Titles, reporting lines, and organizational charts often paint a clean picture of governance. But in complex or fragile markets, these formal structures rarely reflect operational reality. Power flows along lines of trust, control, and narrative—not just hierarchy. Nowhere is this clearer than in the advertising and communications process. If you want to understand who holds real authority in a project, watch who approves the messaging. Follow the ad approvals, not the org chart.
Messaging Is Power
Public communication is not just about branding—it is about positioning, narrative control, and external legitimacy. In environments where reputational risk can have immediate operational consequences, every word is political. That’s why messaging decisions are often made by the most powerful actors in the system, regardless of their formal role. When field-level teams or external consultants defer to someone without a communications title, it is often because that person has real veto power.
Informal Gatekeepers
In some organizations, especially in transitional or family-linked enterprises, informal advisors or politically connected figures shape public messaging behind the scenes. They may not appear on the website, but their opinions carry weight. Delays in approvals, repeated rewrites, or last-minute changes often signal that messaging is being filtered through unofficial channels. These gatekeepers often see communications as a proxy battle for deeper strategic control.
The Pattern of Deference
When mid-level staff hesitate to approve even routine content without checking with someone “upstairs,” that hesitation is telling. It reveals not just risk aversion, but internal power imbalances. Over time, patterns of deference show who is considered indispensable and who is simply an executor. Mapping delays, feedback loops, and decision points around external communications provides a more accurate chart of operational control than internal HR documents.
When Communications Bypass Communications
In dysfunctional structures, communications departments may not control communication. Founders, donors, or politically protected directors may bypass the team entirely—sending messages directly to media, rewriting campaign briefs, or engaging influencers without protocol. This undermines brand consistency and internal coherence. It also shows that the person with the communications title is not in command of the actual narrative.
Implications for External Partners
For consultants, donors, or investors, knowing who controls messaging is essential to risk management. If a founder insists that governance is institutionalized but still signs off on every Facebook ad, then control remains concentrated. If a politically appointed advisor blocks a gender equity message, it reveals more than policy tension—it signals internal fragmentation. Narrative ownership is a governance indicator. Treat it as such.
Diagnosing Through the Approval Process
To understand the real structure behind the structure, ask the following:
-
Who drafts messaging, and who revises it?
-
How many approval steps exist, and are they documented?
-
Who has final sign-off on public-facing content?
-
Have there been delays, reversals, or contradictions in past communications?
-
Is there a written policy that matches actual behavior?
The answers often expose the operational architecture behind the public facade.
Final Thoughts
Power leaves a trail, and in fragile or complex environments, one of the clearest trails is ad approvals. The formal org chart shows design; the approval process shows function. Those who control the message often control the mission. Understanding that distinction is critical for due diligence, partnership management, and risk assessment. In any serious engagement, narrative is never neutral—and those who manage it rarely do so by accident.
