One of the most persistent myths in corporate life is that power sits neatly inside the org chart. Titles, reporting lines, decision rights. On paper, it all looks very orderly. In reality, power rarely follows structure. It follows influence, access, narrative control, and timing.
I think just about everyone has known that one person in an organisation who seems above their station, yet for some reason the CEO hangs off their every word.
EAs tend to learn this instinctively, often long before anyone else. We see who gets listened to and who gets indulged. We notice whose opinion lands even when it contradicts the plan, and whose carefully prepared input disappears without comment. We observe who can delay decisions without consequence, and who is punished for doing the same. None of that is accidental.
But seeing power and understanding it are not the same thing.
Many EAs mistake proximity for influence. We are close to senior leaders, trusted with information, present in moments of tension and decision-making. That closeness feels like power, and in some ways it is. But proximity only matters if it converts into protection or leverage. Without that conversion, it is simply exposure, which is worthless in comparison.
Formal Power vs Functional Power
Formal power is what appears on slides and organisation charts. It is visible, documented, and easy to reference. Functional power is harder to see. It belongs to the people who shape outcomes without needing to be named in the decision.
Functional power sits with those who:
control information flow
frame problems before they reach the room
influence interpretation after meetings end
remain untouched when plans fail
These people are not always the most senior. They are often the most connected, the most consistent, or the most strategically placed. They know when to speak, when to wait, and when to let others take the heat.
EAs are often adjacent to functional power without being included in it. We may hear the conversation, but we do not get to shape how it is remembered. We may understand the nuance, but we are not asked to define it. Over time, this creates a dangerous illusion: that being close to power is the same as having it.
It isn’t. Trust me.
Influence Is Revealed After the Meeting
If you want to understand where power actually sits, don’t look at who speaks most in meetings. Look at what happens afterwards.
Who reframes the decision in follow-up conversations? Whose interpretation becomes the accepted version of events? Who gets to say “that’s not quite what we meant” without being challenged?
Power reveals itself in the aftermath, not the moment.
EAs often do a significant amount of invisible work in this phase. We clarify, smooth, reword, and contextualise. We ensure alignment where none existed. We stop misunderstandings from escalating. But in doing so, we may also be masking where influence truly lies. The organisation experiences coherence, but it does not see the effort required to maintain it, and because that effort is unseen, it is so rarely protected.
When Power Shifts, It Rarely Announces Itself
Power shifts are rarely dramatic. They do not arrive with announcements or updated org charts. They show up quietly, through changed behaviour.
Suddenly someone else is looped in first. A meeting you always attended now happens without you. Decisions feel pre-made. Your input is acknowledged but not acted on. None of this is framed as exclusion. It is framed as efficiency, focus, or “just for now.”
For EAs, these moments are often the earliest signals that influence is moving elsewhere. The mistake many people make is assuming these shifts are temporary, or purely situational. Sometimes they are. Often, they are not. They might not always involve you either. It’s not uncommon for EAs to witness this shift from one person to another with the company. Quite often because of a falling out or disagreement and then there’s suddenly a new person involved for seemingly no reason.
Power consolidates quickly once it starts to move. And it rarely moves back.
