The Power Matrix

When a group tries to decide, deliberate, or coordinate, several different kinds of power are always in play — whether anyone notices or not. The Power Matrix, developed by Cecile Green, is a tool for seeing them, so a group can tell when power is out of balance and do something about it.

The four forms

Green starts from a deliberately broad definition — power as “the force of enactment” — and then picks out four forms that matter most when people work together, arranged on two axes:

• Autonomous power (top) ↔ Collective power (bottom) — power held and exercised by an individual versus by the group.
• Implicit power (left) ↔ Explicit power (right) — power that operates unspoken versus power that’s named and visible.

All four are active at once. The point of the matrix is diagnostic: which kinds of power are dominant right now? Is there an imbalance, or “congestion” — someone using too much autonomous power when the moment calls for collective power, or the reverse? Naming it turns a vague discomfort into something a group can actually act on.

Why it’s useful

Most groups have no shared language for power, so it stays invisible and unexamined — which is exactly how imbalances calcify. A simple, common map lets a group surface and rebalance power deliberately, rather than re-enacting old patterns. It pairs naturally with the idea that sharing power well is a skill that has to be practised, not just declared — see the Commoning Standard.

Sources

• Cecile Green, “The Organizational Power Matrix: Toward a Metapraxis of Power” — Journal of Integral Theory and Practice (2013).
• Cecile Green & Seth Frey on the Commoning Standard — Democracy Innovators Podcast (2026): youtube.com/watch?v=0ekd-5YuHHE