Yes, indeed, I believe that it might be an approach! It consists in pushing things forward when the organization is blocked in habits. Specialists might call it “managing by projects” or “managing by tacit competencies”. This situation might disregard the necessity for structure (McKinsey admits that structure and procedures are just necessary, but not sufficient conditions). However, ideas and dedication might exist.
The chances for getting forward are significantly higher when you strive for a revolution-like attitude in a conservative environment. It might be the situation in which the formal management is too concerned on figures (it is partially reasonable, as it enconter stakes pressures). What is interesting, is that the formal management and the guerilla management shoud not be conflictual, but complementary. While one focuses on economics, the other is covering, in a tacit on-going manner, the growth agenda.
Moreover, such a practice can enhance the entrepreneurial behavior of the guerilla members, with good effects for both themselves and the organization: they develop relationship and networking, while organization matures as the guerilla gets more adhesion. The chances for such an organization to get through are higher than for a company which is well-structured (transparent, fluid, and processed), as it asks for many approval filters. One might argue that too much formality might throttle alternative thinking, and as a consequence, the innovation.
Therefore, guerilla management should not be seen as a manifestation that fades formal authority, but as a contingency approach that keeps the organization alive on short and medium run.
For sure, a guerilla management is something to materialize only temporary, till the alternative approach gets shape and brings value. It is a path to a transformation process, that, as any change, brings tenssions, compromise, “victims” on both sides. But that’s life all about!