If you want to understand how decisions are really made in large organisations, attend the steering committee. But then — more importantly — pay attention to what happens in the ten minutes after it ends.
Laptops close. People stand up. Conversations appear to be over. But within minutes, small groups form in the corridor, side conversations start, and clarifications are exchanged. And often, that is where the real decisions happen.
The Moment the Meeting Ends — and Begins
This is not cynicism about formal governance. Formal governance creates structure, and structure matters enormously in large programmes. But informal interactions create momentum — and momentum is what actually moves organisations.
I remember one steering committee where we discussed a major architectural choice. The meeting concluded with general agreement but no explicit recorded decision. As people left the room, two executives stayed behind. Ten minutes later, I was called back in: a direction had been agreed, a decision had effectively been made. It just hadn't happened in the formal setting.
The formal setting provided the context. The informal conversation provided the decision. Understanding that this is how organisations often work — rather than being surprised or frustrated by it — is one of the more practical things a programme leader can internalise.
The Gap That Creates Problems
The informal decision-making that follows formal meetings creates a specific risk: the gap between what is agreed, what is understood, and what is eventually executed.
Decisions taken informally may not be fully communicated downward. Alignment that exists at the top of the organisation may not cascade with the fidelity needed to produce consistent execution. Documentation lags reality. And the programme leader who was not in the informal conversation may not even know that the decision has been made until its effects are already in motion.
This gap — between agreement at the top and understanding at the delivery level — is one of the most consistent sources of misalignment in large programmes. It is not a failure of intent. It is a structural consequence of how informal decision-making works.
Understanding the Real Network
In large organisations, decision-making follows informal networks as much as it follows formal hierarchy. Relationships, trust, and influence shape which conversations happen, who is included, and whose view carries weight in the informal exchanges that precede, follow, and sometimes replace the formal ones.
Early in my career, I focused almost entirely on the formal layer: structured meetings, documented communication, recorded decisions. It felt professional and controlled. But I kept encountering surprises — misalignments, decisions I had not fully anticipated, directions that had apparently been agreed without my involvement. The formal picture and the actual picture were diverging, and I was not always aware of the divergence until it had consequences.
It was not until I started engaging more informally — one-to-one conversations before key meetings, post-meeting follow-ups, investing in relationships rather than just processes — that the picture became significantly clearer. Not because the informal conversations replaced the formal ones, but because they gave me access to the real positions rather than just the formal ones.
If you rely only on the formal forums, you hear the official message. To understand what is really happening, you need to be present in the conversations that the formal forums enable but do not contain.
What I Do Now
The practical changes I have made over time are straightforward, even if they require consistent discipline to maintain.
Before key decisions, I speak with the significant stakeholders individually — not to lobby or manage, but to understand their real position rather than their formal one. The view someone holds in private is often meaningfully different from the one they express in a governance forum, and understanding the difference allows me to address genuine concerns before they surface publicly in unhelpful ways.
After key meetings, I follow up directly and promptly — to confirm what was actually agreed, to ensure that informal decisions are made visible and documented, and to make certain that the gap between agreement and understanding is closed quickly rather than allowed to widen.
Informal decisions are not a problem to be eliminated. They are a feature of how organisations work, and treating them as such — by ensuring they are captured, communicated, and made visible — turns what can be a source of misalignment into a normal part of effective programme governance.
Formal meetings create structure. Informal conversations create outcomes. The most effective programme leaders are those who are equally present and equally skilled in both — who can run a rigorous governance forum and then stay for the conversation that follows it.
The ten minutes after the meeting often contain more information about where the programme is actually going than the ninety minutes that preceded them.
Paying attention to those ten minutes is not a political skill. It is a fundamental requirement of leading at scale.