People often ask me whats the difference between formal and informal authority and which do I feel is more important.
Whenever someone is promoted to a Leadership position, there usually a formal level of authority which comes with the role. So this authority is usually given by someone senior, so it invariably comes from above.
This authority is associated with the position, e.g. in the Head of Architecture position, the role holder usually has authority over such things as the Architecture decisions, direction, and all of the staff within the Architecture team. They have the power and control of this area.
With informal authority, this is not something which comes from being nominated to a formal position. This authority is usually bestowed by the people within an organization, i.e. it comes from below rather than above. Informal authority can be granted for any number of reasons: level of trust; level of expertise; personality; charisma; or characteristics; etc.
With informal authority, the holder becomes an informal leader within of an organization. They play a critical role in the effectiveness of the organization, as they may, at times, wield more power than the formal authorities.
So which is better, formal or informal authority?
This is a tough question to answer.
Ideally, if we have got our talent management processes working correctly, then we should be promoting people who are already informal leaders. Especially since they are probably trusted, have good expertise, are respected, etc., etc. This would then make their promotion understandable, and more readily accepted by the teams that they will look to lead.
I always remember a line from the movie Braveheart, when William Wallace talks Robert the Bruce about leadership.
Wallace says “Your title gives you claim to the throne of our country, but men don’t follow titles, they follow courage. Now our people know you. Noble, and common, they respect you. And if you would just lead them to freedom, they’d follow you. And so would I”.
I agree with this statement, people don’t follow titles, they might do what they are told to do, but they are just following orders, and this is not the same as really following a leader.
With informal leadership people had a choice and they chose to follow you.
With formal leadership, it’s not really the same, and if given the choice, then the teams may choose not to follow you.
I would encourage anyone who wants to be a leader to focus on developing informal leadership skills, if you can do that, then you will show that not only are you are ready to be a leader, but that people are ready to follow you.
This is why, wherever possible, I try to implement leadership training at all levels, so that people can start to learn leadership skills and put them into practice in their current roles, where no formal authority exists.
I am always wary of people who wait to be appointed to a leadership position before they start leading. I tend to see them as people who are more interested in power and authority, than actually leading. In my experience, these types of leaders do not attract many followers.
Both types of authority and important, but if i could only choose one, I would take the informal.
Again you cut through the dross and get right to the heart of the matter, Gordon. I agree with you 100%.
Tade thanks for the comment. I think that is my USP 🙂
Gordon – as always, good one.
Just few of My Thoughts to add into the conversation:
It is very subjective topic. Each person think and view it differently with their experience and knowledge on it.
If follower’s career is involved – then he/ she absolutely wants to follow formal authoritative person/ leader.
Leadership is an emotional involvement and influencing the followers – some are direct rest indirect. Many times followers never meet their ideal leader whom they follow and whom they respect and give lot of value to their vision.
People followed great informal leaders like Gandhi, Mandela and Dr.King Jr – here the followers career is not directly involved.
There could be some born leaders who can change any theory – it is very small % on a bell curve.
Again a related question arises “Are leaders Born or Made?”
– which is question under research for decades.
Latest studies confirmed that most of the leader are made from their
Education, Job Experience, Social/ Community Experience, Mentoring, reading, influence from role models, circumstances, opportunities and in born strengths etc…
If a person has FORMAL authority and he is a good leader in the eyes of his followers – it is the BEST case scenario. Rest all other options might not work consistently for long time.
Venkat
great comments, and i agree with most of your points.
it’s true that when it comes to careers that people report to a position and need to follow that position, but i am sure if some people had the choice they would prefer a boss who had informal leadership skills, ie someone they would choose to follow. often i hear people criticise their bosses leadership skills or question how they got the job
on the question of are leaders born or created, i will leave my answer to that for a blog, i think its a bigger question than can be answered in a comment
thanks for the feedback very much appreciated 🙂
Fully agree. Appointed leaders direct, they rarely ever lead.
Dave, i think i would say, people who have never led informally, and are appointed, probably direct rather than lead.
there are some leaders who lead, hopefully 🙂
As usual very nice article. IMHO, it is easy to follow informal leaders, because we respect that person’s knowledge, capability and trust without being forced upon us. One thing i noticed, Informal leader will become a bottleneck, if he/she not aligned with organization’s formal leadership.
Rajesh, great point it wouldn’t be the first time that an informal leader has found themselves in hot water as people follow their lead rather than the strategy proposed from the formal leadership.
Often when leading change it is important to identify the informal leaders and to try and ensure that they are supportive of the direction, and if they are aligned they can be utilised to try to accelerate acceptance of the change.
Thanks for the comment much appreciated
Permalink
Permalink
Permalink
Permalink
Permalink
Permalink
Permalink
Permalink
Permalink
I agree!! very true!!
Great article like always..
It’s responsibility of organization to see, if there are any informal leaders in team, while appoiting a formal leader. It would be better to project the informal leader as formal. Otherwise performance degradation(team’s) and conflicts are most likely to happen.
Neeraj, great comments. It would be nice to see if the informal leaders were always promoted. Sometimes they don’t want this though, they are happy to be informal, less responsibility
I totally agree with you Mr Gordon. Sometimes informal leaders might be doing more than the formal leaders does. But once they are given a formal tag, you are responsibile(I would rather say accountable than responsible), which migh lead them to refrain from a formal tag.
But, there could be another(unfortunate) side of it, the informal leaders are taken for granted. Because they are already doing it.
I would like to have your comments and corrections on my thoughts.
I don’t correct anyones thoughts, i might just have a different point of view 🙂
I agree, I often see informal leaders overlooked, because sometimes people favour management or expertise. Personally i would always take informal leader and convert to formal where possible
Thank you so much. By correction i mean, correction of facts. 🙂
When you listen/read a logical argument/thought, you might need to change your thoughts about something. That I call a correction 😉