Managing cross-functional teams is tricky. Why? Because you often need to get results from people who don’t report to you. This is where the balance between influence and authority becomes critical.
Here’s the difference:
Key Takeaways:
The best leaders know when to use authority for clarity and when to lean on influence to build commitment. Success lies in blending both approaches effectively.
Authority refers to the formal power granted by a position or title, often termed "legitimate power." It gives leaders the ability to direct work, approve budgets, and make decisions within a specific scope [2]. This power is typically assigned through an organization's hierarchy.
But authority has its boundaries - it’s confined to the responsibilities defined by the role [2]. In cross-functional environments, this limitation becomes a challenge. Many strategic initiatives depend on resources and cooperation from departments outside a leader's direct control [1]. For example, while you might have the authority to lead your own team, you can't simply order a marketing or finance colleague to prioritize your project.
Here’s the key issue: authority generates compliance, not commitment [2]. When people follow orders out of obligation, their effort often stops at the bare minimum. Leadership theorist James MacGregor Burns captured this distinction well:
"Power is the capacity to bring about change. Influence is the ability to get others to want what you want" [2].
This difference is critical for understanding how authority operates - or falls short - in cross-functional teams.
The structured nature of authority brings both advantages and challenges in cross-functional leadership.
On the positive side, authority provides clarity and direction. It ensures that strategic goals are communicated clearly, helping teams understand what they’re working toward. In crisis situations, formal authority enables swift, decisive action. Leaders can also establish clear expectations and standards, keeping everyone aligned on deliverables.
However, the downsides of relying on authority are hard to ignore. Research reveals that 71% of professionals believe that poor influence skills - relying solely on authority - hinders decision-making and slows innovation [1]. Using pressure tactics tied to authority often results in resistance and minimal engagement from team members [2]. This approach can hurt morale, and when morale dips, productivity tends to follow. Additionally, an over-reliance on authority can limit a leader's ability to see different perspectives [2], making it harder to harness the diverse insights that cross-functional teams are meant to bring together.
Take Applied Materials as an example. In 2023, the company led the wafer fabrication equipment sector in revenue for the fifth straight year. Vice President Mike Parcella attributed this success to leveraging formal authority to clarify individual roles while offering precise guidance on cross-functional collaboration within the company's matrix structure [1]. This balance of authority and collaboration underscores how effective leadership goes beyond simply commanding compliance.
Authority might enforce compliance, but influence bridges the gap when formal power isn't enough - especially in cross-functional teams. Influence is about inspiring a shared purpose without relying on positional power. It’s not about issuing orders; it’s about earning trust, showcasing expertise, and guiding teams through collaboration and persuasion. Unlike authority, which is tied to your job title, influence is something you carry with you, no matter your role. It’s built on credibility and relationships. While authority might get people to follow instructions, influence drives genuine commitment, encouraging people to go the extra mile.
In cross-functional teams, influence plays a central role. Think of it as the "currency" that makes collaboration possible. Studies show that managers achieve about 33% of their goals through influence alone [1]. Why? Because in these environments, traditional hierarchy doesn’t carry much weight. Whether you’re trying to get the marketing team to prioritize your project or convincing finance to allocate funds, success hinges on building consensus and fostering cooperation.
Organizations that emphasize collaborative influence - where leaders bring together diverse viewpoints instead of simply pushing their own agendas - see real results. These companies are over twice as likely to report that organizational complexity doesn’t bog down decision-making and nearly eight times more likely to have clearly defined roles [1]. The numbers don’t lie: influence is a game-changer in cross-functional settings.
Joy Wilder Lybeer, Chief Revenue Officer at Equifax, sums up this shift perfectly:
"The last thing I want to do is try to convince anyone of anything. Instead, I need to help people listen to each other - to influence and be influenced by each other simultaneously." [1]
This idea of mutual influence shows that effective leadership isn’t just about persuading others - it’s also about being open to their ideas. When 86% of professionals agree that embracing different perspectives leads to better decisions [1], it becomes clear: influence isn’t just helpful - it’s essential for creating a space where everyone feels empowered to contribute.
Authority vs Influence in Cross-Functional Leadership: Key Differences and Applications
Building on the definitions of authority and influence, this section highlights their main differences.
Both authority and influence are tools leaders use to achieve goals, but they function in distinct ways. Authority is tied to your position - your title, rank, and role within an organization. The moment you step into a role, you gain authority. Influence, however, is personal. It stems from your expertise, relationships, and character, and it exists independently of any formal title.
The way they impact others also varies. Authority often leads to compliance - people follow instructions because they must, often to avoid negative consequences. Influence, by contrast, inspires commitment. When influenced, people align with the vision and willingly put in extra effort because they believe in it.
Another key distinction lies in their reach. Authority operates within defined boundaries, like a specific team or department. Influence, on the other hand, has no such limits. It can extend beyond formal roles, reaching upward, across teams, and even outside the organization. This is especially critical in cross-functional teams, where direct control over resources or personnel may be lacking. In such cases, influence becomes the driving force behind progress.
| Dimension | Authority (Positional Power) | Influence (Personal Power) |
|---|---|---|
| Source of Power | Formal title, rank, and organizational role | Expertise, trust, relationships, and character |
| Primary Goal | Compliance and execution of orders | Commitment and shared purpose |
| Time to Establish | Immediate (granted with the role) | Gradual (built over time through consistency) |
| Communication Style | One-way; directive and transactional | Two-way; persuasive and collaborative |
| Scope of Impact | Limited to direct reports and defined boundaries | Boundless; works upward, sideways, and externally |
| Best Use Case | Routine decisions, crisis response, or last resort | Cross-functional projects in matrixed environments |
| Risk/Limitation | Can breed resentment or minimal effort | Requires significant time and emotional intelligence |
This distinction isn’t just theoretical - it shapes how leaders act. Leadership expert Terri Jensen from Holmes Murphy sums it up perfectly:
"Authority gets you compliance, but trust gets you commitment" [3].
In environments where collaboration is essential, understanding when to rely on authority versus when to cultivate influence can be the difference between success and failure.
Authority is a tool that should be applied thoughtfully to keep teams aligned and on track. Knowing when to use it can prevent unnecessary conflict and ensure progress stays on course.
There are specific scenarios where exercising authority becomes essential:
In these situations, decisive use of authority can help restore focus and drive results.
Using authority well isn't about control - it's about clarity and empowerment. Leaders should aim to make their authority explicit, narrowly defined, and supportive of collaboration. A thoughtful approach can strengthen cross-functional engagement, as demonstrated by Mike Parcella, Vice President of Global Sourcing and Supply Chain Operations at Applied Materials:
"We seek to provide maximum clarity to people on what they are responsible for as individuals, which includes very specific guidance on how they should engage with colleagues across our matrix who are not in their department" [1].
This approach helped Applied Materials outperform the wafer fabrication equipment sector in revenue for five consecutive years.
Here are some actionable ways to apply authority effectively:
The best use of authority isn't about enforcing compliance - it’s about setting the stage for influence to flourish. Companies that emphasize collaborative problem-solving over rigid directives are nearly eight times more likely to report clear and unambiguous roles [1]. By using authority to establish a strong foundation, leaders can enable influence to drive long-term engagement and success.
With a clear understanding of when and how to use authority, leaders can now consider how influence complements these strategies in cross-functional environments.
Influence plays a key role in fostering collaboration and driving results in cross-functional teams. In these settings, leaders often need to work with resources and individuals outside their direct authority, making influence and collaboration essential tools for success [1]. Knowing when to rely on influence is just as important as knowing how to use it.
Influence is most effective when commitment is more important than mere compliance. In matrixed organizations, leaders are often responsible for outcomes that depend on people who don’t report directly to them [1].
It’s especially critical when working with peers or senior executives, where no formal hierarchy exists [2]. Influence is also indispensable for creative problem-solving and innovation, where diverse viewpoints must be harmonized rather than dictated. Companies that emphasize collaborative problem-solving are nearly 8 times more likely to have defined roles and over twice as likely to say complexity doesn’t hinder decision-making [1].
Joy Wilder Lybeer, Chief Revenue Officer at Equifax, offers a practical perspective on this. Leading a team of 14,000 employees, she avoids trying to "convince" others, explaining:
"The last thing I want to do is try to convince anyone of anything. Instead, I need to help people listen to each other - to influence and be influenced by each other simultaneously" [1].
When priorities clash - like procurement focusing on cost savings while R&D emphasizes speed - using collaborative influence often yields better results than issuing top-down directives [1]. This approach tackles a common organizational issue: 71% of executives report that poor influence skills slow down decision-making and innovation [1].
Using influence effectively requires strategies that establish trust and align with stakeholders' needs.
1. Build credibility early. Show consistent judgment and expertise to gain respect over time [2]. This creates expert power - an influence grounded in specialized knowledge that others value.
2. Understand stakeholder priorities. Before presenting your ideas, identify what matters most to your colleagues and frame your goals in terms of their interests [2]. Leaders who focus on "selling" their own ideas are 40% more likely to discover later that another approach would have been better [1].
3. Cultivate relationships proactively. Support your colleagues’ objectives even when you don’t need anything in return. This builds goodwill, making future collaboration easier. Leaders find it nearly 3 times easier to achieve results through influence rather than authority [1].
A case study from Sanofi highlights the impact of these principles. About 15 years ago, the pharmaceutical giant faced declining revenue and delayed decisions due to its complex structure. By introducing a global training program focused on joint problem-solving, they turned heated disagreements into creative solutions, improving both morale and financial performance [1].
4. Act as a connector. Bridging gaps between teams that don’t typically interact positions you as an invaluable resource. Leaders who connect disconnected groups gain more influence than their formal titles suggest. This "network centrality" gives access to unique insights and opportunities to craft solutions that benefit multiple stakeholders [2].
The best cross-functional leaders don’t see influence and authority as opposing forces - they know how to combine them effectively. In matrixed organizations, leaders often need to deliver results using resources that lie outside their direct control [1]. The challenge isn’t about choosing one approach over the other - it’s about understanding when and how to use both. Building on the earlier discussion of influence and authority as separate strategies, this section explores how leaders can merge them for better outcomes.
Balancing influence and authority begins with evaluating your sources of power. Before tackling a cross-functional challenge, determine which power base - legitimate (positional authority), expert (specialized knowledge), or referent (relationship-driven trust) - fits the situation best. Formal authority is most effective as a tool to provide access and visibility, but it’s the expert and referent power that truly drive commitment [2].
Take Applied Materials as an example. Vice President Mike Parcella integrated collaborative influence into the company’s operations by updating job descriptions to include clear expectations for cross-functional collaboration. This approach helped the company outperform the wafer fabrication equipment sector for five years straight [1].
Here’s the distinction: authority can enforce compliance, but influence inspires commitment. When organizations need creative solutions or long-term collaboration, influence becomes essential. In fact, companies that prioritize joint problem-solving are eight times more likely to have clear roles and twice as likely to avoid decision-making delays due to complexity [1].
To successfully combine influence and authority, leaders can take these five strategic actions to foster collaboration instead of relying on traditional persuasion tactics [1]:
Why does this approach matter? Data shows that 86% of managers believe better outcomes would result from being more open to others’ ideas and concerns [1]. Yet, traditional “selling” remains the dominant influence method in 38% of organizations, overshadowing collaborative problem-solving nearly 2 to 1 [1]. Leaders who move from seeking agreement to integrating diverse perspectives find it nearly three times easier to achieve results through influence than through direct authority [1].
As Joy Wilder Lybeer, Chief Revenue Officer at Equifax, puts it:
"The last thing I want to do is try to convince anyone of anything. Instead, I need to help people listen to each other - to influence and be influenced by each other simultaneously" [1].
Leading across functions takes more than just balancing influence and authority - it’s about understanding when to use each and how to blend them effectively. Authority might open doors and provide visibility, but influence is what fosters commitment, turning collaboration into long-term success. In matrixed organizations, where collaboration is non-negotiable, this balance becomes even more critical [1].
As digital transformation shifts the balance of power, these leadership principles are becoming even more relevant. Traditional power sources - like controlling access to information or relying solely on positional authority - are losing ground as digital tools make data and knowledge more accessible [2]. What remains distinctively human is the ability to apply judgment and take accountability. Leaders must see AI outputs as inputs to guide decisions rather than unquestionable commands. As Seth Mattison describes, the real edge lies in building a "Human Moat" - our capacity to inspire trust and offer insights in a world where data is plentiful.
Organizations that emphasize collaborative influence over rigid compliance are almost 8 times more likely to define roles clearly and over twice as likely to avoid decision-making delays caused by complexity [1]. Yet, many executives admit that weak influence skills hinder the speed and quality of innovation. This gap is glaring - and bridging it demands intentional effort. Leaders must adapt their approaches to meet the demands of the AI-driven landscape.
Effective leadership also involves modeling "persuadability" - being open to changing one’s stance when presented with compelling, dissenting perspectives. It means aligning incentives across departments, expanding job roles to include cross-functional responsibilities, and fostering psychological safety so team members feel comfortable challenging assumptions. These are not optional "soft skills"; they are the disciplines that separate organizations that navigate complexity successfully from those that falter.
The future requires leaders to skillfully balance authority with influence, applying each with clear intent and self-awareness. By doing so, they create a lasting advantage - one that is indispensable in the age of AI.
To guide effectively without holding formal authority, the focus should shift to influence. This involves establishing trust, encouraging teamwork, and inspiring alignment around common objectives. Here's how to make it happen:
By honing these skills, you can inspire and lead others successfully, even without an official leadership title.
Use authority when your formal position grants you the power to make decisions or issue directives. This approach works best in scenarios where clear, hierarchical leadership is essential, or strict compliance is necessary to achieve specific outcomes. Authority becomes especially effective in situations that require clarity and decisive action to reach goals efficiently.
Building influence across teams quickly relies on a few key strategies: building strong relationships, earning trust, and leading through collaboration. To make an impact, prioritize resolving conflicts swiftly, encourage teamwork, and take responsibility for maintaining meaningful connections.
Another effective approach is participating in social learning activities, such as mentoring or coaching. These activities allow you to connect on a personal level, foster collaboration, and establish both credibility and trust within cross-functional teams.