Power and Influence

A proposal can be sound and still stall because the person presenting it has misunderstood who can approve it, who controls the resources, or whose view carries weight. Workplace decisions rarely belong to one person in a simple way. Formal authority sets boundaries, while expertise, relationships and timing can shape what decision-makers consider. You need to understand both before asking others to support an idea. This chapter starts with formal authority and control over resources. It then looks at informal influence, including how trusted colleagues can affect a decision without having approval rights. The final page gives you a practical way to map a decision and check your assumptions with other people. You will practise distinguishing decision rights from influence, identifying likely approvers and blockers, and testing how a decision will actually be made. The aim is not to predict every conversation. It is to approach the right people with a credible account of what they can contribute.

Separate approval from practical control

Formal authority is the recognised right to make or approve a particular decision. It can come from a person's role, delegated responsibility, governance arrangements or an agreed approval process. The person with authority may be a senior leader, a functional head, a project sponsor or someone responsible for a defined area. Job seniority alone does not tell you who holds the right for every decision. Control over resources is related, but distinct. A person may authorise a proposal while another controls the budget, staff time, equipment, access or operational capacity it needs. A proposal can therefore receive approval and still fail to proceed. The decision-maker and the resource owner may be the same person, but do not assume that they are. Start by defining the decision precisely. “Improve customer service” is too broad to map. “Approve a trial of a new appointment reminder process for one clinic” identifies a choice someone could make. Then ask what would have to change if the proposal went ahead. The answer helps reveal which resources and permissions matter.

Trace the decision and its dependencies

Amara, an operations lead in Nairobi, wants to change how a regional distribution team records damaged goods. She believes a shared digital form will reduce repeated data entry. Her director can approve an operational change, but the proposal also relies on staff time for training and support from the team that maintains the existing software. Amara should not treat the director's approval as proof that these dependencies are settled. A useful way to sort the decision is to ask three questions in sequence: 1. Who can say yes or no to the defined change? 2. Who can commit or release the resources it requires? 3. Who must accept the change in daily operations for it to work? The answers may identify several people. Record the basis for each answer, such as a documented responsibility, a past decision or a direct conversation. Mark anything that is still an assumption. If a formal approval route exists, verify that it applies to this particular kind of change rather than relying on a colleague's memory.

Avoid treating the organisation chart as the whole answer

An organisation chart shows reporting relationships. It does not always show delegated decision rights, shared ownership or resource constraints. Nor does a person's title prove that they can commit another team's time. Confirm the boundary of each person's authority in plain language: “Are you able to approve this trial, or does it need another person's sign-off?” That question is respectful because it avoids presenting an assumption as a fact. A common mistake is to approach the most senior person first and ask for broad sponsorship before understanding the decision. This can create a visible commitment that delivery teams cannot support. Another is to focus only on the budget. Time, capacity, access and responsibility for ongoing work can be equally binding. If someone says no, find out whether the issue is their authority, a resource constraint or a concern about the proposal. Each calls for a different response.

Influence changes what decision-makers hear

Informal influence is the ability to affect how people understand, discuss or respond to a decision without having formal authority over it. It can come from relevant expertise, a track record of reliable judgement, close working relationships, or a person's position in the flow of information. A respected specialist may change the questions a leadership group asks. A colleague who coordinates work across teams may know where implementation will meet resistance. Influence is not the same as popularity, and it is not always visible in meetings. People may ask a trusted colleague for a private view before raising a proposal. A technical expert may shape the options by explaining what is feasible. Someone who has experienced the consequences of a previous change may influence whether others consider a new proposal credible. These contributions can help or hinder an idea, but they do not necessarily give the person a right to approve it. When you identify an influential person, ask what their influence rests on. Is it expertise, trust, access to information, or responsibility for connecting groups? Naming the source helps you engage with them honestly instead of relying on vague labels such as “key stakeholder.”

Work with expertise rather than around it

Luca, a product manager in Milan, proposes a simpler way for a service team to flag a recurring customer problem. The proposal sounds modest, but the customer support lead has influence because the team sees the cases first and knows how agents actually use the current workflow. A data analyst may also be influential because leaders trust the analyst's account of how the problem appears in reports. Neither person necessarily approves the change. Luca can speak with them before presenting a recommendation. He might ask what evidence would make the problem clear, which parts of the workflow are easy to overlook, and what could make the proposed change harder to use. This gives him a chance to improve the idea and avoids putting colleagues in the position of publicly correcting a proposal they were never invited to examine. Consultation is not the same as transferring the decision. Be clear about what is open for input and what remains for an authorised person to decide. If you ask for advice and then ignore it without explanation, you spend trust. If you imply that a colleague has approval power when they do not, you create confusion about accountability.

Build credibility through useful exchanges

Credibility grows when people see that you understand their concerns, distinguish evidence from speculation and follow through on commitments. It does not require agreement on every point. A useful conversation can end with unresolved questions, provided you capture them and return with a considered response. A common misconception is that the influential person must be persuaded to become an advocate. Sometimes their most useful contribution is a warning, a test of your reasoning or a connection to someone who understands an operational constraint. Treating every conversation as a campaign can make people guarded. Ask for the knowledge they hold, not a promise to support you. There is also a risk in relying too heavily on a well-connected colleague. Their view may be partial, or their relationships may not represent how other groups see the proposal. Compare perspectives. If an expert's advice conflicts with an approver's stated concern, do not assume one person is being obstructive. Clarify what each is responding to, then make the trade-off visible to the person who owns the decision.

• Ask knowledgeable colleagues what they see that you might have missed.
• Explain how you used their input, including when you chose another option.
• Keep advice, endorsement and approval distinct in your notes.

Build a map around one real choice

A decision map is a working description of who participates in a specific decision and how. It is not a permanent chart of power. People can matter differently depending on the issue, the resources involved and the consequences of the choice. Keep the map small enough to use, and revise it when you learn something new. Begin with a one-sentence decision statement. Include the choice, its boundary and the person or group affected. Then list people under practical roles: who can approve, who advises, who controls required resources, who will carry out the change, and who could prevent progress through a legitimate constraint or strong concern. One person can appear in more than one role. “Blocker” should describe an effect, not label a colleague as difficult. A person may be able to stop progress because a proposal conflicts with a real operational need. For each name, note why you believe they belong on the map and how certain you are. A documented responsibility is stronger evidence than “people say she decides.” Past decisions can be informative, but circumstances may differ. The map is a hypothesis to check, not a claim that you know how everyone will behave.

Check assumptions through direct questions

Rina, a procurement specialist in Singapore, is considering a change to how regional teams request routine supplies. Her first map names her department lead as approver, a finance partner as the budget contact and local administrators as the people who would use the new arrangement. She is unsure whether the proposed change requires input from colleagues who manage supplier relationships. Instead of circulating the map as fact, Rina checks it in short conversations. She asks her lead, “Who needs to approve this specific change, and what would you need to see?” She asks the finance partner whether the proposal affects a budget they control or only the way requests are handled. She asks an administrator where the current approach causes friction. Those questions test different parts of the map without asking any one person to speak for everyone. Listen for distinctions. “I need to review it” may mean advice, approval or a check for a specific risk. Ask what happens after that review. “We usually involve procurement” does not tell you whether procurement owns the decision or contributes expertise. A calm follow-up, such as “Would your agreement be required, or would your input inform the approver?” can clarify the difference.

Turn the map into a sound approach

Once you have checked the map, decide what each conversation is for. You may need an approver to judge the recommendation, an adviser to test its assumptions, and a resource owner to identify delivery conditions. Do not present the same request to everyone. Match the discussion to the person's role, while keeping the underlying proposal consistent. A common mistake is to make the map once and then defend it when new information appears. Another is to invite every possible stakeholder to every conversation. That can slow a small decision and blur accountability. Involve people because they have a relevant role, not simply because they are senior or might know someone important. If views conflict, record the disagreement and bring the trade-off to the person authorised to resolve it. Check the map again if the proposal changes, a resource requirement emerges, or the decision moves to a different level. A new implementation detail can create a new dependency. A person who was only an adviser may become a resource owner if the revised option uses their team's capacity. This ongoing check is part of responsible influence, not a sign that your original thinking was poor.

Checkpoint: a proposed change to client handovers

Sofia, a service delivery lead in São Paulo, wants to replace a shared spreadsheet with a handover form. Her director has asked for a recommendation. The information systems team would need to configure the form, and an experienced account coordinator has warned that some clients require a different handover. Sofia has not yet confirmed who can approve the change or whether the systems team has capacity.

What good looks like

Good judgement keeps decision rights, informal influence and control of resources distinct. You define the choice, identify who can approve it, seek relevant expertise and check what delivery requires. You mark uncertain claims as assumptions, then test them with respectful questions. You do not mistake seniority for authority or advice for approval. You can now build and verify a practical map of who can shape a workplace decision, then use it to move an idea forward without relying on authority alone.