To answer this it's necessary to understand the context in which these people existed and to do that you have to ask more fundamental questions. For instance, how exactly did these people get to the point where they were in charge of a camp designed to murder people? How does such a camp even exist? How did millions of people that were only a few years before considered citizens of the country with full rights become non-entities divested of all their rights and property and sent away to these places to die? What orders were given and through what authority to get these things done?

Hannah Arendt's The Origins of Totalitarianism sheds some light on what it takes to influence people to do such a thing.

Practically speaking, the paradox of totalitarianism in power is that the possession of all instruments of governmental power and violence in one country is not an unmixed blessing for a totalitarian movement. Its disregard for facts, its strict adherence to the rules of a fictitious world, becomes steadily more difficult to maintain, yet remains as essential as it was before. Power means a direct confrontation with reality, and totalitarianism in power is constantly concerned with overcoming this challenge. Propaganda and organization no longer suffice to assert that the impossible is possible, that the incredible is true, that an insane consistency rules the world; the chief psychological support of totalitarian fiction—the active resentment of the status quo, which the masses refused to accept as the only possible world—is no longer there; every bit of factual information that leaks through the iron curtain, set up against the ever-threatening flood of reality from the other, nontotalitarian side, is a greater menace to totalitarian domination than counterpropaganda has been to totalitarian movements.

Under a totalitarian regime there is no stability achieved or reality allowed in. The fictions asserted by the leader are the only reality and stability is following the will of the leader.

...

...

What strikes the observer of the totalitarian state is certainly not its monolithic structure. On the contrary, all serious students of the subject agree at least on the co-existence (or the conflict) of a dual authority, the party and the state. Many, moreover, have stressed the peculiar “shapelessness” of the totalitarian government.14 Thomas Masaryk saw early that “the so-called Bolshevik system has never been anything but a complete absence of system”;15 and it is perfectly true that “even an expert would be driven mad if he tried to unravel the relationships between Party and State” in the Third Reich.16 It has also been frequently observed that the relationship between the two sources of authority, between state and party, is one of ostensible and real authority, so that the government machine is usually pictured as the powerless façade which hides and protects the real power of the party.

....

Technically, this absence of any authority or hierarchy in the totalitarian system is shown by the fact that between the supreme power (the Fuehrer) and the ruled there are no reliable intervening levels, each of which would receive its due share of authority and obedience. The will of the Fuehrer can be embodied everywhere and at all times, and he himself is not tied to any hierarchy, not even the one he might have established himself.

There is a duplication in the totalitarian state of each apparatus of government at every level and sometimes more than just two. This creates confusion and maintains instability. There is also no clear authority at any level bridging the gap between the individual and the leader.

...

...

The inhabitant of Hitler’s Third Reich lived not only under the simultaneous and often conflicting authorities of competing powers, such as the civil services, the party, the SA, and the SS; he could never be sure and was never explicitly told whose authority he was supposed to place above all others. He had to develop a kind of sixth sense to know at a given moment whom to obey and whom to disregard.

Those, on the other hand, who had to execute the orders which the leadership, in the interest of the movement, regarded as genuinely necessary—in contradistinction to governmental measures, such orders were of course entrusted only to the party’s elite formations—were not much better off. Mostly such orders were “intentionally vague, and given in the expectation that their recipient would recognize the intent of the order giver, and act accordingly”;31 for the elite formations were by no means merely obligated to obey the orders of the Fuehrer (this was mandatory for all existing organizations anyway), but “to execute the will of the leadership.”32 And, as can be gathered from the lengthy proceedings concerning “excesses” before the party courts, this was by no means one and the same thing. The only difference was that the elite formations, thanks to their special indoctrination for such purposes, had been trained to understand that certain “hints meant more than their mere verbal contents.”33

In addition to there being no clear authoritative structure to government, orders were not explicit, but instead implied in a number of different ways.

...

...

A continuous competition between offices, whose functions not only overlap but which are charged with identical tasks,43 gives opposition or sabotage almost no chance to become effective; a swift change of emphasis which relegates one office to the shadow and elevates another to authority can solve all problems without anybody’s becoming aware of the change or of the fact that opposition had existed, the additional advantage of the system being that the opposing office is likely never to learn of its defeat, since it is either not abolished at all (as in the case of the Nazi regime) or it is liquidated much later and without any apparent connection with the specific matter. This can be done all the more easily since nobody, except those few initiated, knows the exact relationship between the authorities.

If in some way you were still clear on what was going on and you actually thought about opposing the leadership and you had the power to do so you would find that the system was setup to thwart you by removing any power you had quickly and quietly.

There are numerous other very clear cases in the book about how the totalitarian system once it got moving was nearly unstoppable from within as long as it stayed moving. The only real force that could stop it was external.

...

...

The change in the concept of crime and criminals determines the new and terrible methods of the totalitarian secret police. Criminals are punished, undesirables disappear from the face of the earth; the only trace which they leave behind is the memory of those who knew and loved them, and one of the most difficult tasks of the secret police is to make sure that even such traces will disappear together with the condemned man.

At an individual level there wasn't any explicit threat necessary for people to execute the will of the leader. The threat was obvious to anyone that lived within the system. People disappeared and there was no recourse for those affected when it happened. There was no clear authority, other than the leader, that could stop the machine moving at any point.

There was also not necessarily a personal vendetta for the acts the individual committed that would give motive to see hundreds, thousands or millions of Jews murdered. At the same time, Arendt makes a case that the preceding decades had seen the rise of Jews as a stateless, apolitical entity and that this made them perfect targets for the anti-semitism that gave the excuse to the average Nazi for his acts.

So, in answer to the question, an individual in charge of a concentration camp did have the power to engage in and the responsibility for the acts they committed, but they didn't come up with the idea themselves and they probably did not receive explicit orders for all of the cruelties they inflicted. They did face existential threats from the regime, but no direct threat compelled them to do what they did.