Who initiates power conflict in groups? The distinct effect of middle power team members

Power struggles are pervasive in organizational teams, yet theory remains divided on who initiates them. Building on Approach-Inhibition-Avoidance Theory of Power, I argue that middle power members are especially likely to initiate power struggles because they must continually switch between upward and downward role expectations, which heightens role conflict and increases the likelihood of behavior that violates hierarchical norms. I test this argument against competition-based accounts that focus on high and low power members using round-robin field data from 66 organizations in the Netherlands (137 teams; 685 employees). Power is measured with both self-rated and peer-rated influence and dependence, and initiation of power struggles is captured with a four-item scale assessing members’ propensity to start competition for influence and control over resources. Random-effects models accounting for team and organization clustering show an inverted-U relationship between peer-rated power and power-struggle initiation, such that middle power members initiate the most power struggles. Results based on self-rated power are weaker and more linear, suggesting that perceived versus socially conferred power differentially predicts power-struggle initiation. These findings identify middle power members as pivotal instigators of power struggles and refine theory on how power hierarchies generate conflict in teams.