Influence is the capacity to shape choices, priorities, and behaviour, with or without formal authority. You see it in who frames the problem, who writes the brief everyone quotes, who gets a pre-read into the right hands, and whose questions change the direction of a meeting. It also lives in quieter places, such as control of key data, relationships across teams, and the timing and credibility of advice. In practice, influence decides which ideas are explored, which risks are tolerated, and which metrics the organisation watches.

Authority vs. influence

In most organisations, decisions are steered by both formal authority and informal influence, and they do not always point in the same direction. Naming the difference matters because it shows where accountability sits, where credibility lives, and where hidden vetoes or bottlenecks may distort choices.

• Authority: formal rights to decide, for example budget, headcount, and sign-off. Tools include policies, approvals, and role-based accountability.
• Influence: informal ability to sway decisions, built through expertise, track record, networks, communication, and timing. Tools include credible evidence, access to stakeholders, and the ability to frame trade-offs clearly.

Healthy organisations align the two so that those with decision rights also carry real credibility and context. Unhealthy ones rely on shadow hierarchies where unofficial gatekeepers hold veto power.

Where influence actually comes from (beyond job titles)

Influence doesn’t just stem from formal titles; it grows out of the everyday dynamics that shape how work gets done. The people who hold key knowledge, manage relationships, control information, or are trusted at critical moments often have more sway than their place on the org chart suggests. These are the practical sources of influence that determine whose voice carries weight in decisions.

• Expertise: Hard-to-replace know-how and sound judgement in moments that matter; people defer to those who repeatedly solve tricky problems or see risks early.
• Track record: A history of shipping, rescuing, or predicting correctly; past reliability creates present credibility.
• Information control: Ownership of data, dashboards, research, or customer insight that others rely on; if your report is the one shown in exec meetings, you shape what gets attention.
• Network centrality: Being the connector people consult to get things done; cross-team relationships expand practical reach.
• Resource access: Control of budget, tools, talent, or schedules; access to scarce resources shifts priorities.
• Credibility and trust: Reputation for fairness, discretion, and keeping commitments; people share sensitive context with those who handle it well.
• Communication and framing: The story that defines the problem and the options; whoever writes the brief often sets the decision.
• Proximity: Time with key decision makers or customers, in person or virtually; access shapes timing and context.
• Ownership of processes: Chairing forums, setting agendas, running standups, or writing decision memos; process owners shape topics and sequence.
• Reciprocity bank: A pattern of helping others that builds goodwill and willingness to assist when it matters.
• Reputation and referent power: Association with high quality or purpose-driven work that others want to align with.
• Timing: Arriving when risk is high and choices are still open; early, relevant contributions carry outsized weight.

Ask yourself: If this person left tomorrow, which decisions would slow or stall, and which meetings would feel directionless without their brief or data? That is where influence sits.

The pros and drawbacks of influence

Influence is not good or bad in itself, it depends how it is used and whether it aligns with formal authority.

Handled well, it accelerates progress and improves decision quality. Left unchecked, it can create invisible choke points and unfair dynamics.

Pros

• Speed and clarity: When the right expert or connector shapes a choice, meetings move faster and decisions stick.
• Better judgement: Informal influence often sits with those closest to the work or customers, bringing context leaders might miss.
• Engagement and ownership: Staff who feel their voice carries weight are more motivated and willing to invest discretionary effort.
• Resilience: Distributed influence means the organisation doesn’t grind to a halt if a single senior leader is absent.

Drawbacks

• Shadow hierarchies: If unofficial gatekeepers can veto projects, authority and accountability split, slowing change.
• Bottlenecks: Dependence on a single “influencer” for data, approval, or framing creates fragility if they leave or disengage.
• Bias and opacity: Influence built on proximity or personality, rather than expertise, can distort priorities and hide trade-offs.
• Unfairness: When influence isn’t transparent, it fuels perceptions of politics, favouritism, or invisible rules.

The healthiest organisations recognise influence, map it openly, and channel it so it supports rather than undermines formal decision rights. Influence is inevitable, the design choice is whether it becomes a multiplier or a drag.

Why a staff member can outrank a leader (in influence)

Influence doesn’t always follow the org chart. A title grants formal authority, but enduring power comes from dependency, credibility, and informal networks.

What the research shows

A body of research has distinguished between formal (organisational) and personal (informal) sources of influence. Formal authority includes legitimate power (derived from position) and reward/coercive power (ability to allocate benefits or penalties), while informal authority arises from expertise, referent (identity and likability), and informational power.

However, more contemporary research has shown that performance (track record) contributes to interpersonal power, but only when paired with political skill, meaning the ability to navigate relationships, read the room, and communicate effectively.

Examples in practice:

• Principal engineer: Their technical expertise and track record give them real sway over what’s feasible, effectively vetoing decisions before leadership even hears them.
• Top seller: Possessing key customer relationships, they drive priorities far more powerfully than any strategic directive.
• Ops lead: By understanding the true capacity of teams and setting schedules, they control what gets delivered and when.
• Analyst: If their dashboards dominate executive discussions, they frame how performance is defined and judged.
• Culture carrier: Informal coaching, standards, and norms often hold more influence over how people behave than formal policies ever could.

In each case, knowledge, access, timing, or trust (elements of expert, informational, and referent power) are the real levers of influence. Research supports that status, a form of referent power, is a strong predictor of perceived influence, even stronger than formal authority in uncertain business conditions.

How leaders become more influential (without pulling rank)

Formal authority can compel action, but lasting influence comes from clarity, trust, and consistency. Leaders who rely less on hierarchy and more on example create followership that sticks.

• Context before control: Set the direction, explain the constraints, and spell out why it matters. Then let teams decide the how. Influence grows when people see you as a source of clarity, not micromanagement.
• Predictable decision rules: Publish the criteria you use to decide—for example, “customer impact outweighs internal preference” or “long-term sustainability beats short-term gain.” When people know the rules, they will align choices without waiting for sign-off.
• Write it down: Clear memos, structured pre-reads, and short decision notes scale your thinking beyond the room. Writing reduces ambiguity, allows asynchronous alignment, and attracts allies who can use your reasoning to persuade others.
• Invest in the hubs: Project managers, senior ICs, and ops leads sit at the centre of multiple flows of information. Make them successful by giving context, removing obstacles, and backing their judgement. Support here multiplies your reach across the organisation.
• Be the best brief-taker: Influence is often won in the questions you ask. Summarise options, highlight trade-offs, and frame choices crisply. When people leave a meeting clearer than when they entered, they will route future decisions through you.
• Give credit publicly: Share wins with the people who did the work. When others’ influence rises through your recognition, your own surface area of support expands. The reputation for fairness and generosity builds lasting authority.
• Bottom line: Leaders extend their influence not by pulling rank but by creating clarity, scaling reasoning, and amplifying others. The result is decisions that move faster, land better, and stick longer.

Controlling toxic influence (without killing healthy dissent)

Not all influence is healthy. When it turns toxic, decisions slow, voices shrink, and the organisation bends around a few individuals rather than the mission. The challenge for leaders is to curb unhealthy patterns without silencing the constructive dissent that makes decisions stronger.

Common symptoms

• Strategy is shaped in backchannels rather than in open forums.
• People hesitate to challenge a “star” performer, even when the risks are clear.
• Approvals and progress hinge on one gatekeeper, creating bottlenecks and quiet vetoes.

Interventions

• Move decisions into transparent forums: Require important choices to be logged in writing with context, rationale, and sign-off. Written records reduce the power of private lobbying and make trade-offs visible to everyone.
• Split roles and rotate framers: Separate the recommender from the decider. Rotate who writes the options and risks so no single person controls framing. This surfaces diverse views and prevents capture by one dominant voice.
• Bypass status bias: Add anonymous channels for idea intake and run short, time-boxed trials so ideas can be tested on merit rather than seniority. A low-cost pilot can reveal value without being stifled by hierarchy.
• Re-align incentives: Remove rewards for gatekeeping and hoarding. Tie recognition to sharing knowledge, enabling others, and building capacity. Influence that blocks or withholds should not pay; influence that multiplies impact should.

The goal

Control toxic influence without flattening healthy dissent. The best organisations distinguish between unhelpful dominance and constructive challenge, making space for ideas while stopping shadow vetoes. Done well, this restores fairness, keeps decisions moving, and protects the benefits of diverse perspectives.

Conclusion

Influence will always exist; the only question is whether it works for you or against you. Left unmanaged, it hardens into bottlenecks, favourites, and folklore that quietly dictate outcomes. Designed with intent, it becomes a force for speed, fairness, and better judgement.

Map where influence really sits, then amplify the healthy forms; expertise, clarity, trust, and open information, while dismantling the unhealthy ones; hoards of data, invisible vetoes, and kingmaker roles.

Do this consistently, and you build an organisation where decisions move faster, accountability is clearer, and culture rewards contribution over politics. The best ideas rise, not the loudest titles. That’s the real currency of work.