Every organisation has two operating systems. One is formal. It lives in policies, procedures, org charts, and governance documents. The other is informal. It lives in habits, shortcuts, expectations, and unwritten rules about how things actually get done. During change, it is the informal system that usually wins.1
What informal rules actually are
Informal rules are not acts of rebellion.2 They are shared understandings about:
- which rules can be bent
- which approvals are real versus symbolic
- where speed matters more than process
- what risks are tolerated
- who will step in if something goes wrong
They emerge through experience, not design.3 People learn them by watching what happens when rules collide with reality.
Why informal rules exist
Informal rules exist because formal systems cannot anticipate every situation. They fill gaps where processes are ambiguous, slow, or misaligned with operational pressure. In stable conditions, informal rules often improve efficiency. They help work get done despite imperfect design. During change, however, they often preserve the old way of working.
How informal rules overpower formal change
When a new process is introduced, people do not immediately follow it blindly. They test it. They ask, implicitly:
- What happens if I follow the new process and miss a target?
- What happens if I follow the old way and deliver?
- Who gets protected when things go wrong?
- Who absorbs the consequences of delay or error?
The answers to these questions determine behaviour far more reliably than training or communication. If informal rules continue to protect old behaviours, formal change will not hold.
Why leaders often underestimate informal rules
Leaders are usually closest to the formal system. They approve policies. They design governance. They communicate expectations. They are often far removed from the informal system that actually mediates day-to-day decisions. As a result, leaders can sincerely believe that change has been embedded while informal rules quietly redirect behaviour underneath. This gap explains why dashboards look healthy while outcomes disappoint.
Informal rules and selective adoption
Informal rules are a major driver of partial adoption. People follow the new way when it is safe and revert when it is risky. This creates:
- inconsistent behaviour across teams
- uneven data quality
- unpredictable handoffs
- frustration with “lack of discipline”
From the outside, this looks like resistance. From the inside, it is prudent risk management.
Why enforcement rarely fixes the problem
When informal rules undermine change, organisations often respond with enforcement.
They tighten controls. They monitor compliance. They reiterate expectations. This can suppress visible deviation, but it rarely changes informal rules.
People comply where they are watched and revert where they are not. Workarounds become more sophisticated. Issues surface later. Without changing the underlying risk and incentive landscape, enforcement treats symptoms, not causes.
Informal rules as design feedback
Informal rules are not obstacles to overcome. They are signals. They reveal where formal design does not hold under pressure. When people create workarounds, they are telling the organisation something important about capacity, incentives, or risk exposure. Ignoring that feedback does not make it disappear. It makes it harder to see.
What changes informal rules
Informal rules change when consequences change. Specifically, when:
- new behaviours are protected under pressure
- old behaviours stop being rewarded
- escalation is safe and effective
- performance measures align with the new way
- leaders intervene consistently
These shifts require design decisions, not messaging campaigns.
A more realistic way to work with culture
Culture change does not start by asking people to think differently. It starts by changing what works and what does not. When formal systems make the new way safer and more effective than the old, informal rules follow. Until then, culture will continue to select behaviours that protect people from risk — regardless of stated intent. This is one way of thinking about why change succeeds or fails. Other pieces go deeper into how leaders can read informal systems and intervene without triggering defensiveness.
-
Homans, G. C. (1950). The Human Group. Harcourt, Brace. Homans’ foundational analysis of small group behaviour establishes that informal norms emerge from repeated interaction and become self-reinforcing through social approval and disapproval. Informal rules are not ad hoc workarounds; they are stable social structures that govern behaviour as reliably as formal rules, and often more so under conditions of ambiguity. During change, the informal system has a longer reinforcement history than the new formal one — it wins by default until the new system builds its own history of enforced consequences. ↩︎
-
Feldman, M. S., & Pentland, B. T. (2003). Reconceptualizing Organizational Routines as a Source of Flexibility and Change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(1), 94–118. https://doi.org/10.2307/3556620. Feldman and Pentland’s distinction between ostensive routines (the formal, abstract ideal of how work is done) and performative routines (what people actually do in practice) explains why formal change and informal behaviour diverge. Formal change modifies the ostensive routine; it does not automatically modify the performative one. Informal rules govern the performative layer. Workarounds, shortcuts, and exceptions are not deviations from the routine — they are the routine as it is actually performed. ↩︎
-
Mintzberg, H. (1979). The Structuring of Organizations: A Synthesis of the Research. Prentice Hall. Mintzberg’s analysis of how organisations actually coordinate work — through direct supervision, standardisation, and mutual adjustment — establishes that informal coordination mechanisms emerge precisely where formal structures create gaps or impose friction. Informal rules fill the spaces between formal structures where operational reality diverges from organisational design. They emerge through experience because people learn what works and teach it to others; their persistence reflects the durability of the problems they solve, not the stubbornness of individuals. ↩︎