The Invisible Authority: How Accreditation Managers Lead Without Command Power

In most public safety organizations, authority is clearly defined. Rank, position, and responsibility determine who directs actions, allocates resources, and enforces compliance. Accreditation managers, however, often operate outside these formal chains of command. They rarely supervise personnel, issue orders, or control budgets. Yet, despite lacking positional power, accreditation managers wield significant influence over organizational behavior, decision-making, and risk posture. This influence stems from a different kind of authority—one based not on command but on credibility, trust, and institutional knowledge.

Understanding how accreditation managers lead without formal authority is key to recognizing their true value to the organization. Their influence isn't based on rank; it comes from how accreditation efforts connect with legitimacy and ongoing improvement.

Informal Authority in Complex Organizations

Scholars of organizations have long acknowledged that influence does not originate solely from formal authority. In complex systems, individuals often impact outcomes through expertise, relational trust, and control over critical processes rather than just rank (French & Raven, 1959). Informal authority arises when others defer not because they are compelled to, but because they believe it is wise to do so.

Accreditation managers exemplify this dynamic. They are often the individuals most familiar with organizational policies, historical decisions, audit findings, and external expectations. Over time, this knowledge becomes essential. While executives may retain final decision-making authority, they often depend on accreditation managers to interpret standards, evaluate risk, and predict downstream consequences.

This reliance reflects a form of expert authority. Accreditation managers influence results by shaping how problems are defined, which options seem viable, and how decisions are recorded. Their power lies not in issuing commands, but in framing reality.

The Accreditation Manager as Organizational Memory

One of the most overlooked sources of accreditation managers’ influence is their role as custodians of organizational history (Abner et al., 2024). Public safety organizations often face frequent leadership changes, restructuring, and policy updates. Chiefs, directors, wardens, and administrators may serve relatively short terms compared to the organization’s overall lifespan.

Accreditation managers often ensure continuity during these transitions. They remember why policies were put in place, how standards were previously interpreted, and where vulnerabilities have appeared over time. This historical perspective enables them to advise leaders not only on what standards demand but also on how similar issues have been addressed in the past.

Organizational research highlights the importance of memory for maintaining institutional stability. When memory is lost, organizations tend to repeat mistakes, drop effective practices, or make decisions without understanding previous tradeoffs (Weick, 1995). Accreditation managers reduce this risk by linking current decisions to documented practices and historical context, ensuring consistency even with leadership changes.

Trust, Credibility, and Procedural Influence

Informal authority is maintained through trust. Accreditation managers establish credibility by showing consistency, fairness, and dependability in applying standards. When personnel trust that accreditation findings are based on evidence rather than preference, and that expectations are enforced equally, resistance decreases and cooperation grows.

Research on procedural justice shows that people are more likely to accept decisions when they see the process as fair, transparent, and predictable (Tyler, 2015). Accreditation managers help this perception by clarifying expectations, documenting reasons, and making sure standards are applied evenly rather than selectively.

This procedural influence is especially significant because accreditation often affects sensitive organizational areas—such as training deficiencies, policy gaps, supervisory failures, or risk exposure. Accreditation managers who lack formal authority must depend on legitimacy gained from process integrity. When that legitimacy is strong, their recommendations are influential even without enforcement power.

Boundary-Spanning and Translation

Accreditation managers also gain influence from their role at the intersection of internal operations and external expectations. They regularly interact with assessors, regulators, professional associations, and peer agencies, while working with internal stakeholders across various divisions and levels.

This cross-boundary role involves translation. External standards need to be interpreted in a way that makes sense internally, while internal practices must be explained in a way that satisfies external reviewers. Accreditation managers who perform this translation effectively reduce friction and uncertainty for leadership.

Boundary-spanning research indicates that individuals who can operate across multiple organizational areas often have outsized influence because they control information flow and lessen uncertainty (Scott, 2014). Accreditation managers serve in this role by assisting leaders in understanding not only what standards demand but also how those requirements will be viewed by external audiences.

Informal Authority and Organizational Risk

Accreditation managers’ informal authority is closely connected to organizational risk management. Many decisions related to accreditation involve balancing efficiency, flexibility, and exposure. Leaders might ask whether a deviation is justifiable, whether a policy gap presents a real risk, or if documentation is adequate to prove due diligence.

Accreditation managers shape these decisions by framing risk in organizational rather than abstract terms. They assist leaders in anticipating how decisions will be judged afterward—by auditors, courts, insurers, or the public. This forward-looking role is vital in public safety, where retrospective judgment is typical and tolerance for error is minimal.

Importantly, this influence isn’t based on fear-based enforcement. Accreditation managers don't threaten consequences; they highlight them. This approach allows leaders to make informed decisions while maintaining their autonomy.

Leading Without Command

The lack of formal authority does not lessen the leadership role of accreditation managers; it defines it. Their leadership is demonstrated through preparation rather than issuing orders, through framing rather than enforcing rules, and through consistency instead of coercion.

This form of leadership requires self-control. Accreditation managers must avoid the temptation to overreach into command roles, even when they have greater knowledge of standards or risks. Their influence is most effective when they act as credible advisors rather than acting as decision-makers.

Organizations that fail to acknowledge or support this informal authority risk weakening their accreditation systems. When accreditation managers are left out of planning discussions, denied access to leadership, or seen only as administrative staff, they lose a vital governance resource.

Recognizing and Supporting Informal Authority

For accreditation systems to work effectively, organizations must recognize the informal authority that accreditation managers already have. This doesn't mean changing formal hierarchy, but it does mean being intentional about including them. Accreditation managers should be able to participate in leadership conversations, get involved early in policy development, and raise concerns without fear of being sidelined.

Supporting informal authority also involves investing in professional development. Expertise, credibility, and judgment are not static qualities; they are developed over time. Organizations that see accreditation managers as strategic partners rather than just compliance technicians strengthen their overall capacity.

Conclusion

Accreditation managers lead without formal authority, yet their influence profoundly shapes organizational behavior. Through expertise, trust, institutional memory, and boundary-spanning translation, they assist public safety organizations in navigating complex expectations while maintaining credibility and continuity.

Their authority is unseen in organizational charts but visible in outcomes. When accreditation managers are empowered to use this informal authority, accreditation transforms from a periodic assessment into a stabilizing force that reinforces governance, accountability, and trust over time.

References

Abner, G., Merritt, C. C., & Boggs, R. (2024). How can we help law enforcement agencies learn? A look at CALEA police accreditation. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 47(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1108/PIJPSM-08-2023-0099

French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150–167). University of Michigan.

Scott, W. R. (2014). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities (4th ed.). Sage.

Tyler, T. R. (2015). Procedural justice, legitimacy, and effective rule of law. Crime and Justice, 44(1), 1–46. https://doi.org/10.1086/681829

Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Sage.