Surprised by Ineffective links?

The first question asked of Cross in the interview with him surprised me because of Cross's answer. Cross said that people are not surprised that informal networks allow work to be done (which I agree isn't surprising) but he did say people were surprised to learn who is and isn't influential in a network. I don't think that in any organization I've worked for the official organization chart is the way to get things done. For example, in my current job as an RA, in order to get a facilities problem fixed I'm supposed to report it online to 2FIX and to my supervisor through an online reporting system. This is supposed to allow for more accountability and to ensure the work is completed. In actuality, for a repair to happen, I need to seek out one of the facilities guys that I've established a relationship with and tell them what I need done. Once I tell them, I'll put in a work order through the traditional means so they can show their supervisor that they're doing work. If I just submit the request online, I've been told that the request prints out and is often looked over and can take weeks or months to get worked on. In another job in a more formal office environment, if I need to get information about something, I rarely went to my supervisor (my only "organizational" link to the company as a whole) but went to other personnel in other parts of the company directly. If I went directly to my supervisor, it would have taken too long to get my answer. By ignoring the main links in my organizational charts, I can use "informal" networks very effectively, which is one point of Cross. However, it doesn't make sense that the informal links surprise people, which is what Cross asserts.