The Cost of Unnamed Authority
Strategy does not fail because leaders disagree. It fails because the organization never made it explicit who has the authority to decide and whose objections no longer matter once a decision is made. In the early stages of growth, authority is often assumed. The founder chooses to because they are the founder. But as an organization scales past $10M or $20M in revenue, that implicit understanding evaporates.
When authority is not explicitly named, bounded, and enforced, the organization tends to drift into a state of “shadow hierarchies.” In this environment, decisions are not made by the person with the title, but by the person with the most tenure, the loudest voice, or the most extensive revenue line. This is not governance; it is a political marketplace. The cost of this ambiguity is not just friction; it is the total abdication of strategic direction.
Ambiguity is often mistaken for neutrality or a “flat structure.” In reality, ambiguity is a vacuum. Power dynamics detest a vacuum. If the CEO does not explicitly declare who owns the “Yes” and who owns the “No,” the organization will create its own informal power structure to fill the void. These informal structures optimize for safety, comfort, and the status quo—never for the risks required by a bold strategy.
The failure to name authority is often a psychological defense mechanism. Founders and CEOs avoid drawing hard lines because they fear alienating key lieutenants or disrupting the “culture.” However, a culture that cannot survive clarity is already broken. By refusing to define the boundaries of power, leadership teams ensure that every strategic initiative enters a gray zone of negotiation, where the goal is not execution, but the preservation of social capital.
Consensus as a Political Cover
In the absence of explicit authority, organizations retreat to consensus. “Alignment” becomes the primary objective, not because it drives results, but because it provides political cover. If everyone agrees, no single person can be blamed if the strategy fails. Consensus distributes accountability so thinly that it effectively vanishes.
This reliance on consensus creates a “veto culture.” When authority is unclear, anyone involved in a discussion assumes they have the right to halt the debate. A Vice President of Sales can block a product roadmap simply by withholding enthusiasm. A Head of Engineering can stall a go-to-market pivot by citing technical debt as a reason. In a system of explicit authority, these objections serve as inputs to be weighed by the decision-maker. In a system of consensus, they become de facto vetoes.
The pursuit of consensus also slows down progress. Strategy requires making trade-offs—choosing one path and explicitly rejecting others. Consensus abhors trade-offs. To get everyone to agree, the strategy must be diluted until it contains nothing objectionable. The result is a “strategic plan” that is nothing more than a compilation of department wish lists, loosely stapled together. It is safe, it is “aligned,” and it is utterly incapable of driving competitive advantage.
Proper governance requires the courage to declare that consensus is not necessary for action. It demands a structure where silence after a decision is not interpreted as consent, but as submission to authority. Without this mechanism, the organization remains trapped in a cycle of endless meetings, seeking an agreement that will never come.
Explicit Authority vs. Social Power
A critical distinction must be drawn between formal authority and social power. Formal authority is the assigned right to allocate resources and make binding decisions. Social power is influence derived from relationships, tenure, or past performance. In scaling companies, social power often eclipses formal authority, leading to strategic paralysis.
Consider the “High-Performing Jerk”—a top sales executive or a brilliant engineer who consistently delivers results but refuses to adhere to the broader strategy. In an organization with explicit authority, their refusal is insubordination. In an organization relying on social power, their refusal is treated as a valid strategic counter-position. Leadership tolerates their deviation because “they bring in the numbers.”
This confusion between loudness and legitimacy is fatal to strategy. When high performers are allowed to opt out of decisions they dislike, they signal to the rest of the organization that strategy is optional. It teaches the team that authority is not derived from the role or the governance structure, but from the ability to hold the company hostage.
Furthermore, social power creates “pocket vetoes.” An executive may nod in the boardroom, offering no public objection to a new strategy. However, because they rely on their social influence rather than formal mandates, they ignore the directive once they return to their department. They know that without explicit authority enforcement, there will be no consequences for their passive resistance. Explicit authority neutralizes this by making compliance a condition of employment, regardless of social standing.
Why Strategy Cannot Survive Implicit Power Structures
Strategy is, by definition, a deviation from the status quo. It requires resources to be moved from where they are comfortable to where they are needed. This redistribution inevitably creates winners and losers within the internal political landscape. If authority is implicit, the “losers”—those whose budgets are cut or whose influence is checked—have the power to litigate the decision indefinitely.
Execution speed is a function of clarity of authority. When a team knows exactly who holds the decision right, the debate has a defined endpoint. Arguments are made, data is presented, and the decision-maker acts. The moment that act occurs, the window of discussion closes, and the window for execution opens. In implicit structures, the window for debate never closes. Decisions are revisited in hallway conversations, Slack channels, and follow-up meetings. The organization spends more energy re-litigating the past than executing the future.
This dynamic renders the organization incapable of making effective pivots. When the market shifts, the company cannot turn because the steering wheel is disconnected from the wheels. The CEO may turn the wheel, but if the “transmission” of explicit authority is missing, the organization continues on its previous trajectory, carried by the inertia of its informal power brokers. Strategy becomes a theoretical exercise—a deck presented at a quarterly offsite that bears no resemblance to the actual operations of the company.
Blind Scenario
Consider “X Logistics,” a $45M mid-market logistics firm that had grown rapidly through acquisition. The executive team consisted of a CEO, a CFO, a VP of Operations (a 10-year veteran), and a newly hired VP of Product. The company needed to pivot from a service-heavy model to a tech-enabled platform to protect its margins.
The strategy was approved at the Q1 board meeting: “Project Velocity.” The plan required Operations to standardize workflows to match the new software being built by Product.
However, the CEO never explicitly defined the authority structure for the transition. It was assumed that the VP of Operations and the VP of Product would “collaborate.” This ambiguity was the point of failure.
The VP of Operations, drawing on his ten-year tenure and social influence, viewed standardization as a threat to his team’s autonomy. He didn’t openly oppose the strategy; he didn’t implement it. When the VP of Product requested workflow maps, the VP of Operations claimed his team was “too busy with Q2 volume.” When the VP of Product tried to schedule training, the VP of Operations postponed it, citing “client emergencies.
Months passed. The software was built, but couldn’t be deployed because the operational reality hadn’t changed. The VP of Product escalated the issue to the CEO. The CEO, averse to conflict and respecting the VP of Operations’ tenure, treated it as a “communication breakdown.” He hired an executive coach to help the two VPs “find alignment.”
The failure was not interpersonal; it was structural. The CEO had failed to declare that the VP of Product had the authority to set the standard, and the VP of Operations had the obligation to comply. Because this authority was never explicit, the VP of Operations exercised a pocket veto, effectively killing “Project Velocity.” The company missed its launch window, incurred $2 million in development costs, and the VP of Product eventually resigned. Vertex Logistics remained stuck in its low-margin service model because it lacked the governance to enforce its own strategy.
Conclusion & Forced Escalation
The paralysis at Vertex Logistics was not an accident; it was the mathematical result of the CEO’s refusal to name authority. When leaders fail to be explicit about who decides, they are actively choosing confusion over execution. They are prioritizing the emotional comfort of their executive team over the business’s survival.
This is a structural failure, not a personnel issue. You cannot fix this by firing the VP of Operations or “empowering” the VP of Product. You fix it by redesigning the architecture of decision-making. Authority must be declared, bounded, and insulated from the pressures of social influence.
Authority-based escalation: If strategy in your organization can be stalled, diluted, or ignored without consequence, the problem is not leadership behavior — it is governance design. This cannot be corrected internally through facilitation, workshops, or alignment exercises. It requires an external, authority-backed intervention to redesign decision rights, lock points, and enforcement mechanisms so strategic decisions are structurally irreversible.
About The Author
