Decision authority is explicit where formal power and informal influence diverge
NDI-su335j-v1 NDR-1.1.0 What changed2026-03-09
Promoted from Candidate to Standard following the March 2026 indicator review. Now meets the stability threshold for formal evaluation and citation.
Definition
The organisation maintains explicit, documented accountability for decisions in areas where informal influence — senior tenured individuals, high-visibility roles, or relationship-connected actors — may diverge from formal organisational authority. Where such divergence exists, the authoritative decision-maker is named, the escalation path is defined, and ambiguity is not left to be resolved through political inference.
Why this matters for neurodivergent employees
Organizations where informal power routinely overrides formal authority create environments that reward political skill and relationship capital over merit. Neurodivergent employees who rely on explicit authority structures are systematically disadvantaged when actual decision power is opaque or must be inferred socially.
Evidence Criteria
This indicator can be assessed at up to three evidence layers. Not all layers apply to every indicator.
Inferred Observable from public sources
Employee reviews describe a gap between formal authority and real decision power — referencing "shadow leaders," "you need to know the right people," "politics," or "who you know matters more than what you do." News coverage or investigative reporting describing informal power concentration — long-tenured executives whose formal titles do not match their perceived authority — is a relevant structural signal. Organizational announcements or press releases that attribute decisions to informal groups or ad-hoc leadership coalitions rather than defined governance structures.
Declared Publicly stated by the organization
Organization publicly describes a decision accountability framework that names decision-makers by role, not by individual, for significant categories of decisions. RACI or similar decision authority matrices are referenced in public-facing content or governance documentation.
Validated Independently verified
Accredited verifier confirms: (1) decision authority documentation covers major decision categories, (2) documentation is role-based rather than individual-based, (3) a mechanism exists for employees to identify the authoritative decision-maker for a given decision type without relying on informal knowledge.
Citations
Supporting
- French, J. R. P., Jr., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in Social Power. University of Michigan Press. [Foundational taxonomy of power types; informal influence as distinct from formal authority.]
- Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in Organizations. Pitman. [Documents the gap between formal authority and real power as a systematic organizational phenomenon.]
- Doyle, N. (2020). Neurodiversity at work. British Medical Bulletin, 135(1), 108–125.
Dissenting
- Cross, R., & Parker, A. (2004). The Hidden Power of Social Networks. Harvard Business Review Press. [Argues informal influence networks are a legitimate organizational asset and that attempts to formalize all authority may undermine valuable informal coordination — dissent applies to arguments for complete formalization.]
Cite this indicator
When referencing this indicator in research or reporting:
"Decision authority is explicit where formal power and informal influence diverge" (NDI-su335j-v1). Neurodivergent Enablement Indicators. atypical.business. https://atypical.business/nei/indicators/NDI-su335j/