Us anarchists are so used to the misuse of the word that we hardly notice and only occasionally can be stirred into protesting.
Anarchy, strictly speaking, doesn;t mean lack of order - it means "without a leader."
It is not absolutely essential to have a leader in order to have an ordered society. However. in practice, leaders almost always rise to fill any given need. Most modern anarchist theories agree that a leader to co-ordinate a particular project is often useful.
The limits that anarchism tends to put on this phenomenon are that the leadership should be just for one activity for one occasion*, and that there shall not be an overarching, permanent leader.
(It is generally accepted that anarchism will only work in smallish societies - up to about 2000 people, by which time it begins to creak a bit.)


*This is not to say that the same leader may not rise a second or any number of times, if the need arises, and the consensus if the society agrees. There is, of course, a danger that such a person may become a de facto permanbent leader - one of the ironies of anarchism.