Formal authority matters. A business needs people who can make decisions, assign work and require things to happen. But much of what determines whether a business runs well sits outside anyone’s direct authority. An operations manager depends on sales and maintenance. A supervisor depends on subcontractors. An owner depends on a key supplier, a landlord, a bank and a few experienced staff who could work anywhere. A change that needs people to work differently cannot be supervised into existence minute by minute.
That is why a decision can be formally approved and still fail in practice. People can do what was required, exactly as far as required, while privately believing it is wrong, impractical or temporary. The difference between someone doing what was asked and someone owning the result is one of the most important distinctions in running a business.
This article explains the difference between authority, power and influence, the three outcomes an influence attempt can produce, the different sources of power and what each costs, how to choose an approach that fits the real reason someone is not on board, and how to use power in ways that build trust and capability rather than dependence.
Authority, power and influence
Three related ideas are often blurred together:
- Authority comes with a position: the rights and duties that define what a role may decide or require.
- Power is broader: the capacity to affect what other people do or think, which can come from a position, from expertise, from relationships or from control of information and resources.
- Influence is the process through which that change actually happens.
A person can have authority and little influence. Another can have little authority and a great deal of influence because people trust their judgement. In small businesses, where roles overlap and relationships matter, influence often counts for more than the organisation chart.
Three possible outcomes
When someone tries to influence another person, there are three broad outcomes:
| Outcome | What it looks like |
|---|---|
| Resistance | The person argues, delays, finds reasons not to act or quietly works around the request |
| Compliance | The person does what was asked, but only as much as needed, and may stop when no one is checking |
| Commitment | The person supports the decision, uses judgement to make it work and keeps going when unsupervised |
Compliance is often enough. Not every routine instruction needs enthusiasm. The mistake is expecting compliance to deliver what only commitment can: judgement, adaptation, problem-solving and cooperation across boundaries. When a change depends on those, the influence approach has to aim for commitment.
Commitment is strongest when people support a decision because it makes sense to them, fits their professional standards or serves an outcome they care about, not merely because they like or fear the person asking.
Sources of power and their costs
Power comes from several sources, each with different strengths and risks:
| Source | Based on | Strength | Risk |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legitimate | The authority of a role | Fast and clear | Often produces only compliance; overuse breeds resentment |
| Reward | Control over pay, opportunities or recognition | Focuses attention | People chase the reward rather than the outcome |
| Coercive | Ability to impose unwanted consequences | Stops harmful behaviour quickly | Damages trust and hides bad news |
| Expert | Recognised, relevant knowledge | Persuasive on technical questions | Does not transfer to unrelated topics; must be explained |
| Referent | Trust, respect and identification | Supports hard decisions | Loyalty can suppress challenge |
| Information | Access to important information | Improves coordination | Becomes destructive if hoarded |
| Environmental | Ability to shape systems, layouts, tools and routines | Changes behaviour without repeated persuasion | Poorly designed systems create unintended effects |
The last source is easy to overlook. Sometimes the most effective way to influence behaviour is not to persuade anyone, but to change the environment: a booking system that requires a time slot, a layout that makes the right action easy, a meeting rhythm that makes problems visible early.
Power used today changes power available tomorrow
How power is used affects how much influence remains afterwards. Clear, fair and credible decisions build trust. Broken promises, manipulation and unnecessary pressure reduce future cooperation, even if they win today’s argument.
A useful test is what remains after power has been used. If every issue is resolved by escalating to the owner, the business learns dependence. If expertise is used to coach, it spreads capability. If information is shared openly, people make better decisions without waiting. If a system is redesigned, the same argument does not need to be won again next week.
It helps to distinguish extractive power, which gets the required action now, from capacity-building power, which also improves the business’s ability to act well later. Both have a place, particularly in a crisis. A good leader knows which one they are using.
Match the approach to the real reason
When someone is not on board, the instinct is often to push harder. A better first step is to ask why. Common reasons include:
- They are not convinced by the facts. Rational persuasion, with evidence they trust, may help.
- They know something you don’t. Consultation, where their input can genuinely change the plan, may improve both the plan and their ownership.
- They fear a loss. Address the loss directly: what they give up, and whether it can be reduced or offset.
- Their interests genuinely differ. Negotiation is more honest than pretending everyone already agrees.
- They cannot act. They may agree but lack time, budget, authority or support. Help solve the constraint rather than applying more persuasion.
- The work needs extra effort for a shared goal. An appeal to purpose and values can help, provided the case is sound.
Common mismatches cause most influence failures:
- Consulting when no real choice exists. False consultation damages trust more than no consultation.
- Inspiring when people need evidence. Enthusiasm cannot repair a weak case.
- Using logic when the concern is fairness or loss. Better spreadsheets will not resolve it.
- Escalating pressure after a first attempt fails, without asking why it failed.
Participation has to be real
Involving people in decisions is one of the most reliable ways to build commitment, but only when their involvement can change something. Asking for views after the decision is fixed teaches people that consultation is theatre, and makes the next genuine consultation harder. Before involving others, be clear about what is open: the goal, the method, the timing or only the details. Say so explicitly. People generally accept limits on their influence far more readily than they accept being misled about it. When their input does change the plan, tell them what changed and why.
Influence differs by direction
Influencing people who report to you, peers and people above you are different tasks. With direct reports, authority is available, though commitment still needs more than authority. With peers, influence depends on credibility, evidence and relationships. Upward influence, such as persuading an owner or a major customer, usually needs concise reasoning, awareness of their priorities and a track record of delivery.
An ethical test
Some influence tactics produce agreement while eroding trust: selective information, flattery, emotional pressure, hidden agendas. A simple test is transparency: would you be comfortable explaining your method, your evidence and what you want openly to the person you are influencing? If not, the method deserves a second look.
The long-term measure of influence is not how often people agree. It is whether they still regard you as credible after difficult decisions, including those they disagreed with.
Before you try to influence
Ask five questions:
- Outcome: do you need resistance removed, compliance or genuine commitment?
- Reason: what is the actual source of hesitation?
- Basis: what legitimate authority, expertise, information or trust supports your request?
- Relationship: is this a one-off, or part of a relationship you will need tomorrow?
- Cost: what will your chosen approach do to future trust and cooperation?
Then choose the least forceful approach that will achieve what is needed, within the time and risk involved.
A worked example
This is an illustration. The operations manager of a manufacturing business with 50 staff wants to introduce a weekly production plan, frozen two days ahead, to stop constant rescheduling. She has no authority over the sales team, who keep promising rush orders, or the maintenance team, who schedule servicing around their own priorities.
Her first attempt is to ask the owner to announce the new plan as a rule. The announcement produces compliance on paper. In practice, sales keep inserting rush orders through informal requests to supervisors, and maintenance carries on as before. Within a month, the frozen plan exists only in the spreadsheet.
She steps back and asks why each group is not on board:
- Sales fear losing the ability to say yes to valuable customers who need urgent orders. Their concern is a genuine loss, and their interests differ.
- Maintenance cannot see the plan in time to schedule work around it. Their problem is information.
- Supervisors are caught in the middle, with no clear rule on whose request takes priority.
She changes her approach:
- Negotiation with sales: about 10% of each week’s capacity is reserved for rush orders, with a clear process and price premium for using it. Sales keep their ability to say yes; production keeps its stability.
- Information for maintenance: the plan is published on a shared board three days ahead, and maintenance windows are booked into it.
- Environmental change: the order system is changed so that new orders must be assigned to a slot in the plan or the rush allowance; supervisors no longer receive informal requests.
- Consultation: the first month’s results are reviewed with both teams, and two of their suggestions are adopted.
Three months later, schedule changes have fallen sharply, rush orders are still accepted and priced properly, and maintenance work is no longer interrupted. The owner’s authority was not needed again, because the teams had helped design a system that worked for them.
How this applies to a small Australian business
In small businesses, authority is concentrated but much of the work depends on peers, contractors and long-standing staff. Practical steps:
- Decide whether you need compliance or commitment before trying to influence.
- Ask why someone is hesitating before pushing harder.
- Match the approach to the reason: evidence, consultation, negotiation, removing constraints or purpose.
- Only consult when the answer can genuinely change.
- Use environmental power: systems, layouts and routines that make the right behaviour easy.
- Share information rather than holding it.
- Apply the transparency test to your methods.
- Avoid making the owner the escalation point for everything.
The leadership as influence, not position and helping people accept change articles cover related approaches.
Signals worth watching
- Decisions reopened after every meeting.
- Workarounds appearing soon after a mandated change.
- People agreeing in public and delaying in private.
- Frequent escalation to the owner for ordinary coordination.
- Bad news reaching leaders late or not at all.
- Information concentrated in a few people.
- Leaders treating every challenge as resistance.
Common mistakes
- Mistaking obedience for agreement.
- Escalating pressure without diagnosing the reason for resistance.
- Consulting when the decision is already made.
- Using authority outside its legitimate scope.
- Winning today’s argument at the cost of tomorrow’s cooperation.
- Persuading repeatedly when changing the system would work better.
Frequently asked questions
Isn’t it quicker just to tell people what to do? Often, yes, for routine and clear tasks. For changes that need judgement, cooperation or sustained effort, the time saved by instruction is usually lost later in workarounds and rework.
What if people still disagree after I have listened? Then make the decision clearly, explain the reasons and acknowledge the disagreement. Commitment does not require unanimous agreement, but it does require people to feel the decision was made fairly.
How do I influence the owner or my manager? Be concise, connect your proposal to their priorities, bring evidence and offer options rather than problems. A track record of reliable delivery is the strongest basis for upward influence.
Is using rewards a bad idea? Not inherently. Rewards focus attention, but people tend to chase what is rewarded. Make sure the reward is tied to the outcome you actually want.
How do I know if I am over-relying on my position? If people seem to act only when you are watching, rarely raise problems early and often bring decisions back to you, your position may be doing more work than your influence.
What about subcontractors and suppliers I cannot direct? The same principles apply. Your contract gives you some authority, but cooperation beyond the letter of the contract depends on trust, clear information, fair dealing and making it easy for them to do the right thing. Paying on time and sharing plans early are often the most effective influence tools you have.
Questions to ask
- Which of our changes have formal approval but weak real commitment?
- Where are we using authority because our reasoning or credibility is not enough?
- Which outcomes need compliance, and which need commitment?
- What is the real reason behind the resistance we are seeing?
- Where could we change the system instead of persuading people repeatedly?
- Are we building capability or dependence through the way we use power?
Bringing it together
Authority can get things done, but commitment gets them done well and keeps them done. Decide which outcome you need, understand the different sources of power and what each costs, diagnose the real reason someone is hesitant and choose an approach that fits it: evidence, consultation, negotiation, removing constraints, purpose or changing the system. Use power transparently and in ways that leave more trust and capability behind. The best measure of influence is that the next decision is easier than the last.
Source: KEVOS notes, drawing on teaching material on power, authority and influence, including sources of power, influence outcomes and influence tactics. Examples and figures in this article are illustrations.
