Article

Home Archive "Article"
Power Over vs. Power With: A Freedom-Oriented Take on Leadership and Influence
Article

Power Over vs. Power With: A Freedom-Oriented Take on Leadership and Influence

In a recent podcast episode of Diary of a CEO, Brené Brown discussed something that strikes at the heart of how we organise ourselves in free societies and companies alike — the difference between power over and power with. In her framing:

“Power over is driven by fear. Daring and transformative leaders share power with, empower people to, and inspire people to develop power within.”

For those of us who lean into a libertarian or freedom-centric outlook, this distinction is especially pertinent. It helps us to see how authority, organisation, and voluntary association can align with respect for individual agency, rather than undermining it.

What do we mean by Power Over and Power With?

  • Power Over: This is the form of influence rooted in control, coercion, hierarchy, and fear. When you rule by decreeing, by forcing compliance, or by limiting choice, you’re exercising power-over. Brown emphasises that the danger of power lies not in the concept of power itself, but in how it is used.
  • Power With: In contrast, this is collaborative, enabling, shared power. It arises when individuals or groups coordinate, support each other, share authority, and foster each other’s capacity. Brown says this is the kind of power that builds teams, organisations and societies where people feel alive, capable and free.

The libertarian lens values this distinction because it aligns with the idea that social cooperation should be voluntary, decentralised, and based on consent — not coercion.

Why Power Over is inherently fragile

From a freedom-perspective, power over is unstable for several reasons:

  1. Dependence on fear and compliance
    When people are held in line by force or threat, you simultaneously breed resentment, resistance and hidden failure. Brown points out that power-over “is driven by fear.”
  2. Concentration of authority invites corruption and failure
    When a few hold all the power, the system becomes brittle. Oversight collapses. Mistakes are hidden. The ability to adapt is weakened.
  3. It undermines agency and innovation
    If individuals are always subject to command, they stop thinking, stop owning their work, stop experimenting. From a market or entrepreneurial standpoint, that is a recipe for stagnation.

Thus, power over not only conflicts with the ideal of individual autonomy, but it also weakens the systems (businesses, economies, communities) that depend on free actors making choices.

Why Power With aligns with free-market, free-society thinking

When we shift to “power with”, we see dynamics that mirror healthy markets and voluntary institutions:

  • Distributed decision-making: Just as in a functioning market many actors make many decisions rather than a central planner, power with encourages many individuals to share in decisions rather than one commander.
  • Mutual benefit and voluntary participation: Power-with is not about forcing people; it is about enabling people to contribute, to choose, to exchange.
  • Resilience and adaptability: Just as free markets adapt faster because knowledge is dispersed and decisions made locally, organisations exercising power-with can respond more nimbly because actors are empowered.
  • Ethical alignment: Libertarian thought emphasises that freedom means not simply being free from controls, but being free for something — for experimentation, for responsibility, for creative contribution. Power-with fosters that sense of purpose.

In short: power with is not only morally preferable in a freedom-oriented worldview, but it is pragmatically superior in environments where innovation, cooperation and human dignity matter.

Applying the concept in business and society

Let’s explore how this idea can be put into practice in organisations, markets and public life.

Business & entrepreneurship

  • Replace top-down mandates (“do exactly this”) with frameworks that articulate goals (“here is what we need to achieve”) and give teams latitude in the how.
  • Empower employees to propose, decide and act. If you hire smart people, trust them. This mirrors the liberty ideal of individual agency.
  • Use incentives not as sticks but as aligned interests: when individuals feel they own the outcomes and the process, they invest more deeply.
  • Make governance transparent and accountable: power with requires that actors know the rules and share in shaping them.

Markets & regulation

  • Markets thrive when power is diffused rather than concentrated: monopolies, regulatory capture and privileged elites are manifestations of power-over.
  • A regulatory regime that asks “how can we enable more actors to participate safely?” rather than “how do we control all actors?” embodies power-with.
  • Free markets are not chaos: they flourish with predictable rules, property rights, contract enforcement — but those rules should enable, not subsume, voluntary exchange.

Civil society & public institutions

  • Public institutions oriented around service rather than control better reflect the power-with mindset.
  • Civic organisations, communities of practice, networks of mutual support: these are voluntary and share power, they don’t impose it.
  • Even when governments exist (from a libertarian realism), their legitimacy depends on limiting power over (protecting rights) and promoting power with (enabling citizens).

A caution: power with is not laissez-faire anarchy

It’s important to clarify that power-with is not the same as “no structure or rule.” A free society still needs frameworks: laws, property rights, enforcement. The difference is:

  • The purpose of the frameworks is to enable freedom and cooperation, not to control or centralise it.
  • The governance approach favours subsidiarity, decentralisation, minimal coercion and maximum individual choice.
  • Leaders view their role as stewards or facilitators, not overlords.

Brown writes:

“What makes power dangerous is how it’s used.”

For libertarian thought, that means we never treat power as neutral — every structure that grants power requires scrutiny, transparency and the possibility to share or withdraw it.

Concluding reflections

From the freedom-oriented perspective, the distinction between power over and power with is deeply meaningful. It’s not just about leadership style; it’s about the underlying philosophy of how we organise ourselves—whether in companies, societies or economic systems.

When power is used over others, we create dependency, fragility and oppression. When power is shared with others, we create agency, resilience and dignity.

In the words of Brown, courageous leaders don’t protect their power—they distribute it. That insight aligns with the libertarian belief that liberty is not only a moral value but an organising principle. Empowered individuals cooperating by choice—rather than coerced individuals obeying orders—are the cornerstone of healthy, dynamic, free human systems.

In your organisation, your market, your community: ask yourself — Am I wielding power over or am I cultivating power with? Because the future of freedom, innovation and cooperation may depend on how you answer that question.

Sources

Free Markets: More Than an Ideological Slogan
Article

Free Markets: More Than an Ideological Slogan

Say “free market” and many people picture Wall Street, speculators, or ruthless capitalism. But for thinkers in the philosophy of individual freedom, it means something much broader.

To them, the market isn’t a playground for big corporations — it’s a network of millions of small voluntary exchanges: from the local baker to the freelance developer, from the bike repair shop to global webshops. The core elements are:

  • private property
  • voluntary exchange
  • prices as information signals
  • entrepreneurs taking risks

In this view, the free market is simply the economic expression of personal liberty.
If you own your time, skills, and belongings, you should be free to exchange them with others — as long as you respect their rights.

It sounds philosophical, but the real question is: does it work?

How Economic Freedom Becomes a Growth Engine

1. Knowledge Is Decentralized — and Markets Can Handle That

Friedrich Hayek, one of the most influential pro-market thinkers, argued that no government or planning body can ever possess all the knowledge needed to run a complex economy. Real insights — customer preferences, local conditions, emerging ideas — live in millions of individual minds.

The market solves this through what he called “spontaneous order”:

  • Prices compress information (scarcity, demand, opportunities).
  • Entrepreneurs react to these signals.
  • Good ideas survive; bad ideas fade.

This order isn’t designed by a single authority — it emerges from countless individual decisions.
That’s why markets often outperform central planning: they process distributed knowledge far more efficiently.

2. Competition Drives Innovation

The evidence on this is strong: competition and innovation are tightly linked.

  • OECD studies show that strong competition forces companies to innovate, leading directly to higher welfare and economic growth.
  • Empirical research finds that competitive environments correlate with higher long-term growth, especially in tech-driven economies.
  • Nobel Prize–winning economists Philippe Aghion and Peter Howitt formalized this as “creative destruction”: new businesses and technologies push old ones aside, creating long-term progress.

Free-market thinkers embrace this dynamic: the easier it is for people to start, grow, or fail at business, the more innovative and resilient an economy becomes.

3. Voluntary Exchange Creates Wealth

From a freedom-oriented perspective, the logic is simple: two parties trade voluntarily only if both expect to benefit. That applies to:

  • customer ↔ business
  • worker ↔ employer
  • investor ↔ entrepreneur

The cumulative effect of millions of voluntary exchanges creates prosperity without central administration.
To libertarian thinkers, this is why free markets tend to produce far more wealth over time than centrally planned alternatives.

What Libertarian Thinkers Say About It

Milton Friedman: Freedom + Markets = Prosperity

Nobel laureate Milton Friedman argued that individual freedom, open markets, and a stable currency historically create the highest levels of prosperity.

He linked three ideas:

  1. Economic freedom (choosing your job, contracts, business).
  2. Political freedom (reduced risk of authoritarianism when the state doesn’t control the economy).
  3. Material prosperity (better products, higher living standards).

For him, free markets were not tools for corporate power — they were mechanisms that limit all forms of centralized control, public or private.

Institutions of Economic Freedom

Organizations like the Cato Institute and Libertarianism.org emphasize three pillars:

  • strong property rights
  • voluntary exchange
  • minimal distortion through regulation or political favoritism

The Libertarian Party articulates it clearly: people should be free to earn an honest living through voluntary exchange, without unnecessary licensing barriers or bureaucratic restrictions.

How Free Markets Positively Shape an Economy

1. Higher Growth and Productivity

Innovation research is unambiguous: technological progress is one of the strongest drivers of long-term economic growth.

A freer market — with lower barriers, more competition, and easier entry — accelerates:

  • innovation
  • productivity
  • economic dynamism

In the long run, that translates into rising wages, greater consumer choice, and lower prices.

2. Better Allocation of Talent

When governments impose fewer restrictions

When governments impose fewer restrictions (permits, occupational licensing, heavy regulation), people can more easily:

  • start their own business
  • switch sectors
  • combine jobs and side projects

From a libertarian perspective this is morally right — people own their own labor — but also highly efficient: talent flows where it creates the most value.

3. Less Concentrated Power, More Choice

Free markets are often misunderstood as breeding grounds for corporate dominance. Ironically, libertarian thinkers spend a lot of time warning against crony capitalism: a system where businesses gain advantages through political connections.

A truly free market:

  • eliminates subsidies and political favoritism
  • exposes all companies to competition
  • allows consumers to decide who wins or loses

Power still exists — successful companies grow — but it remains temporary and vulnerable to competition.

But Freedom Needs Foundations

Mature free-market thinking isn’t “remove all rules and walk away.”
Economic freedom works best under a few essential conditions:

  1. Rule of Law
    Contracts must be enforceable; violence and fraud must be punished.
  2. Fair competition
    No protected monopolies, no corporate bailouts, no closed guilds.
  3. Open flow of ideas and trade
    Protectionism and heavy trade barriers slow innovation dramatically.
  4. Safety nets outside centralized control
    Many libertarians prefer social support organized through voluntary institutions, insurance models, and civil society rather than heavy-handed state systems.

Conclusion: Free Markets as an Invitation, Not a Dogma

You can critique the current economic system while still recognizing this truth:

Open markets, voluntary exchange, and entrepreneurial freedom are among the strongest engines of prosperity humans have ever discovered.

The philosophy behind economic freedom isn’t utopian.
It simply says:

The more space people have to develop their ideas, trade their skills, and build value voluntarily, the stronger, more innovative, and more resilient an economy becomes.

Not because a central planner designed it —
but because millions of individuals, each acting freely, create something far greater than any authority could ever orchestrate.

Sources:

When Freedom Walks Into the Office: How a “Hands-Off” Philosophy Is Quietly Rewiring Business
Article

When Freedom Walks Into the Office: How a “Hands-Off” Philosophy Is Quietly Rewiring Business

Walk into almost any modern office and you’ll hear the same buzzwords: ownership, autonomy, self-managing teams, flat structure.

Behind that language sits a deeper idea: maybe companies work better when power is spread out, not hoarded at the top. It’s a mindset that comes straight out of a freedom-first philosophy that normally lives in political debates – but it’s increasingly shaping how we design organizations, teams and leadership.

And unlike politics, in business the results are measurable: productivity, innovation, engagement and even profitability.

Let’s unpack how this works – without turning it into a political sermon.

The philosophy in plain business language

Stripped of theory and labels, this worldview is built on a few simple intuitions:

  1. People should have as much control as possible over their own lives and work.
  2. Power should be limited, transparent and easy to challenge.
  3. Most cooperation should be voluntary, not forced.
  4. Responsibility and decision-making belong together.

In politics, this shows up as a suspicion of centralised power and a strong emphasis on individual freedom and choice.

In companies, the same instincts turn into very practical questions:

  • Why does every decision need sign-off from three layers of management?
  • Why hire smart people and then script their every move?
  • What happens if we treat employees like adults who can self-organise?

That’s where it starts to get interesting.

Autonomy isn’t a “nice to have” – it’s a performance driver

Decades of research now say the quiet part out loud: giving people real control over their work makes companies better, not just “nicer”.

  • A systematic review of studies on job autonomy finds clear positive effects on work performance and psychological empowerment.
  • Research on self-managing organizations shows that higher decision autonomy is linked to more engagement, job satisfaction and proactive behaviour.
  • A 2024 analysis of autonomy in productivity management highlighted that organizations with high employee autonomy see around 21% higher productivity and 17% higher profitability.

Other studies on autonomy and empowerment point to:

  • higher job satisfaction and morale
  • better retention
  • more creativity and innovation
  • stronger sense of ownership and commitment

In plain English: when people are trusted to decide how they reach clear goals, they care more, think more and deliver more.

So this philosophy isn’t about beanbags and “do whatever you want”. It’s about:

Clear outcomes, wide latitude.
We’ll be strict on the “what”, flexible on the “how”.

From org chart to network: decentralisation at work

Another core idea is decentralisation: don’t stack power in one place if you can spread it out closer to reality.

In tech and governance debates, decentralisation is often described as a response to abuses of concentrated power – political or economic. In the corporate world, this shows up as new ways of organising:

Self-managed and “liberated” companies

Self-managed organisations and “liberated companies” push decision-making down to the people who actually do the work:

  • Employees organise themselves in teams that control their own budgets, schedules and priorities.
  • Managers become coaches and facilitators instead of command-and-control bosses.
  • Information is radically transparent, so teams can make good decisions without asking permission.

These companies report:

  • faster reaction to market changes
  • fewer bottlenecks
  • more innovation (because ideas don’t die in hierarchy)
  • higher engagement (because power and responsibility are aligned)

This is decentralisation in a business suit: distribute authority, keep the rules simple, and let people self-organise within clear boundaries.

Rethinking the purpose of the company: beyond just shareholders

Freedom-oriented thinking often gets caricatured as “only profit matters”. In reality, the corporate debate is more nuanced.

For decades, the dominant doctrine in boardrooms was shareholder primacy – the idea that the main legal and moral duty of a company is to maximise shareholder value.

Today, that view is under pressure from stakeholder capitalism, which argues that companies should consider the interests of employees, customers, communities and the environment – not just investors.

Interestingly, a freedom-first lens fits quite well with this shift:

  • Long-term value creation requires healthy relationships with employees, suppliers, customers and communities.
  • Contracts, reputation and voluntary cooperation become just as important as quarterly earnings.
  • Respecting property rights and voluntary exchange means you can’t simply externalise costs onto others and call it “smart business”.

The result is a more balanced model: profit as a consequence of creating real value for willing stakeholders, not as an excuse to ignore them.

What a “freedom-first” company actually looks like

All this sounds abstract until it hits the office floor. So what does it mean in practice?

1. Autonomy by design, not by accident

  • Roles come with clear goals, budgets and decision rights.
  • Employees can choose methods, tools and sometimes even teammates.
  • Management shifts from task control to outcome coaching.

2. Radical transparency

Power concentrates where information hides. So freedom-minded companies open things up:

  • Shared dashboards for financials and key metrics
  • Open calendars and internal forums instead of corridor politics
  • Clear, written decision-making processes so anyone can see how choices get made

Transparency is the silent contract that makes autonomy safe.

3. Small units, clear ownership

Instead of one monolithic structure, work is split into small, accountable units:

  • Cross-functional squads owning a product or customer segment
  • Internal “micro-businesses” with their own P&L
  • Teams free to choose partners and tools as long as they hit agreed targets

This mirrors the logic of markets on a smaller scale: lots of small decision centres instead of one giant brain.

4. Voluntary collaboration where possible

Obviously people sign an employment contract – it’s not a festival. But inside that frame, there’s more optionality:

  • Internal talent marketplaces where employees can bid for projects or rotate between teams
  • Self-selected working groups around problems or opportunities
  • Opt-in communities of practice that cut across the formal org chart

The message is: you’re here by choice, and how you contribute should feel chosen too.

5. Strong accountability, not “anything goes”

This is where the stereotypes fall apart. Freedom-first companies tend to be stricter on accountability, not looser:

  • Clear KPIs and review cycles
  • Peer feedback baked into performance management
  • Consequences when teams repeatedly miss goals or ignore agreed rules

The philosophy is simple: more freedom where there is more responsibility; fewer rules, but the rules we keep really matter.

The pitfalls: where it can go wrong

This approach isn’t magic. It comes with real risks if implemented badly:

  1. Pseudo-autonomy
    When companies talk about ownership but keep all key decisions at the top, people quickly become cynical. “Freedom” becomes another buzzword.
  2. Chaos without guardrails
    Remove hierarchy without adding clear processes, and you get confusion, not empowerment. The research is clear: autonomy works best with well-defined goals and boundaries.
  3. Exclusion by default
    In highly self-organising environments, confident voices can dominate. Without conscious inclusion, quieter or marginalised employees may get less access to information, opportunities and influence.
  4. Leadership identity crisis
    Many managers are promoted for being great problem-solvers, not system designers. Shifting to a coaching role can feel like “doing nothing” – unless companies invest in retraining leaders.

None of these problems are unique to this philosophy. But they show that autonomy and decentralisation are crafts, not slogans.

Why this matters now

The timing isn’t random. Several trends are pushing companies toward this freedom-centred approach:

  • Remote and hybrid work made micro-management harder and trust more urgent.
  • Younger workers increasingly expect flexibility, meaning and control over their time.
  • Technology has made information cheaper to share and coordination easier at scale.

Global workplace studies show that autonomy, empowerment and happiness at work are now core drivers of competitive advantage, not soft “HR topics”.

In that environment, organisations that cling to heavy top-down control start to look not just unfriendly, but inefficient.

So, is this philosophy “good for business”?

If you strip away the political labels and look only at outcomes, the trend is clear:

  • Autonomy and empowerment correlate with higher performance and profitability.
  • Self-managed and decentralised structures can boost innovation and responsiveness.
  • A broader stakeholder view, grounded in voluntary cooperation and long-term value, is slowly reshaping how boards think about corporate purpose.

That doesn’t mean every company should become a radical experiment overnight. But it does suggest that the old model – command-and-control hierarchies obsessed only with shareholder returns – is losing its edge.

The “radical” idea that people should be free, informed and responsible partners instead of obedient cogs turns out to be… good management.

In other words:

When freedom walks into the office, it doesn’t just change the culture.
It quietly rewrites the balance sheet.

Sources: