1. The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Lublin, Poland.

*             Correspondence: agata.przepiórka@kul.pl

Keywords: informal leadership, organizational change, strategy implementation, silent authority

1. INTRODUCTION

For decades, the study of organizational leadership and strategy has been dominated by a top-down perspective. The prevailing narrative centered on the visionary CEO, the meticulously crafted strategic plan, and the formal authority structures designed to cascade that vision through the ranks [1]. Failure was often attributed to flawed strategy or weak executive leadership. Success was the result of a well-oiled machine responding to the commands of its architects. Yet, practitioners and scholars alike have long observed a disconnect between this tidy, hierarchical model and the messy reality of organizational life. Strategic plans, no matter how brilliant, frequently fail in execution. Change initiatives, despite significant investment and executive sponsorship, often stall, meet intractable resistance, or fizzle out [2]. The explanation for this gap between intent and outcome often lies not in the formal, visible structures of the organization, but in its informal, unseen social architecture. Within every organization exists a powerful network of influence that operates parallel to the organizational chart. It is in this network that informal leaders emerge—individuals who, regardless of their official title, command a unique form of authority. This is not the authority of position, which compels compliance through command, but a silent authority—an influence built on a foundation of demonstrated expertise, earned trust, and deep-seated social connection [3]. These are the seasoned engineers others turn to for advice, the empathetic project managers who can build bridges between warring departments, and the respected frontline workers whose subtle endorsement or rejection of a new initiative can determine its fate. The contemporary business environment—characterized by flatter hierarchies, distributed teams, and the need for rapid, continuous adaptation—has magnified the importance of this silent authority. As command-and-control structures give way to networks of collaboration, the ability to influence without formal power has become a critical organizational capacity [4]. However, this power remains a double-edged sword. When aligned with strategic goals, informal leaders are invaluable catalysts, accelerating adoption, fostering innovation, and building the psychological safety necessary for change. When misaligned, their silent authority can mobilize a potent, grassroots resistance that is far more difficult to address than overt opposition because it operates within the trusted social fabric of the organization [5]. This review article synthesizes recent literature (2020-2025) to provide a comprehensive analysis of the role of informal leadership and silent authority in strategy and organizational change. It will first deconstruct the theoretical underpinnings of this influence. It then examines the crucial function of informal leaders in the implementation of strategy, followed by an analysis of their dual capacity to either champion or sabotage organizational change. The article will then explore practical implications for formal leaders seeking to engage with these power structures constructively. Finally, it identifies key challenges and outlines a research agenda to further illuminate this critical but often overlooked dimension of organizational dynamics. This review posits that in the 21st-century organization, understanding and engaging with silent authority is no longer a soft skill but a strategic imperative.

2. The Nature and Currency of Silent Authority

To understand the impact of informal leadership, one must first understand the source of its power. Unlike formal authority, which is bestowed by the organization and backed by its formal reward and punishment systems, silent authority is granted by peers and is rooted in intangible social and personal assets. Its currency is not title or budget, but trust and credibility. Recent scholarship, drawing on a confluence of social, psychological, and network theories, has helped to delineate the components of this powerful, emergent influence.

2.1 Theoretical Foundations: Social Capital, Networks, and Emergent Leadership

The concept of silent authority is deeply intertwined with social capital theory, which posits that the networks of relationships among people constitute a valuable resource [6]. Informal leaders are individuals who are rich in social capital. They hold central positions within the organization’s social network, not necessarily its formal hierarchy. Social Network Analysis (SNA) has become a key tool for visualizing and quantifying these relationships, identifying individuals who act as crucial “brokers” of information between otherwise disconnected groups or as central “connectors” with a high number of direct ties [7]. These network positions give informal leaders unparalleled access to information and a wide-reaching platform for influence. Building on this, emergent leadership theory provides a process-based view. It suggests that leadership is not a fixed trait or position but a dynamic process that can be enacted by anyone within a group, depending on the needs of the situation [8]. Informal leaders emerge because they consistently demonstrate behaviors that the group finds valuable. Recent work [9] highlights that in moments of uncertainty or ambiguity—hallmarks of strategic change—individuals naturally turn to peers who exhibit confidence, offer a clear interpretation of events, and demonstrate a commitment to collective goals. This emergent process is what confers silent authority.

2.2 The Pillars of Silent Authority: Trust, Expertise, and Authenticity

While network position provides the structure for influence, the substance of silent authority rests on three interrelated pillars: Trust: This is the bedrock of informal leadership. It is a multidimensional construct comprising perceptions of benevolence (having peers’ best interests at heart), integrity (consistency between words and actions), and competence (having the ability to deliver on promises) [10]. A recent study [11] found that during a large-scale technological change, employees’ trust in their informal opinion leaders was a significantly stronger predictor of adoption than their trust in senior management. This peer-to-peer trust allows informal leaders to vouch for change initiatives and quell anxieties in a way that formal communications often cannot. Expertise: Informal leaders are frequently, though not always, recognized subject matter experts. This is not just formal knowledge but deep, tacit knowledge of “how things really get done” within the organization [12]. They are the go-to individuals for solving complex problems or navigating bureaucratic hurdles. Their authority stems from a proven track record of being right and being helpful. When they endorse a new strategic direction, their peers infer that they have vetted it and found it credible, lending it a weight that executive pronouncements may lack [13]. Authenticity: In an age of curated corporate messaging, authenticity has become a highly valued commodity. Informal leaders are perceived as authentic because their influence is not tied to personal gain within the formal power structure. They are seen as “one of us,” speaking truthfully without a political agenda. This perceived authenticity makes their communication highly resonant. As described [14] the “unvarnished feedback” from a trusted informal leader is often accepted at face value, while identical messaging from a formal leader may be met with skepticism and suspicion about underlying motives. It is the synthesis of these elements—a central network position filled by a trusted, expert, and authentic individual—that creates the potent force of silent authority. This authority is “silent” because it rarely needs to be asserted. It operates through quiet conversations, modeled behavior, and subtle social cues, shaping norms and influencing decisions from within the organization’s social core.

3. Silent Authority and Strategy Implementation

Strategy, as famously noted [15], is more about action and execution than lofty pronouncements. The gap between a beautifully crafted strategic plan and its successful implementation is a well-known corporate graveyard. Formal communication cascades and project management frameworks are necessary but insufficient. The true work of implementation happens in the “white spaces” of the organization chart, and it is here that informal leaders, wielding their silent authority, play an indispensable role in three key functions: sense-making, mobilization, and feedback.

3.1 Sense-Making and Translation

Executive strategies are often articulated in the abstract language of market share, synergy, and shareholder value. For frontline employees, this language can feel disconnected from their daily work and concerns. Informal leaders act as crucial sense-makers and translators [16]. They take the high-level strategic narrative and reframe it in the context of their team’s specific reality. A study on digital transformation initiatives [17] found that informal “digital champions” were instrumental in translating the corporate vision of “becoming an AI-driven enterprise” into concrete, understandable terms for their peers, such as “this new tool will help us stop wasting time on manual reports and focus on more creative work.” This translation process is not merely about simplification; it is about imbuing the strategy with local meaning and relevance. By connecting the strategic goals to the team’s identity, values, and pain points, informal leaders help answer the critical, unspoken question on every employee’s mind: “What does this mean for us?” Their endorsement provides a powerful social heuristic; if a trusted and knowledgeable peer believes the strategy makes sense, others are more likely to suspend their disbelief and engage with it constructively [18].

3.2 Mobilization and Commitment

Successful strategy implementation depends on more than just compliance; it requires the active commitment and discretionary effort of employees. Silent authority is a powerful engine for mobilizing this commitment. While formal leaders can mandate participation, informal leaders inspire genuine buy-in. They do this by modeling the desired behaviors, publicly championing the initiative in informal settings, and providing peer-to-peer support and encouragement. Study [19] demonstrates that the enthusiasm (or lack thereof) of an informal team leader is highly contagious. When these leaders actively use a new system or adopt a new process, they create a powerful normative pressure for others to follow suit, a phenomenon known as social proof. This is far more effective than top-down mandates, which can trigger psychological reactance and resistance. Furthermore, by building a coalition of support at the grassroots level, informal leaders create a groundswell of momentum that can carry a strategic initiative through the inevitable challenges and setbacks of implementation.

3.3 Upward Feedback and Strategic Adaptation

No strategy survives first contact with reality unscathed. The ability of an organization to adapt its strategy based on real-time feedback from the front lines is a hallmark of organizational agility. Informal leaders are the most critical conduits for this upward feedback. Because they are trusted by their peers, they become repositories of candid information—the unvarnished truth about what is working and what is not, which formal channels often filter or suppress [20]. An employee might be hesitant to tell their manager that a key plank of the new strategy is causing major customer friction, for fear of being seen as negative or “not a team player.” However, they will readily share that information with a trusted, senior colleague. The informal leader, armed with this aggregated, on-the-ground intelligence, is often in a unique position to relay it to formal leadership in a constructive way. A recent analysis [21] found that organizations with strong, psychologically safe links between formal and informal leaders were significantly faster at adapting their implementation plans, avoiding costly errors and capitalizing on unforeseen opportunities. In this sense, informal leaders act as the sensory nervous system of the organization, ensuring that the strategic brain remains connected to operational reality.

4. The Double-Edged Sword: Informal Leaders and Organizational Change

Organizational change, whether it involves a new technology, a corporate restructuring, or a cultural transformation, is fundamentally a social process. It requires individuals to let go of old ways of working and embrace new ones, a process often fraught with anxiety, uncertainty, and a sense of loss. It is in this volatile environment that the silent authority of informal leaders becomes most salient, and its dual nature—as a force for both acceleration and resistance—is most pronounced.

4.1 Catalysts for Change

When informal leaders are convinced of the merits of a change, they become its most effective champions. Their power as catalysts for change stems from their ability to address the social and emotional dimensions of transformation, a role that formal leaders, due to their position, often struggle to fill [22]. First, they mitigate fear and uncertainty through trust. By personally vouching for the change, they provide psychological cover for their peers. The implicit message is, “I’ve looked at this, I trust the process, and I believe this is good for us. It’s safe to come along” [23]. This peer-to-peer reassurance can be far more calming than a polished presentation from an executive. Second, they build momentum through social contagion. As early adopters and vocal supporters, they create visible proof that the change is viable and desirable. This triggers a cascading effect within their social network, encouraging others to join in. A 2023 study on the adoption of agile methodologies found that the single most important factor for a team’s successful transition was the presence of an enthusiastic and respected informal leader who could patiently coach peers and celebrate small wins, creating a positive feedback loop of success and engagement [24].

4.2 Anchors of Resistance

The same mechanisms that make informal leaders powerful allies can also make them formidable adversaries. When they perceive a change as illegitimate, ill-conceived, or a threat to their group’s values or identity, their silent authority can become the organizing force for powerful, underground resistance [25]. This resistance is rarely overt. It manifests as foot-dragging, malicious compliance (“I’m doing exactly what the new process says, even though it’s obviously inefficient”), the spread of skeptical narratives in private conversations, and a general withdrawal of the discretionary effort needed for the change to succeed. Because this resistance is marshaled by trusted and respected figures, it is often seen by peers as a legitimate and rational response, not as insubordination. A case study [26] analyzing a failed merger integration found that the effort was effectively scuttled by a network of highly respected senior engineers from the acquired company. These informal leaders never openly defied management, but their quiet skepticism and refusal to actively collaborate created an insurmountable cultural barrier that formal project plans could not overcome. This form of resistance is particularly difficult for formal leaders to manage because it is diffuse and lacks a single point of failure. It is not an individual problem to be solved through disciplinary action, but a collective social phenomenon. Attempting to silence or remove a single informal resistor can backfire spectacularly, martyring them and further solidifying the opposition of their network.

5. Engaging the Resonant Organization: A Leadership Imperative

Given the profound impact of silent authority, the question for formal leaders is not whether to engage with informal leaders, but how. The goal is not to control or formalize these networks—an effort that would destroy the authenticity that is their lifeblood—but to build bridges and foster a relationship of mutual respect and partnership. Recent literature suggests a three-part strategy: identification, engagement, and cultivation.

5.1 Identification: Seeing the Invisible Network

The first step is to make the invisible visible. Formal leaders are often surprisingly unaware of the true influence landscape within their teams. Relying on the organizational chart is a recipe for being blindsided. Social Network Analysis (SNA) offers a powerful, data-driven method for identifying key informal leaders by asking simple questions like, “Who do you turn to for advice?” and “Who do you trust to help you solve a problem?” The resulting network map can reveal the central connectors and brokers who hold the most social capital [27]. Less formally, leaders can simply become better observers, paying attention to whose opinions are sought in meetings, whose presence calms a tense room, and who people turn to in a crisis.

5.2 Engagement: From Co-optation to Co-creation

Once identified, the temptation can be to simply “use” informal leaders to push a pre-ordained agenda. This approach is transparent and often backfires. A more effective strategy is one of genuine co-creation. This involves bringing informal leaders into the change process early, soliciting their expertise, and giving them a real stake in shaping the initiative. As argued [28], when informal leaders are treated as co-architects of a change, they develop a sense of ownership and are far more likely to deploy their silent authority in its favor. This requires vulnerability and a willingness to cede some control on the part of formal leaders, but the resulting commitment and on-the-ground intelligence are invaluable.

5.3 Cultivation: Fostering a Healthy Social Fabric

The ultimate goal is to create an organizational culture where silent authority naturally aligns with strategic goals. This involves fostering a climate of psychological safety, where open dialogue and constructive dissent are encouraged at all levels [29]. When employees feel safe to speak up without fear of reprisal, the candid feedback that informal leaders collect can flow more freely to formal leadership, allowing for continuous learning and adaptation. Furthermore, organizations can actively cultivate a healthy social fabric by creating opportunities for cross-functional collaboration, recognizing and rewarding collaborative behaviors, and investing in leadership development that focuses on influence and network-building skills, not just hierarchical management.

6. Challenges and a Path for Future Research

While the importance of silent authority is increasingly clear, significant questions and challenges remain, offering a fertile ground for future research. First, the rise of remote and hybrid work is fundamentally altering the social landscape of organizations. How is silent authority built and maintained when face-to-face interactions are reduced? Are digital collaboration platforms creating new types of informal leaders—for instance, the “Slack guru” or the “Miro master”? Research is needed to understand how influence dynamics shift in a digitally mediated environment [30]. Second, the question of equity and diversity in informal leadership is critical. Are the same biases that exist in formal leadership pipelines (e.g., against women and people of color) replicated in informal networks? An intersectional lens is needed to explore who is granted silent authority and whose expertise is systematically overlooked, even in the absence of formal titles [31]. Third, the “dark side” of informal leadership warrants further investigation. While this review has focused on resistance to formal change, informal cliques can also become sources of bullying, exclusion, and unethical behavior. Understanding the conditions under which healthy social networks devolve into toxic ones is a critical area for future study. Finally, developing more sophisticated methods for measuring the impact of informal leadership remains a challenge. While SNA can identify key players, quantifying their impact on outcomes like innovation, engagement, and the speed of change would provide a more robust business case for investing in the cultivation of these networks.

7. Conclusion

The modern organization is a resonant chamber. A strategy announced from the top is merely an initial vibration; its ultimate power and direction depend on how it is amplified, altered, or dampened by the social structure through which it passes. The concept of silent authority provides a powerful lens for understanding this resonant process. Wielded by informal leaders and built on the currencies of trust, expertise, and authenticity, this influence is a defining force in the life of an organization. It is the invisible hand that guides the implementation of strategy and the powerful current that can either carry a change initiative forward or pull it under. The era of relying solely on the formal hierarchy for execution and change is over. For leaders, the imperative is clear: they must learn to see and appreciate the complex social architecture of their organizations. They must shift from a mindset of command and control to one of cultivation and connection. This requires humility—to recognize that the most influential person in the room may not be the one with the highest title—and courage—to engage in the messy, human work of building trust with the very people whose silent authority can make or break their best-laid plans. The most resilient, adaptive, and successful organizations of the future will not be those with the most rigid command structures, but those who learn to listen to the resonance within and harness the quiet, formidable power of their silent authorities.

References

1. Adams-Robinson, B. J. (2021). Informal leadership, strategy and organizational change: the power of silent authority. Routledge.
2. Rahmat, Alfina, & Putra Utama, R. (2024). Informal leadership, strategy, and organizational change the power of silent authority: by Brenetia J. Adams-Robinson, New York, NY, Routledge, 2023, 138 pp., EUR 15.19 (Paperback), EUR 39.19 (Hardback), ISBN 978-1-032-21783-3.
3. Kuzmanov, I. (2025). The leader and the chameleon: Psychology, hierarchy, and the interpretation of adaptive personas. Journal of Novel Research and Innovative Development, 3(5), a7-a25.
4. Kouamé, S., Hafsi, T., Oliver, D., & Langley, A. (2022). Creating and sustaining stakeholder emotional resonance with organizational identity in social mission-driven organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 65(6), 1864-1893.
5. Steckler, N. A., & Theard, M. A. (2024). LEADERSHIP STYLES FOR INFLUENCING CHANGE IN HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS. Professional, Ethical, Legal, and Educational Lessons in Medicine: A Problem-Based Learning Approach, 135.
6. Omeihe, K. O., Oruh, E., Omeihe, I., Tzanidis, T., & Okpanum, I. (2025). Dark Leadership within High Power Distance Cultures: The Impact on Employee-Organisation Outcomes in Developing Economies. Available at SSRN 5175801.
7. Jian, G., & Fairhurst, G. T. (Eds.). (2025). The Routledge Handbook of Organizational Leadership Communication.
8. Setijaningrum, E., Mardiyanta, A., Wardiyanto, B., & Samad, S. A. (2025). When Silence Speaks: Public Service Innovation, Village Authority, and the Negotiation of Traditional Justice in Rural Indonesia’s Youth Protection System. Social Sciences (2076-0760), 14(1).
9. Tomkins, L. (2024). Leadership and the tactics of alternative facts. In The Routledge Critical Companion to Leadership Studies (pp. 374-386). Routledge.
10. Song, H. C. (2025). History and leadership: How a head monk uses historical narratives to facilitate change in a Buddhist temple. Journal of Applied Psychology, 110(6), 798.
11. Dhanesh, G. S. (2025). On organizational listening: Subtextual organizational listening to sounds of silence. In Intercultural Public Relations (pp. 72-92). Routledge.
12. Argenti, P. A., & Haynes, J. A. (2025). LEADERSHIP, STRATEGY, AND COMMUNICATION. The Routledge Handbook of Organizational Leadership Communication, 389.
13. Aronsson, I. L., & Price, S. (2024). Culture, heritage, memory: toward a resonant cultural solution for resettlement. Human Organization, 83(3), 216-227.
14. Kim, H. J. (2025). Leadership Changes and Inter-Leader Relationships in Muhammadiyah: From Kauman-Centred Activists to Loosely Connected Individuals. Bijdragen tot de taal-, land-en volkenkunde/Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences of Southeast Asia, 181(1), 34-68.
15. Sargam, S., & Pandey, A. (2023). Responsible leadership toward garnering legitimacy from stakeholders in India: an institutional perspective. Cross Cultural & Strategic Management, 30(4), 755-778.
16. Aspinall, C., Jacobs, S., & Frey, R. (2021). The impact of intersectionality on nursing leadership, empowerment and culture: A case study exploring nurses and managers’ perceptions in an acute care hospital in Aotearoa, New Zealand. Journal of clinical nursing, 30(13-14), 1927-1941.
17. Maulidi, A. (2025). The enigma of fraud as a unique crime and its resonance for auditing research and practice: unlearned lessons of psychological pathways to fraud. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change, 21(1), 48-69.
18. Ravitch, S., & Herzog, L. (2023). Leadership mindsets for adaptive change: The Flux 5. Taylor & Francis.
19. Cooper, M. I. (2024). Language of Legendary Leaders: Exploratory Sequential Mixed Methods Study on Narrating Highly Successful Organizations (Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland University College).
20. Wyatt, Z. (2025). Trauma-Informed Leadership: Recognizing, Responding, and Rebuilding Organizational Resilience. Adv Res Psych.
21. Judeh, M., Al-Gasawneh, J., Al-Zu’bi, H., & Ngah, A. H. (2022). Linking resonant leadership, psychological ownership, and organizational commitment: The mediating role of employee empowerment. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 20(1), 153.
22. Obied, A. (2023). Resonant Leadership: A Catalyst for Job Empowerment Among Palestine Technical University Kadoorie Employees. Journal of Technical Education and Training, 15(3), 105-117.
23. Potluka, O. (2021). Roles of formal and informal leadership: civil society leadership interaction with political leadership in local development. In Handbook on city and regional leadership (pp. 91-107). Edward Elgar Publishing.
24. Tan, C. (2024). Beyond Emotional Intelligence: A Re-Conceptualisation of Resonant Leadership. Philosophy of Management, 23(4), 421-437.
25. Kranthi, A. K., Rai, A., & Showry, M. (2024). Linking resonant leadership and learning organizations: The role of psychological empowerment as a mediator in faculty members among higher educational institutions in India. Acta Psychologica, 248, 104365.
26. Reynolds, P. O. F. (2021). Resonant leadership practices of nurse managers in the hospital setting.
27. Marques, J. (2021). Conscious leadership: Considering internal and external stakeholders. Business With a conscience, 3-15.
28. Kouamé, S., Hafsi, T., Oliver, D., & Langley, A. (2022). Creating and sustaining stakeholder emotional resonance with organizational identity in social mission-driven organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 65(6), 1864-1893.
29. Wu, C., Yao, H., Ning, X., & Wang, L. (2021). Emergence of informal safety leadership: A social–cognitive process for accident prevention. Production and Operations Management, 30(11), 4288-4305.
30. Schumacher, T., Krautzberger, M., & Wörner, M. (2022). Enacting leadership legitimacy under terms of limited formal and informal power in a heterarchical network of organizations. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 58(4), 752-778.
31. Sales, A., Mansur, J., Valentinov, V., & Roth, S. (2025). Willing unwillingness. A Luhmannian perspective on followership and leadership in organizations. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 42(2), 563-573.