Only asymmetry could make power to ordinary employed ones, but its mechanism is almost autonomous. 
Because power means ordinarily execution as completion of any allotment each role to any employee. In other words, its boss's action in odering each one's mission is arbitrary in having no hindrance at least from another section nor any externally configulated ones in world except the one's members. Even if the boss is humane character, the thing has no effect at least to any ones for the one in terms of organization's mechanism.

Ordering one's commanding act and its content needs no consultation to the one. That nature's absolutely irrepleaceable element makes the relevance with boss and the one's ones asymmetry.

Nevertheless, at some terms, we could find out even neutrally not perfect asymmetrical occasion. That could be done at relocating to any positioned ones for the boss's section.
E.g. to some member, the boss could command very another typed content's mission to one member whose so habitual and learnt content is based on usually allocated it, nevertheless, daringly the boss could command relocating to the one.
That could mean the boss's trial to pioneer the one's undevelopped domain daringly allocating it to the one, and the decision could rely on the credibility to the boss's one member's potentiality.

Upper exampled story is very out of the blue conversion. But if the company had some rationalized system at which any member can suppose any questionable workplace's roformative idea, that nature of the section boss and the one's all members' asymmetrical relevance could be added some devise to swtich perfect asymmetry into democratic system to some extent accounted closer to symmetry.
Nevertheless, too much listening to any member's claim is too generous to keep each fairness completed reality. That is supposition of excluding its truth.

By the way, at political scene at nation, frequently appointing to unexpected allocation to each ministry or General with Secretary by the Prime Minister and the President could be done.

Actually, Paul Ricœur definitively mentioned at 7th research at his SOI-MÊME COMME UN AUTRE, that asymmetry could be confirmed at ordering, commanding positioned one and any other done ones by one boss, meantime, symmetry could be confirmed at friendship and fellowship or so. And in terms of essential intrinsicity's view, that his idea is very correct.
Nevertheless, at so long period assessed view, if the boss could be adopting only one way dictatorship, that selfishly executing method could not always be so advantageous, never yet, that method must make the one as team boss demerit and disadvantage.

Though, inductively, we could get next truth through those inspections.

〇To ordered, ccommanded ones, sudden relocating by the boss to one member, according to the degree of credibility to the one's boss, that so out of the blue command could be effectively at understanding the boss's true mind, actually, at our workplace, long term's habitual learnt mission could be once invalidated with one boss's order, but even the thing is not always only resentment driven arbitrary order to ordered one. The possibility to make the clew pioneer another talent could be taken into account there.

〇At not relevant with class, mutual proposal and suggestion could be possible at arbitrarily given occasion, each member could have some reformative chance to only one way asymmetrical relevance in workplace. Necessarily, these factors could depend on either promotion system's reformatively emobodied state and that affording by the company.

With those confirmations, we'd reach next possible aspect with formula.

Generally, to us, workplace's nature is characterized with asymmetry at formula of 

(∀a,b X, a R b ⇒ b R a)

∀a,b ∈ X, a R b ⇒ ¬(b R a)

Nevertheless, we could reform it to be like next.

If a,b in consensus, theyadd ∀a,b ∈ X, a R b ⇒ ¬(b R a) with one devise, as view mutually a,b, 

(∀a,b ∈ X, a R b ⇒ ¬(b R a)a,b) : ∀a,b ∈ X, a R b ⇒ ¬(b R a)

That view's aspect is composed.

Former cognition makes a, b relevance in which a, b could assess each one personally, and the cognition mutually could be shared, 

((∀a,b ∈ X, a R b ⇒ ¬(b R a)a,b) : ∀a,b ∈ X, a R b ⇒ ¬(b R a)) : ∀a,b ∈ X, a R b ⇒ ¬(b R a)

Upper kind of cognition could be shared.
And that sharing means 

（∀a,b ∈ X, a R b ⇒ ¬(b R a)　≒　∀a,b X, a R b ⇒ b R a）only at shared cognition.

That means that at least mutually one shared cognition could be confirmed.
That could be precisely formulated like next.

((∀a,b ∈ X, a R b ⇒ ¬(b R a)　≒　∀a,b X, a R b ⇒ b R a))⊃(∀a,b ∈ X, a R b ⇒ ¬(b R a)　

That means mutually understainding at least one realiy's cognition. True communication table is set, we'd say.
And two differentiated positioned ones could have the table at least in terms of negotiation.　

By the way, originally only close relationship at friend, fellow or so, with the closest relationship could be family member, with spouses, they rather could have perfectly uneven asymmetry at mutual business cooperation, because of originally mutually kin or so.
That thing either could be formulated like next, as referrence to this series theme, I'll show it either.

If specified business object could be expressed () inclusion to original formula,

∀a,b X, a R b ⇒ b R a, could be included either by business relavance,

(∀a,b X, a R b ⇒ b R a)⊂(∀a,b ∈ X, a R b ⇒ ¬(b R a))

And necessarily, mutually they make next formula at each mind.

¬(∀a,b X, a R b ⇒ b R a)⊂(∀a,b ∈ X, a R b ⇒ ¬(b R a)), otherwise, 

¬(∀a,b X, a R b ⇒ b R a) ≒ ∀a,b ∈ X, a R b ⇒ ¬(b R a)

Next chance to debate these propositiones, I'll take our fellowship and friendship's intrinsic nature with formula.

(to be continued)

Sep. 15th.      2021