Control and Influence: Why They Matter More Than Ever

In 1983, I wrote a doctoral dissertation comparing Organizational Control Graph Theory with individual control data. This theory, based on Arnold Tannenbaum‘s groundbreaking research from the 1960s, examined how control and influence are distributed across different levels of organizations.

Tannenbaum’s research remains strikingly relevant today, particularly in the face of shifting business and political dynamics. His findings highlighted a crucial truth: the success of an organization is not determined by who has the most control but rather by how much total control exists within the organization.

Control and Influence Key Findings Made Clearer:

Tannenbaum discovered that organizational structures followed different patterns, for example:

1. Autocratic organizations: Top executives maintain high levels of influence and control—middle managers have about half as much, leaving very little for frontline employees.
2. Democratic/participative organizations: Leadership has only slightly more control than members (as seen in labor unions), with influence more evenly distributed.

The 60s marked the beginning of emphasizing more democratic (participative) organizations. His research found that what made organizations more productive was not which group had the most control or influence (the angle of the curve) but rather which organization had the most total control (the total area under the curve).

The Power of Total Influence

Tannenbaum’s research demonstrated that organizations with greater total influence—where executives, managers, and employees all felt they had a voice—were significantly more successful.

Decades later, research continues to support this finding. One of the authors replicated Tannenbaum’s study at the individual level, examining managers, their bosses, and their direct reports. The results were clear: managers who felt they had an appropriate level of influence were not only more effective but also more likely to be promoted.

New Insights from Team Research in Control and Influence

Building upon this foundation, we analyzed data from 213 teams using the Extraordinary Team assessment, which measures team effectiveness across 16 capabilities. The assessment also captures the engagement levels of team members, with an average of eight respondents per team. Participants rated the influence and control held by:

• The manager of the team leader
• The team leader
• Team members

By aggregating these scores, we measured total influence within each team and compared it to two critical outcomes: employee engagement and overall team effectiveness.

The findings were unambiguous: teams with the highest levels of total influence had significantly greater engagement and effectiveness.

Simply put, when people feel they have influence over decisions and actions, they are more engaged, more committed, and more willing to put in their best effort. Influence fosters a sense of value and autonomy—both essential ingredients for high-performing teams.

The Shift Toward Authoritarian Organizations

Despite decades of research supporting participative leadership, some organizations today are trending toward more authoritarian structures. Workplace surveillance, centralized decision-making, and AI-driven control systems are becoming increasingly common. The gig economy and warehouse operations, for instance, often leave workers with minimal input over their work. The decline in union membership further reflects a broader reduction in employee influence.

While authoritarian structures offer the advantage of speed—decisions are made quickly without the friction of consensus-building—they come with significant downsides. When employees lack control, their engagement plummets. Decision-makers at the top may believe their approach is effective, but the reality is that when those responsible for implementing decisions feel powerless, productivity and morale suffer.

Tannenbaum’s control graph theory predicted this outcome decades ago: when control and influence are limited, engagement declines and organizational effectiveness follows suit. Moreover, diverse perspectives lead to better decisions, and top-down decision-making misses out on the collective wisdom within an organization.

The Unavoidable Truth About Control

If an authoritarian organization had a perfect leader who always made flawless decisions, perhaps the control graph theory would be irrelevant. But after 40 years of assessing and evaluating leaders, we have yet to meet one who is perfect.

The data is clear: more influence means higher engagement, smarter decisions, and greater success. The real question is—do today’s leaders have the courage to let go and trust their teams?

-Joe Folkman, President of Zenger Folkman

This article first appeared in Joe Folkman’s Leadership Psychometrics Newsletter.