How Organizations Actually Work: The Hidden Systems of Authority, Coordination, Power, and Performance

Imagine a hypothetical renewable energy company, SunGrid Energy Limited, established to develop and operate solar and wind power projects. The company has a Board-approved organogram, detailed job descriptions, departmental policies, delegation of financial authority, performance indicators, and an enterprise resource planning system. On paper, the organization appears professionally managed.

Yet its operational reality tells a different story. A plant manager requests an urgent replacement component. The request passes through Engineering, Procurement, Finance, and senior management. By the time approval arrives, the equipment has remained unavailable for several days.

An HR officer identifies a shortage of technically qualified employees, but recruitment cannot proceed because the manpower plan, budget approval, and operational priorities are not synchronized. The Engineering Department claims that Finance delays critical purchases. Finance argues that Engineering submits incomplete documents. Procurement says specifications change after requisitions are issued. Senior management believes departments are unwilling to cooperate.

Every department has a defensible explanation. Yet the company as a whole is underperforming.

SunGrid Energy: Illustrative Organizational Dashboard (hypothetical teaching figures, not actual company data).

The CEO concludes that employees must become more accountable. But what if the problem is not insufficient accountability? What if the organization's structure encourages delays? What if responsibility is assigned without corresponding authority? What if employees are rewarded for protecting departmental interests rather than achieving enterprise objectives?

An organization can be formally well-structured and operationally dysfunctional at the same time.

The purpose of this article is to explain why.

An organization is generally understood as a deliberately coordinated social entity, involving two or more people, that functions on a relatively continuous basis to achieve common goals. This definition identifies three essential elements: people, coordination, and purpose. However, contemporary organizational theory requires a broader understanding. An organization is simultaneously:

• A technical system that transforms resources into outputs.
• A social system involving relationships, identities, emotions, and group behavior.
• A political system in which individuals and groups possess different interests and influence.
• An information-processing system that collects, interprets, and distributes knowledge.
• A decision-making system that allocates authority and resources.
• An institutional system shaped by laws, norms, professional standards, and stakeholder expectations.
• An adaptive system that responds to changing technologies, markets, and environments.

These dimensions coexist. A company cannot be fully understood through its organizational chart, financial statements, policies, or employee surveys alone. Each reveals only part of organizational reality.

A working definition: an organization is a coordinated, adaptive system of people, authority, resources, relationships, information, and processes designed to create value and accomplish collective objectives within an institutional and environmental context.

This definition emphasizes an important distinction. An organization is not merely a structure. It is a structure in action.

Figure 1. The Three-Organization Lens: a proposed teaching model for understanding organizational reality, not an empirically validated typology.

3.1 The formal organization: what the documents say. The formal organization consists of officially defined arrangements such as reporting relationships, job descriptions, departmental structures, policies, approval authorities, and procedures. It establishes legitimate expectations and accountability. For example, an organizational chart may specify that an Executive Engineer reports to a Plant Manager, who reports to a Managing Director, establishing a formal chain of command. But it does not necessarily explain how technical advice flows, who resolves cross-functional disagreements, or which employees possess critical operational knowledge.

3.2 The informal organization: what relationships make possible. The informal organization consists of interpersonal networks, friendships, professional relationships, shared norms, unofficial communication channels, and patterns of influence. An experienced employee may become the person everyone consults before making an important decision, despite having no formal supervisory authority. A respected technician may influence safety behavior more effectively than an official circular. A trusted HR officer may become the informal bridge between employees and senior management. Informal organizations can support cooperation, knowledge sharing, and rapid problem-solving. They can also create exclusion, rumors, favoritism, resistance, or unofficial centers of power. The objective is not to eliminate informal networks; it is to understand their influence and encourage constructive behavior.

3.3 The actual operating organization: how work really gets done. This third perspective focuses on actual workflows and decision patterns: who initiates work, who provides information, who makes decisions, who must be consulted, where does work wait, which steps are repeated, which informal shortcuts have emerged? The actual operating organization may differ considerably from formal procedures. For example, a policy may authorize a department head to approve a routine activity, but employees may still seek informal clearance from the CEO because previous decisions were questioned. The formal authority exists. The practical willingness to exercise it does not. An organization cannot be redesigned effectively until management understands the gap between formal design and actual behavior.

Organizational structure defines how tasks, authority, coordination, and accountability are distributed. Six traditional dimensions are especially important.

Modern organizational design also considers lateral coordination, decision rights, information flows, technology, culture, and external partnerships.

Work specialization. Specialization allows employees to develop expertise in particular activities. A renewable energy company may have dedicated professionals in engineering, finance, procurement, HR, legal affairs, and project development. Specialization can improve technical quality and efficiency. However, excessive specialization may create departmental silos. Employees become highly competent within their functions but insufficiently aware of how their decisions affect the organization as a whole.

Departmentalization. Departmentalization groups activities according to functions, products, geography, customers, projects, or processes. No single method is universally superior. A functional structure may support technical expertise and standardized administration. A project structure may support accountability for project delivery. A geographic structure may support responsiveness across dispersed operating locations. The appropriate arrangement depends on strategy, scale, interdependence, and environmental conditions.

Comparative analysis.

These structures are ideal types. Actual organizations frequently combine several of them.

One of the most important organizational decisions concerns where authority should reside. Centralization concentrates decision-making authority at higher organizational levels. Decentralization distributes selected decisions to lower levels or operating units. Neither is inherently superior.

The benefits of centralization. Centralization may improve consistency, financial oversight, risk control, policy compliance, and coordination of enterprise-wide priorities. It can be particularly important for decisions involving significant financial exposure, legal obligations, strategic commitments, or major organizational risks.

The benefits of decentralization. Decentralization may improve responsiveness, local problem-solving, employee empowerment, managerial development, and operational speed. It can be valuable where frontline employees possess time-sensitive information unavailable to senior management.

A renewable energy example. Suppose a plant experiences a minor equipment fault requiring an inexpensive, readily available replacement part. If the Plant Manager must obtain several layers of corporate approval, avoidable downtime may result. However, allowing unlimited local purchasing without controls could create financial and compliance risks. A better solution may be risk-based delegation: routine low-value purchases authorized locally within approved budgets and procurement rules, high-value or strategically significant purchases requiring higher-level approval, and emergency purchases following a documented exception process with subsequent review. The objective is to locate decisions at the level best equipped to make them while preserving appropriate oversight.

An employee may be held responsible for an outcome without possessing the authority required to influence it. This is an accountability mismatch. Consider a Plant Manager responsible for uninterrupted operations but unable to approve essential maintenance expenditure, arrange emergency support, or allocate available technical personnel. Performance targets may be assigned, but critical decisions remain outside the manager's control. This can generate frustration, delay, and defensive behavior.

Introducing the Decision Rights Matrix. This is an illustrative governance model. Actual authorities must comply with the organization's governing documents, policies, applicable laws, and delegation framework.

Decision rights should clarify who recommends, who approves, who executes, who must be consulted, and who must be informed. Tools such as RACI and RAPID can support this analysis.

RACI: four essential roles.

• Responsible: performs the work.
• Accountable: owns the result or final decision within the defined process.
• Consulted: provides necessary input.
• Informed: receives relevant information.

A RACI matrix can help reduce ambiguity, although it must not replace legally required approval authorities.

Span of control refers to the number of direct reports assigned to a manager. A narrow span creates more supervisory layers. A wide span creates fewer layers and may increase employee autonomy. The appropriate span depends on several factors:

• Complexity and risk of work
• Employee competence and experience
• Degree of task standardization
• Geographic dispersion
• Technology and reporting systems
• Managerial responsibilities
• Need for coaching and supervision

A supervisor overseeing routine, standardized work may manage more direct reports than a manager responsible for highly complex, unpredictable professional activities. There is no universal optimal number.

The hidden cost of excessive hierarchy. Imagine a decision that passes through six management levels. Each level adds a two-day average waiting period. The resulting delay may be substantial even when the actual decision requires only a few hours of professional analysis. Reducing unnecessary layers may improve speed. However, removing essential controls could increase operational, financial, or compliance risk. Organizational design therefore requires balancing responsiveness and assurance.

Specialization divides work. Coordination reconnects it. Without coordination, departments may optimize their own activities while undermining enterprise performance. James D. Thompson's work on organizational interdependence provides a useful foundation. There are three types of interdependence.

The more interdependent the work, the more important effective coordination becomes. Sequential work often benefits from clear schedules, standards, and handoff procedures. Reciprocal work may require direct communication, joint planning, shared information systems, and rapid mutual adjustment.

A departmental silo emerges when a function becomes excessively inward-looking and fails to coordinate effectively with other parts of the organization. Silos may arise from organizational design, professional identity, incentive systems, information barriers, or leadership behavior.

Consider a company where Finance is evaluated on cost reduction, Procurement on compliance and purchase price, Engineering on technical reliability, and HR on staffing costs. Each department may pursue its targets rationally. Yet the combined result may be poor: Engineering requests high-quality components, Procurement prioritizes the lowest compliant price, Finance delays expenditure to protect the budget, and Operations experiences downtime. No department necessarily intended the negative outcome. The organization failed to align local incentives with enterprise objectives.

The solution: shared outcomes. Cross-functional objectives can help align departments. For example, instead of evaluating procurement only on purchase cost, management may also examine total cost of ownership, delivery reliability, quality, and operational impact. Engineering may be assessed on specification quality and planning accuracy. Finance may be evaluated on timely control-compliant processing. Shared enterprise measures encourage departments to recognize their interdependence.

Authority and power are related but distinct. Formal authority is the legitimate right to make decisions or direct activities within an organizational role. Power is the capacity to influence behavior, decisions, or outcomes. An employee may possess substantial power without holding a senior title. French and Raven's classic framework identifies several bases of social power.

Later discussions of power also recognize informational influence.

Why expert power matters. Imagine a junior engineer who understands a critical technical system better than senior executives. The engineer may possess limited formal authority but substantial expert power. A wise manager recognizes this expertise and incorporates it into decisions. An insecure manager may attempt to suppress it. The difference can significantly affect organizational learning and operational reliability.

The dark side of informal power. Informal power becomes problematic when employees manipulate information, create dependency, obstruct decisions, or influence outcomes without accountability. Management must distinguish constructive influence from organizational politics that undermines fairness or performance.

Organizations contain individuals and groups with different interests, priorities, identities, and access to resources. Political behavior may emerge when resources are scarce, objectives conflict, or decision criteria are ambiguous. For example, two departments may compete for limited budget allocations, each presenting its proposed investment as essential. The resulting decision is not necessarily based solely on technical merit. It may also reflect bargaining, relationships, institutional priorities, and influence.

Organizational politics cannot be understood simply as misconduct. Some forms of coalition-building and persuasion are legitimate aspects of organizational decision-making. However, political behavior becomes destructive when it involves deception, favoritism, retaliation, concealment, or misuse of authority.

The managerial response. Effective governance requires transparent criteria, documented decisions, conflict-of-interest controls, and appropriate review mechanisms. Managers should not assume that formal rules eliminate political behavior. Instead, they should design systems that reduce opportunities for improper influence and support evidence-based decisions.

Organizational performance depends heavily on how information moves. Information may flow vertically through reporting relationships, horizontally across departments, or diagonally across organizational levels and functions. Vertical communication supports supervision, accountability, and strategic alignment. Horizontal communication supports coordination among departments. Diagonal communication allows expertise and operational information to cross formal boundaries.

Designing better information systems. Organizations need mechanisms for timely, accurate, relevant, and appropriately escalated information: operational dashboards, incident reporting, management information systems, cross-functional meetings, and direct escalation channels for critical risks. However, more reporting does not automatically mean better information. A dashboard containing hundreds of indicators may obscure the few measures that genuinely require managerial attention.

Formal policies explain how employees are supposed to behave. Organizational culture influences how employees actually behave. Edgar Schein's model provides a useful framework for understanding culture at three levels.

Figure 2. Three levels of organizational culture, based on Schein's framework.

The culture-policy gap. An organization may officially encourage innovation, but employees may learn that unsuccessful experiments are punished. The stated value is innovation. The underlying assumption is that mistakes are dangerous. Employees respond to the assumption rather than the slogan. Similarly, a company may promote open communication while employees believe that disagreeing with senior management threatens their careers. Culture is therefore revealed not only by what leaders say, but also by what the organization repeatedly rewards, tolerates, and discourages.

Jay Galbraith's information-processing perspective provides an important insight: as task uncertainty and interdependence increase, organizations require greater capacity to process information and coordinate decisions. An organization can respond by reducing the need for information processing or increasing its capacity to process information.

Reducing information-processing requirements. Management may simplify tasks, standardize procedures, create independent units, or establish clear rules.

Increasing information-processing capacity. Management may introduce better information systems, lateral coordination mechanisms, cross-functional teams, integrator roles, or direct communication channels.

Practical example. A renewable energy company operates multiple plants in different districts. If every routine operational decision requires corporate headquarters to collect detailed information and issue instructions, headquarters may become a bottleneck. The company could establish standardized operating procedures and delegated local authority for routine decisions. For complex cross-plant issues, it could create technical coordination forums and shared information systems. This combination reduces unnecessary central processing while preserving enterprise-wide coordination.

Organizations frequently measure performance through financial outcomes, productivity, growth, or operational efficiency. These indicators are important but incomplete. Organizational effectiveness can be examined through several perspectives:

• Goal attainment: does the organization achieve its stated objectives?
• Systems resource perspective: can the organization obtain and maintain the resources necessary for survival and performance?
• Internal process perspective: are internal operations stable, coordinated, efficient, and reliable?
• Strategic constituencies perspective: does the organization satisfy the requirements of stakeholders whose support is essential?
• Competing values perspective: how does the organization balance flexibility and control, internal integration and external positioning?

Different perspectives may produce different evaluations. A company may achieve its annual profit target while losing key employees and weakening long-term capabilities. Another may maintain strong employee engagement while failing to deliver essential customer outcomes. Effective management requires a balanced assessment.

To help managers connect organizational design with results, consider the following conceptual relationship:

Organizational Performance = f(S, C, A, I, M, E)

Where: S = Strategic alignment · C = Employee and organizational capability · A = Authority and accountability design · I = Information and coordination quality · M = Motivation and organizational culture · E = External environmental conditions.

The function notation emphasizes that performance depends on multiple interacting variables. It is not an empirically estimated equation and should not be used to calculate financial or operational performance without an appropriately validated model. The practical lesson is that improving one variable may not produce the expected result if other constraints remain unresolved. For example, training employees may increase competence, but the benefit may be limited if employees lack authority, equipment, or opportunities to apply their skills.

This is an original instructional synthesis proposed for this series. It has not been psychometrically or empirically validated. For practical organizational diagnosis, the ORGANIZE Framework is a nine-dimensional management model that integrates structure, authority, relationships, information, and performance.

The model encourages managers to examine organizational dysfunction from multiple perspectives rather than assuming that employee effort is the primary cause.

Applying ORGANIZE to SunGrid Energy. The company's procurement delays may reflect unclear objectives, overlapping roles, excessive approval requirements, weak departmental relationships, incomplete information, unnecessary process steps, and inadequate performance feedback. The CEO should investigate each dimension before choosing an intervention. This approach converts organizational diagnosis into a systematic managerial exercise.

Rate each statement from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). This is an educational self-assessment, not a validated organizational survey.

Organizational friction refers to the unnecessary effort, delay, rework, or conflict that prevents work from progressing efficiently. Examples include duplicated approvals, unclear responsibilities, incomplete information, repeated documentation, and avoidable escalation.

For managerial analysis, one useful measure is: Process Delay Ratio = (Waiting Time ÷ Total Process Time) × 100.

Suppose a procurement request requires 20 calendar days from initiation to completion. Actual processing takes four days. The remaining sixteen days consist of waiting between activities.

A high delay ratio signals a need for investigation, but some waiting periods may be legally or operationally necessary. This analysis helps managers distinguish productive work from avoidable delay. It also reveals why asking employees to work harder may have limited effect when most elapsed time is spent waiting for decisions.

A comprehensive restructuring is not always necessary to improve organizational performance. Managers can begin with a focused diagnostic and improvement cycle.

Urgent safety, legal, and operational risks should be addressed immediately rather than postponed until a scheduled redesign phase.

SunGrid Energy's Board is considering three proposals. Proposal A would create two additional management positions to strengthen supervision. Proposal B would reduce the number of departments through consolidation. Proposal C would retain the existing structure temporarily while redesigning decision rights, workflows, coordination mechanisms, and performance accountability.

You are a Board Director. Which proposal would you support as the initial intervention?

• A: add more management positions.
• B: merge departments immediately.
• C: redesign workflows and decision rights before structural changes.

Organizations operate through overlapping formal structures, informal relationships, and actual workflows. Six essential lessons:

• An organizational chart describes formal authority, not the complete reality of organizational behavior.
• Effective organizational design aligns responsibilities, decision rights, information, and accountability.
• Specialization creates efficiency but also increases the need for coordination.
• Informal power and organizational culture can influence decisions as strongly as formal rules.
• Departmental performance does not necessarily equal enterprise performance.
• Organizational redesign should be based on diagnosis, evidence, and strategic requirements, not simply changes to reporting lines.

Choose an organization or department you know well. Prepare a management analysis covering its formal structure, informal networks, critical workflows, decision rights, and cross-functional dependencies. Identify at least three areas where actual operations differ from formal procedures. Then recommend practical interventions addressing the root causes.

Your report should include an organizational chart, a decision-rights matrix, a critical process map, and a proposed performance dashboard. The objective is to develop the ability to diagnose organizational design problems rather than merely describe organizational structures.

1. Barnard, C. I. (1938). The Functions of the Executive.
2. Simon, H. A. (1947). Administrative Behavior.
3. March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations.
4. Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The Management of Innovation.
5. Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in Action.
6. Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Organization and Environment.
7. Galbraith, J. R. (1973). Designing Complex Organizations.
8. Mintzberg, H. (1979). The Structuring of Organizations.
9. Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in Organizations.
10. Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational Culture and Leadership (4th ed.).
11. Daft, R. L. Organization Theory and Design (consult a recent edition).
12. Burton, R. M., Obel, B., & Håkonsson, D. D. Organizational Design: A Step-by-Step Approach (consult a recent edition).

These references provide theoretical foundations. The SunGrid case, ORGANIZE framework, and interactive diagnostics are original teaching illustrations rather than empirically validated findings.

Next in The Human Capital MBA series, Blog 04: Managerial Decision-Making: How Great Leaders Think, Choose, and Act Under Uncertainty. Why intelligent managers make poor decisions, how cognitive biases distort judgment, and how evidence-based decision-making, behavioral economics, decision trees, risk analysis, and AI-supported management can improve organizational outcomes.