The great unbundling

We're witnessing a fundamental architectural shift: authority is decoupling from position. The institutions designed to coordinate complex systems through hierarchical consensus can no longer produce outcomes at the speed reality requires.

This isn't about competent versus incompetent leaders. It's about structural obsolescence. The game changed, but the architecture didn't.

The pattern manifests across three domains:

In technology: Whoever builds and controls the infrastructure that actually works wields more operational power than institutions with formal regulatory authority. When critical systems depend on private technical architecture, authority follows demonstrated capability to keep those systems running—not the position that claims oversight. The migration is inevitable: power flows to whoever can ship functioning code while formal processes are still debating frameworks.

In geopolitics: Consensus-based institutions designed for a bipolar world cannot produce coordinated action in a multipolar, high-velocity environment. The architecture assumes stable relationships and slow-moving crises where position-holders have time to negotiate shared positions. But when events move faster than consensus formation, authority shifts to actors who can deliver concrete outcomes without requiring universal agreement first.

In economics: Trust derived from institutional position ("we guarantee this because we're the central authority") competes against trust embedded in transparent, verifiable systems architecture. When code can provide more credible commitment than institutional promise, the locus of trust migrates from position to mechanism. Not because institutions are dishonest, but because architectural transparency outcompetes positional assurance.

The underlying mechanism: Information asymmetry collapse. Position-based authority historically derived power from controlling information and interpretation. When everyone can observe system performance in real-time—when outcomes are visible to all participants—authority that exists solely through position loses legitimacy. What survives is competence-based authority: demonstrated capacity to make complex systems function under real constraints.

This creates a strategic bifurcation:

Traditional power holders maintain formal authority but lose operational influence. They can convene meetings, issue statements, claim jurisdiction—but cannot deliver outcomes because their architecture wasn't built for this velocity.

Systems builders gain operational influence without formal authority. They control infrastructure, deploy working solutions, create dependencies—but lack legitimacy frameworks and accountability structures.

Strategic clarity (via negativa): Don't attempt to restore positional authority through more coordination meetings, stronger mandates, or clearer hierarchies. The architecture that produced position-based authority assumed information asymmetry and coordination monopolies that no longer exist. Adding more of the same structure accelerates irrelevance.

The organizations that survive this transition won't be those with the most formal authority. They'll be those that redesigned their architecture to earn authority through demonstrated systems capability—every single day.

The question isn't whether this pattern is "good" or "fair." The question is whether you've recognized that the game changed, and your organization's authority architecture hasn't.