Informal Power: The Stabilizers No One Protects
Issue #6 - The Rules No One Writes Down
Every organization has two power structures.
One is formal. It’s the one that lives on an org chart, in your employee handbook, maybe even on your website. It assigns titles, establishes authority, and allegedly directs reporting lines.
The other is informal. It is not documented, but it is widely understood. It determines who people actually go to for clarity, who smooths conflict before it escalates, who absorbs instability, and who keeps the system functioning when leadership does not.
The second structure often carries more weight than the first.
The Influence That Doesn’t Appear on Paper
In one organization I worked for, there were two owners who formally led the company. They were decisive at times (which was its own unique problem), but more often than not they operated off of chaos. Direction shifted quickly. Priorities changed without warning. Urgency was frequent and rarely well-structured.
One of the things I was generally known for was building clear systems and reliable workflows. Over time, people from other departments began coming to me directly for clarity. They wanted to understand what my team was doing, where projects stood, what was actually needed, and how to move something forward without confusion. There were cases when I had no idea or no involvement, but I was in many more cases able to at least point people in the right direction.
The formal structure said decisions flowed from the top. The operational reality was that people came to me to translate and stabilize what flowed down.
Leadership benefited from this quietly. Occasionally, my direct supervisor would acknowledge that I had taken a significant amount off his plate or refer to me as the “go-to” person for certain initiatives. But the larger pattern remained unchanged. I had influence, but only partial authority. I could fix, clarify, and execute. I could not always set direction independently. Even when I was given latitude, it often required informal approval after the fact.
This is one form of informal power: being trusted more than the structure you report into. It feels like competence. It is also a massive load to carry.
Emotional Regulation as Organizational Infrastructure
The informal structure did not end with workflow. I regularly spoke with clients who were frustrated, anxious, or confused. There were even occasions where I’d get off of a group call only to receive a second call from a client who wanted me to “translate” what someone higher up had been saying during the original meeting. They had gotten to the point where they didn’t even feel like they could ask the people speaking to them for clarity.
At the same time, I was keeping internal team members steady, translating shifting expectations, and ensuring projects did not spiral when communication from the top was inconsistent.
Externally, I reassured.
Internally, I stabilized.
Operationally, I built.
The physical cost accumulated slowly. Long hours became routine. Early mornings blended into late nights. My sleep patterns suffered. I eventually went on two blood pressure medications and had to make deliberate efforts to address my mental health when time allowed. (And yes, in case you are wondering - I do recognize my own role in letting things get out of hand. But at the time I thought I was helping to build something that had a purpose and mission).
No one described this as emotional labor. It was framed as reliability. People appreciated not having to deal with difficult conversations themselves. They appreciated that problems did not escalate.
What was less visible was how much time and cognitive bandwidth this regulation consumed. It did not replace my formal responsibilities. It layered on top of them.
In many organizations, the calmest person in the room becomes the nervous system for everyone else. That role is rarely named. It is almost never compensated proportionately.
Risk Absorption and the Illusion of Stability
When financial pressure mounted and leadership rushed incomplete automations into place, the informal power dynamic intensified.
I was responsible for testing the systems, quickly writing documentation (that clients expected but management didn’t feel was even important), building or adjusting workflows for my internal team, and making the changes appear as seamless as possible. At the same time, I fielded calls and requests for help when those systems broke.
The most significant buffering did not occur in making the automation perfect. It occurred in calming people when it was not. I helped clients find workarounds. I reassured internal teams. I bought time while someone else attempted to repair or roll back what had been implemented prematurely.
From the outside, the organization continued functioning. Internally, the fragility was constant.
This is how risk absorption works. The person closest to the instability catches it before it reaches the surface. When they do this effectively, leadership may interpret the system as resilient rather than strained.
Absorbed risk becomes invisible risk. Invisible risk gets repeated.
The Quiet Recalibration
I did not stage a confrontation. I did not refuse responsibilities. I did not publicly withdraw. What changed was more subtle.
I became slower to jump. I waited to see if someone else would respond with urgency. I allowed space for others to step in rather than reflexively stabilizing every situation myself. I grew quieter.
Nothing dramatic happened in response. The labels did not shift. The expectations remained. The load did not meaningfully redistribute (at all). I didn’t do less work or put less effort into what I was doing. I was just quieter about it.
Eventually, because of this and other significant catalysts, I chose to leave.
When I did, I made it clear that I was not open to further discussion. In the weeks that followed, several people reached out: at least a couple from adjacent departments, a contractor I had worked closely with, and even one or two clients. They expressed sadness and appreciation. What they were responding to was not my title. It was the stability I had provided.
After I stepped out, the structure had to stand on its own. I assume, or hope, it was able to do so.
The Rule No One Writes Down
Informal power often rests with the most competent and emotionally steady person in the room. They translate chaos into clarity. They absorb risk. They regulate emotion. They make incomplete systems function long enough to appear viable.
Because they do this well, leadership may mistake their endurance for structural health.
The stabilizers are rarely formally protected. They are rarely relieved. They are often praised for being dependable while being quietly overextended.
This is one of the rules no one writes down: the people who hold unstable systems together are often the least shielded from the strain of doing so. And when they decide to step away, the difference is not theoretical. It is structural.
If You Recognize Yourself as the Stabilizer
Informal power can feel flattering. Being the person others trust, the one who keeps things steady, the one who “can handle it,” often reads as competence. The question is whether it is also costing you more than it should.
Ask yourself:
When something breaks, do people instinctively look to me to fix it?
Do I routinely translate unclear leadership decisions into something workable?
Am I the person others come to for reassurance after tense meetings?
If I stopped responding immediately, would the system slow down noticeably?
Am I absorbing frustration that should travel upward?
Has my workload expanded quietly because I am efficient and calm?
Do I feel protected by the same structure I am protecting?
If your influence is informal but your protection is not structural, you are likely carrying more than your title reflects. The goal is not to withdraw care or competence. It is to stop confusing indispensability with sustainability.
If You’re in Leadership
Informal power holders are often your most valuable people — and the easiest to overlook.
Ask yourself:
Who do employees go to before they come to me?
Whose absence would create confusion or instability?
Who is regularly smoothing tension I never fully see?
Are the calmest people in the room also the most overloaded?
Have I mistaken someone’s resilience for infinite capacity?
If they left tomorrow, what would actually be exposed?
If someone is quietly absorbing risk, translating chaos, or regulating emotion on your behalf, that is not personality. That is labor.
And labor without recognition or redistribution becomes attrition.
How to Rebalance Informal Power Without Burning Bridges
If you recognize yourself as the informal stabilizer, the solution is not to abruptly withdraw or stop caring. Sudden disengagement often creates chaos and reinforces the belief that only you could hold things together. A more sustainable approach is gradual recalibration.
Start by making invisible labor visible. When you smooth conflict, clarify direction, or compensate for instability, name the work in neutral language. Instead of quietly fixing a breakdown, document the time it took. Instead of absorbing confusion from multiple teams, summarize it and the adjacent surface patterns. This is not a complaint; it is operational transparency. If a system requires constant buffering, that is structural information leadership needs to see.
Second, slow your reflex to respond. You do not need to abandon urgency entirely, but you can create space. When a request comes in, pause before stepping in. See who else moves. Allow silence to reveal whether responsibility has been unevenly distributed. This small delay can illuminate how much of the organization’s speed has depended on you personally.
Third, redirect upward (or even adjacently) when appropriate. If frustration or confusion stems from unclear leadership decisions, resist the instinct to fully absorb it. It is reasonable to say, “That’s a question best answered by…” or “This would benefit from clarification at the leadership level.” You are not escalating conflict; you are returning accountability to where it belongs.
Fourth, define your boundaries before you announce them. Consider what you are no longer willing to carry alone. Is it after-hours regulation? Last-minute structural fixes? Emotional mediation between teams? Decide privately what must change before attempting to change it publicly. Boundaries articulated without internal clarity tend to collapse under pressure.
Finally, invest in portability. Informal power can create a false sense of security. Being indispensable inside one system does not guarantee protection within it. Continue building skills, relationships, and options beyond the organization. Not as a threat, but as balance. When you know you are not trapped, your decisions become more measured and less fear-driven.
Rebalancing informal power is not about withdrawing competence. It is about ensuring that the steadiness you offer others does not come at the expense of your own sustainability.
Did you find this article helpful? Please consider supporting my efforts by buying me a coffee!