Mind mapping as a tool for revising your understanding

Formal vs. Actual Structure

Most organizations have both a formal structure and an actual structure. The formal structure is what's on the org chart. It defines roles, titles, reporting lines, and official authority. The actual structure is how decisions really happen. It includes formal authority but also informal influence: relationships, networks, information flow, personal credibility, control over resources. The gap between formal and actual structure is where organizational dysfunction lives. In a well-functioning group, the formal structure matches the actual structure. The person officially responsible for finance actually makes financial decisions. The person officially in charge of hiring actually controls hiring. Official authority aligns with actual influence. In a dysfunctional group, the gap is large. Official authority is held by people who don't make decisions. Actual authority is held by people in shadows. This creates confusion, resentment, and corruption. Mapping requires identifying both structures and understanding the gap.

Identifying Formal Authority

Start with what's written down: - Titles and roles - Official decision-making processes - Stated authority in job descriptions or bylaws - Official committees and their mandates - Reporting structures This is easy to see. It's all documented. But formal authority is often fiction. It doesn't tell you how things actually work. It tells you what the organization claims about itself.

Identifying Actual Authority

Actual authority is harder to see but more important to understand. Look at: Who makes decisions. Not who's officially responsible, but who actually decides. Follow several decisions through the process. Notice who shapes them. Watch whose concerns get addressed and whose get dismissed. Who are the pivotal people? Who's actually deciding? Information flows. Who knows what before others? Who controls what information gets communicated? Information is power. If someone controls information flow, they control decisions even if they're not officially in charge. Resource control. Who controls money? Who controls equipment? Who controls access to what people need? Resource control is concentrated authority. Relationship networks. Who consults with whom before official meetings? Whose opinion matters to the decision-maker? Who gets to the ear of leadership? Relationships are where unofficial authority lives. Veto points. Whose approval is actually needed before something can happen? This is formal or informal. "We need budget approval" is formal. "We need Marcus to agree or he'll block it" is informal. Boundary definition. Who decides what's in scope and what's out of scope? Who defines the boundaries of authority? Meta-authority—authority over authority—is the most concentrated form.

Coalition Patterns

Power in groups operates through coalitions. Rarely does a single person control everything. More commonly, a coalition of people with aligned interests maintains control. To map coalitions: - Who votes together consistently? - Who has informal alliances? - What interests do they share? - What would break the coalition? - Who could break it from inside? - What would it take to form a different coalition? Understanding coalition patterns shows you where the actual balance of power is. It shows you where you have leverage. It shows you what coalitions would be needed to change decisions.

Exclusion Patterns

Pay attention to who is never in the room where decisions happen. These people are structurally excluded from power. Their perspectives don't shape decisions. Their interests don't get represented. Exclusion patterns reveal: - Who the group actually cares about - Who is considered peripheral - What kinds of people are assumed to not matter - What perspectives are systematically missing Exclusion is often invisible to the people who benefit from it. If you're in the room, you don't notice who isn't. If you're excluded, it's obvious.

Visualization Techniques

Mapping is easier if you visualize it: Circle maps. Draw concentric circles with decision-makers in the center and people further from decisions in outer rings. Who's inside and who's outside? Power webs. Draw lines showing who influences whom. Thicker lines show stronger influence. Color code them by type of influence (financial, social, informational). This shows the actual network of power. Decision trees. Pick a recent decision and trace it backwards. Who decided? What did they decide based on? Who influenced them? Whose concerns were considered? Whose were ignored? This shows the actual decision-making process. Timeline analysis. Track the same decision-maker over time. What have they decided? When have they been overruled? When have they had free rein? Patterns emerge.

Interrogating the Map

Once you have a map, interrogate it: - Is power distributed or concentrated? - Is authority formal or informal? - Are decision-makers accountable to anyone? - Who can change a decision? - Who is excluded from decisions that affect them? - What veto points exist? Are they justified? - How stable is the current power structure? - What would change it? These questions show you whether the structure is legitimate (aligned with stated values and processes) or illegitimate (hidden, unaccountable, excluding affected people).

The Map as Tool

A map of power structure is a tool for change. It shows you: - Where leverage points are - What coalitions need to form to change something - Who needs to be convinced - What barriers exist - What would actually shift the balance You cannot navigate toward a more distributed, accountable, legitimate power structure without understanding the current structure first. Mapping is how you build that understanding. ---

Citations

1. Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the Prison Notebooks. International Publishers. 2. McCammon, H. J., et al. (2001). "How Movements Win." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 98(15), 8201-8206. 3. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press. 4. Arendt, H. (1958). The Human Condition. University of Chicago Press. 5. Foucault, M. (1980). Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings. Pantheon Books.