I have found that throughout my career, I routinely have a great deal of responsibility, with much less direct authority. As people often say, "I know how to read an org chart." and I'm typically not above most of the people who I need to contribute to my projects. I have do have a lot of indirect authority, provided that I am providing wise council to senior stakeholders. I have built a reputation as someone to ignore at your own peril if you choose to ignore my warnings about the likely outcomes on the current path, and how I can change that path to avoid risks and capitalize on opportunities. Having the ear of people with authority means that when I ask, they will either step in to provide direct help, or explain to me why there is a strategic plan happening in the background where I should back off.
My authority comes from influence. If I tell an executive sponsor that Team X said I have no authority to tell them what to do, the response is often an emphatic (and humerus) "* **I*** have the authority to tell them and I'm delegating that authority to YOU. If they have a problem with that, tell them I will have a closed door meeting to explain it to their bosses personally." That gets the point across quickly.
I rarely have to do that. I follow a carrot and stick approach for motivation. At the worker level, the carrot is that I'll make them look good by building a plan where they get the credit for strong performance. The stick is that I might have that other conversation. At the executive level, the carrot is still that I'll make them look good, and the stick is a well thought out explanation of the business implications of failure. Using that approach, what I lack in direct authority, I more than make up for in influence.
...
1 reply by Luis Branco
Sep 01, 2026 4:32 AM
Luis Branco
...
Keith, I think your example illustrates very well why accountability and direct hierarchical authority do not need to be symmetrical. But it also shows what has to exist when they are not.
I would distinguish influence from authority. Your reputation, judgment and access to senior stakeholders give you substantial influence. But when influence is insufficient, your example shows governance doing something important: the sponsor either exercises the authority you do not hold, clarifies why intervention is inappropriate, or explicitly delegates authority to you.
That means the gap is not being left unsupported. It is being bridged through sponsorship, escalation, contextual visibility and delegated authority.
For me, that is the critical distinction. Influence can make an authority gap workable, but it should not become the justification for expanding accountability without corresponding governance support. If someone is answerable for an outcome, governance must still ensure that they can sufficiently influence it, reach legitimate authority and trigger meaningful intervention while options remain.
In that sense, your experience may be a very good example of governable asymmetry rather than authority being replaced by influence.
Saving Changes...
Luis BrancoCEO| Business Insight, Consultores de Gestão, LdªCarcavelos, Lisboa, Portugal
Aug 31, 2026 5:29 PM
Replying to Keith Novak
...
I have found that throughout my career, I routinely have a great deal of responsibility, with much less direct authority. As people often say, "I know how to read an org chart." and I'm typically not above most of the people who I need to contribute to my projects. I have do have a lot of indirect authority, provided that I am providing wise council to senior stakeholders. I have built a reputation as someone to ignore at your own peril if you choose to ignore my warnings about the likely outcomes on the current path, and how I can change that path to avoid risks and capitalize on opportunities. Having the ear of people with authority means that when I ask, they will either step in to provide direct help, or explain to me why there is a strategic plan happening in the background where I should back off.
My authority comes from influence. If I tell an executive sponsor that Team X said I have no authority to tell them what to do, the response is often an emphatic (and humerus) "* **I*** have the authority to tell them and I'm delegating that authority to YOU. If they have a problem with that, tell them I will have a closed door meeting to explain it to their bosses personally." That gets the point across quickly.
I rarely have to do that. I follow a carrot and stick approach for motivation. At the worker level, the carrot is that I'll make them look good by building a plan where they get the credit for strong performance. The stick is that I might have that other conversation. At the executive level, the carrot is still that I'll make them look good, and the stick is a well thought out explanation of the business implications of failure. Using that approach, what I lack in direct authority, I more than make up for in influence.
Keith, I think your example illustrates very well why accountability and direct hierarchical authority do not need to be symmetrical. But it also shows what has to exist when they are not.
I would distinguish influence from authority. Your reputation, judgment and access to senior stakeholders give you substantial influence. But when influence is insufficient, your example shows governance doing something important: the sponsor either exercises the authority you do not hold, clarifies why intervention is inappropriate, or explicitly delegates authority to you.
That means the gap is not being left unsupported. It is being bridged through sponsorship, escalation, contextual visibility and delegated authority.
For me, that is the critical distinction. Influence can make an authority gap workable, but it should not become the justification for expanding accountability without corresponding governance support. If someone is answerable for an outcome, governance must still ensure that they can sufficiently influence it, reach legitimate authority and trigger meaningful intervention while options remain.
In that sense, your experience may be a very good example of governable asymmetry rather than authority being replaced by influence. Saving Changes...
Thank you for sharing! Nice question. I am looking forward to reading the answers.
...
1 reply by Luis Branco
Sep 02, 2026 4:51 AM
Luis Branco
...
Abolfazl, thank you. I am also looking forward to the different perspectives. I think the interesting part is not simply whether accountability can exceed authority, but under what governance conditions that asymmetry remains legitimate and workable.
Saving Changes...
Luis BrancoCEO| Business Insight, Consultores de Gestão, LdªCarcavelos, Lisboa, Portugal
Sep 01, 2026 7:20 AM
Replying to Abolfazl Yousefi Darestani
...
Thank you for sharing! Nice question. I am looking forward to reading the answers.
Abolfazl, thank you. I am also looking forward to the different perspectives. I think the interesting part is not simply whether accountability can exceed authority, but under what governance conditions that asymmetry remains legitimate and workable. Saving Changes...
Program Manager| HARPER SRLSanto Domingo / Distrito Nacional, Dominican Republic
I think it can, to some extent. As PMs, we are often accountable for outcomes that depend on decisions or resources we don’t directly control, so influence is already a big part of the role. The problem starts when we are expected to own an outcome but don’t have enough access, escalation paths, or support to influence the decisions behind it. At that point, accountability becomes difficult to justify. Saving Changes...
Community Champion
