What Is Asymmetrical Power?

In institutional power relationships, balance is never equal.
The Power Mesh is built on these relationships — between elected and appointed leaders and those they lead. Leaders always carry the weight of the institution behind them: its resources, its legitimacy, and its “bully pulpit.”

This gives them an inherent advantage.
But followers are not powerless.

Followers also have forms of institutional power. Some are situational — like voting. Others are ongoing — like speaking up, organizing, protesting, or leaving. And if you believe these are inalienable rights, then they exist even inside the most autocratic institutions.

How followers use — or fail to use — their power shapes much of what happens in The Mesh.

The Leader–Follower Imbalance: Power1 + Power2

In the Power Mesh, elected and appointed leaders draw on two major forms of power:

Power2:

The authority of the office — control of resources, access to decision-making channels, the ability to set strategy, define policies, and shape culture. Leaders signal what’s safe, acceptable, rewarded, or punished.

They also have institutional megaphones.
They have incumbency advantage.
They have the tools to entrench their position — sometimes subtly, sometimes not.

Many are handed the metaphorical saber, sword, ring, or wand well before they’ve learned how to wield it responsibly. Institutional power is a profound responsibility — and few people are fully prepared for the weight of it.

Power1:

Leaders’ personal qualities — strengths such as experience, knowledge, networks, trustworthiness, and communication skills. These qualities make Power2 more (or less) effective.

Other Power1 boosters come from cultural preferences. In Western Caucasian-majority cultures, the scale often tips further toward leaders who are tall, white, male, attractive, extroverted, wealthy, telegenic, or credentialed.

Few leaders check all the boxes — but when they do, the imbalance deepens.

Cultural preferences shift across generations and political eras, but every society tilts the scale in some particular direction. Increasingly, “street smarts” and “instinct” now compete with formal education and science as markers of authority.

And then there is Power3.

Leaders also possess Psychological Power — the ability to stir hope, fear, loyalty, resentment, identity, and destiny. This emotional force becomes especially potent when power is asymmetric.

Power3 will be the focus of several future articles.

What Power Do Followers Have?

Power in the Mesh functions like currency. Leaders hold much of it — but not all.

Followers in modern democracies and businesses have institutional powers and rights that give them voice and leverage:

Voting power (public elections and shareholder votes)
The right to peaceful protest
Union power
Freedom of speech and expression
Whistleblower protections
The right to quit

Every time followers use these rights, the balance shifts.

The challenge?
Unlike leaders, followers can choose not to use their power.

Dependency can feel easier. Cynicism can feel safer.
But passivity effectively hands power to others and deepens the imbalance.

The data is sobering:

65.3% of U.S. citizens voted in the 2024 election — 34.7% did not.
29.8% of individual investors vote at shareholder meetings — 70.2% do not.
44.7% of crime victims press charges — 55.3% do not.

Unused institutional power leaves decisions in someone else’s hands.

And followers, like leaders, also bring Power1 — their personal experience, knowledge, values, networks, and courage — into the Mesh. Yet many underestimate their own influence.

In today’s rapidly shifting Power Mesh, this lack of self-awareness fuels the widespread sense of powerlessness we see today.

Crucial debates about AI, climate, wealth concentration, national security, demographics, and the future of democracy are happening now.

We cannot afford a citizenry — or workforce — that undervalues its influence.
Recognizing and using personal power is becoming not just a right, but a civic, economic, and moral necessity.

The Bottom Line

Power in the Mesh is asymmetric — but outcomes are always co-created.

Leaders can wield institutional power responsibly — or they can misuse, abdicate, distort, or abuse it.
But what ultimately happens also depends on followers:
What they do — and what they allow.

The future of any institution, organization, or nation depends on both sides of the equation.

Whether you are a leader or a citizen, a boss or an employee, your choices shape today’s reality and tomorrow’s legacy. Being an active participant in The Power Mesh isn’t just a responsibility — it’s an ongoing adventure and a vital development opportunity.

It’s one we’ll explore together in the months ahead.

🔜 Next in the Series

The Power Mesh: A 21st Century Tower of Babel

Thank you for reading. This is a new Substack publication, and I welcome your comments, feedback, and referrals.

— Pat McLagan