assume every conversation is being read through that lens, because it is.

Habit

A fifteen-minute pre-meeting routine

Who is in the room and what does each want from this decision? Whose support do I need and have I spoken to them beforehand? What is the strongest objection and what is my honest answer? What is my minimum acceptable outcome? Four questions, a quarter of an hour, and a markedly better hit rate.

Learning

Keep the map alive

After each significant decision, note what you predicted and what actually happened. Which actor surprised you? Which incentive did you misread? Over a year this becomes the most accurate model of your organisation anyone holds — and, unlike a training course, it is specific to your context.

Key takeaway

Political skill compounds through small habits — a quarter of an hour before the meetings that matter, and an honest note afterwards about what you got wrong.

Practical Exercise

Apply the four-question routine to three real meetings this fortnight. Log your prediction and the actual outcome for each, then write what your errors have in common.

Summary

Applied routinely to meetings, budgets and restructures — and reviewed honestly afterwards — political analysis becomes a compounding leadership habit rather than a one-off exercise.

Resources for this lesson

Web link

Lesson content: 3.3 Everyday Practice: Meetings, Budgets and Reorganisations

Open resource