Leading When You Are Not In Charge: The Flipside

One of the popular leadership mantras has been on how to lead when you're not in charge. It makes the case for leadership without formal authority and based on the central thesis that, influence, not title, is the true mark of a leader.

I believe in this theory. Leadership is more about influence than position. One does not need a title to lead; you can impact your organization from any level; national service personnel, new joiner or as the company chauffeur. Taking initiative in identifying and solving problems, helping colleagues to succeed and digging deep to spur growth helps to gain respect and credibility from colleagues and superiors.

But while this perspective is widely appreciated, I argue, based on personal experiences that this approach often times overlooks some critical realities of organizational dynamics and the inherent limitations of influence without authority. There is a likelihood of this theory being abused and junior colleagues, exploited.

Where Authority Matters

No one can deny that inherent power that comes with having the title. And with it comes the leverage needed to implement critical decisions and drive change. While influence is undoubtedly powerful, it often lacks the enforcement capability that formal authority provides.

For instance, a middle manager might have great ideas and the respect of their peers, but without the formal authority to allocate resources or make binding decisions, their ability to effect change is severely limited. I once worked with a superior who would request that you assume a role however on countless occasions during key business discussions, we were handicapped because he hadn't read a mail or picked our calls for approvals. We just didn't have needed the authority to proceed.

Organisational Structural Friction

Have you ever sent a mail to a superior in a different unit/ department and got a push back because you weren't the 'right person' to initiate the conversation? Similar occurrences may rear its head when you don't have that defined place within the organization. When one holds the title, you are acknowledged by both clients and colleagues as competent and the 'right person' to engage on particular matters.

Organizations are built on hierarchies for a reason. These structures create clear lines of accountability and decision-making authority, which are crucial for efficiency and clarity. Suggesting that influence alone can navigate these structures may be overly idealistic. Hierarchies exist to streamline processes and ensure that decisions are made by those with the appropriate experience and responsibility.

An HR Tactic ?

Everyone knows that person in your organization who does all the work but isn't up there on the salary scale, will not be promoted and never formally recognised. Some managers, in collusion with HR, would prefer you 'assume a role' with no increase in renumeration or benefits. The new roles are not officially documented and recognized. The increase in the work load over a period, can lead to burn out, attrition or negatively impact morale. In subsequent articles, i will expand this discussion on hidden leadership and its effect on organisational cohesion.

Conclusion

Authority and influence should not be seen as mutually exclusive but as complementary forces that, when combined, create the most effective leadership. Organizations should look out for the hidden leaders, rate their performance where needed and appropriately, acknowledge and reward them. Leading without being in charge should not be a phenomenon in perpetuity.