The meeting has a chair, but everyone waits for one long-standing member before settling the difficult question. That person may hold no title. Others trust their judgment, know that they can secure cooperation, or fear the consequences of proceeding without them.
Informal authority can make an organization work when its formal rules are incomplete. It can also make the real distribution of power difficult to see. A group without formal hierarchy still has relationships of influence.
Authority that cannot be named is difficult to challenge
Experience and trust take time to develop; pretending they do not matter will not make them disappear. The problem arises when participants cannot tell which decisions are genuinely open, who has effective veto power, or how someone else could acquire comparable standing.
Consider a volunteer group where one person alone knows the venue owner. Their practical help may be essential, but control over that relationship can become control over the group’s choices. Sharing contacts through an expert directory and explaining decisions can reduce dependence without denying the person’s contribution.
The lens is useful because it separates an organization’s declared structure from its working relationships. Formal responsibility and informal influence can support one another, but neither should be mistaken for the other.
Real cases
- Valve: choosing projects inside a company with owners — Does removing formal managers remove hierarchy or coordination bottlenecks?
- FAVI: autonomy under customers and peers — Where does control go when a factory removes supervisory layers?