Simply put, informal leadership refers to someone who has no formal position of authority over people but who becomes a group’s leader informally. Such a person might not even be acknowledged explicitly by the group as their leader. It might be quite subconscious and only observable by an outsider who might notice that the group is regularly doing what the informal leader is suggesting.
The conventional concept of informal leadership is very similar to that of formal leadership despite the difference in formal authority. Both refer to being in charge of a group on an ongoing basis. The leader in both cases is one person who is looked to for direction, not only what should be done, but often how to do it. Both leaders make decisions for the group, or at least, have the most influence over the group’s decisions.
Because informal leaders have not been granted any formal authority, they must have some type of informal authority. This can be personal magnetism, expertise or powerful persuasive skills or even just being physically large or good looking. Sometimes a person is acknowledged as the leader simply by virtue of having a strong force of will, a determination to have the last say. Some people who follow such a leader may not agree with the direction advocated but are not confident enough to object strongly, so they acquiesce in the leader’s preferences.
However, the conventional view of leadership, formal and informal, can be seen as a confused mixture of leadership and management. Leadership can be seen as an occasional act rather than an ongoing role, a bit like creativity. On this view there is no such thing as formal leadership. Being in an organizational position of authority over others makes you a manager, not a leader. To be a leader, you need to be able to convince people to willingly follow some new direction. This means that there is formal and informal management but only informal leadership. The advantage of this view is that it makes better sense of how everyone can show some leadership occasionally, even if they could not dominate the group for even a moment.
On the other hand, leadership has quite a different meaning for some people. Many view leaders as substitute parents, normally father figures. It can be argued that we are genetically programmed to be hierarchical and that we get anxious if we don’t have one person to turn to who is the final judge in resolving disputes. This view of leadership is ancient, but very resilient. On the downside, it is outdated in an age of knowledge work and empowerment when we need to understand how all employees can show some leadership informally every day. There is nothing wrong with looking up to people, but we should stop calling them leaders and start calling them role models instead.
Mitch McCrimmon - I am a management assessment and coaching consultant with a Ph.D. in Philosophy from the University of Western Ontario in 1975. I had a ...
