Koch Power StruggleAs Luthans et al. (2015) show, “trust building matches the principles of empowerment” (p. 325), and in the Koch family, trust was very highly prized. For Bill, trust was lost when he constantly went against Charles in every decision that he made (Haneberg, 2012). Bill’s source of power within Koch Industries was coercive and when he stopped having any sort of influence, he was ousted. Charles’ power was more legitimate—because he had an important role in the company and was a real decision maker—i.e., people depended on his words and actions for their livelihood (Bauer & Erdogan, 2012), and his power was also based on the concept of expert power: he demonstrated leadership, knowledge, ability, and strategic oversight—all of which are essential elements of legitimate and expert power (Bauer & Erdogan, 2012). At the same time, he had coercive power—meaning that he could take away someone’s job or role in the business (like Bill’s) if he felt there was too little compliance on the latter’s part. For that reason, Charles expected conformity and he himself was also more willing to engage in conformity and he expected it of his younger brother too. Conformity was really key to understanding the Koch issues, and as a basis of being accepted by the power brokers in the family (for instance, the father), one had to be willing to conform to the ideas and expectations that were dictated from the top (Bauer & Erdogan, 2012). Charles was willing to do that and Bill was not.

Bill complained about how money was spent, was always dissatisfied with his cut (dividends were never enough, and even after he was bought out from the company he came back and sued, arguing he was bought out for too little and deserved more money). His main source of power was simply the fact that he was part of the Koch family—but when his antics began to wear on the much more business-minded Charles, Bill was finally sent packing and his power dissipated in an instant. It was, in short, more ephemeral than real. Few in the business were dependent upon Bill or relied upon him to do anything. His voice was of little consequence and the only real input he ever had was negative and self-serving,...

Because Bill lacked dependency power (and because he was short-sighted and motivated by greed), he could be bought out—for a while.
One of Charles’ main influence tactics in his battle for control was to cultivate a strong support network, which is a good way to be influential in business (Bauer & Erdogan, 2012). Charles had the company’s core interests in mind and was respected by stakeholders—especially since he was willing to put money back into the company (instead of simply handing it out to Bill whenever Bill desired it). For this reason, Charles was also much more adept at making allies than was Bill, whose whole attitude was more self-centered than it was other-centered (which is why he was ultimately a problem for the business in the first place). Charles had the presence of mind to know that if you wanted to succeed you had to be on the right side of the power and he understood implicitly that power was ultimately rooted in the people within in and around the business and not solely just in his name or in his relation to his father. Therefore, Charles never ruffled feathers with his father or with those in the business who could serve as support network members.

Bill on the other hand, did not realize where real power comes from: he assumed that his position in the family, his standing as a Koch son, was enough to give him power—enough to make his voice be heard. He felt that if he wanted things a certain way, it should be done that way and there was no more to it than that. He did not take into consideration how his ideas would impact stakeholders or how the business might benefit or suffer as a result. His viewpoint was narrow and his objectives were typically limited towards being pleasing to himself.

Both brothers were willing to use hardball tactics, however—which means they were willing to dispense with negotiations and get the law involved if necessary (Bauer & Erdogan, 2012). With so many billions of dollars at stake this is not surprising, and considering the bad blood within the family that stemmed from individuals taking sides and clashing to the…