Equity, Voice, and the Subtle Power Dynamics in Organisations

Equity does more than distribute financial upside in an organisation – it quietly redistributes power.

Formal power tends to be defined by role: title, reporting lines, decision rights. But in many organisations, particularly partnerships and private-equity backed firms, equity introduces another layer of influence. Ownership creates a different kind of voice – one that is often heard more clearly, more quickly, and often with greater consequence.

This dynamic becomes particularly visible when viewed through the lens of speaking up. The research of Megan Reitz and John Higgins shows that whether people speak up is rarely about courage alone; it is about perceived safety and the likelihood of being heard. When individuals hold equity, the calculus can shift. Owners are structurally harder to ignore. Their stake can legitimise challenge, giving them both psychological permission and organisational protection to question decisions.

But equity can also create a different silence – the silence between owners themselves.

In many partnerships there is an implicit contract not to “rock the boat” with fellow partners. Equity ties individuals together financially and reputationally; challenging a colleague’s behaviour or decisions can feel like challenging the stability of the collective asset. The result can be a subtle mutual restraint. Issues are softened, delayed, or redirected. The conversation happens in corridors rather than in the room.

Those without equity read these dynamics closely. The same concern voiced by a partner can be interpreted as stewardship; when voiced by a salaried employee it may feel like dissent. Over time this shapes who contributes to strategic conversations and whose silence becomes normalised.

This is where the work of Alison Reynolds on conversational habits becomes particularly relevant. Reynolds’ research shows that organisational performance is heavily shaped by the patterns of conversation leaders create – who is invited into the dialogue, who gets airtime, whose ideas are built upon. Equity can unintentionally harden these patterns. Owners may dominate airtime not only because they choose to, but because others defer to the authority implied by their stake.

The risk is not malicious behaviour but structural drift. When equity and voice become tightly coupled, organisations may gradually lose access to perspectives from those closest to clients, operations, or emerging risks. At the same time, the group at the top may become more cautious with one another than their governance structures assume.

For leaders, the implication is uncomfortable but important: structures and formal roles might suggest that some partners carry more weight as decision-makers, but conversational dynamics often tell a more complex story. If equity shapes whose voice carries weight, and whose voice hesitates, then performance depends on actively designing an environment in which challenge and open conversation are both legitimate and expected.

Ownership should create accountability. But it should not quietly become the price of admission to being heard, nor the reason partners hesitate to challenge each other when it matters most.

If you’re curious and want to explore contact Tamsin Howells  (tamsin.howells@mm-k.com).

Back to News