Why Authority Works Everywhere Except Where Expertise Lives

She expected the hard part of her day to be the meeting with a senior official. It was a complex reform, a tight deadline, a room full of sharp minds. Yet the rhythm was familiar. The team turns to her for guidance, and the client defers to her judgment. Her authority in the room is clear, assumed, almost effortless.

The surprise came an hour later.

She joined an internal leadership conversation that should have felt easier, but the ground shifted. Colleagues challenge timelines, question priorities, and influence moves in unpredictable ways. What felt straightforward in the client room dissolves into competing views, subtle status dynamics, and a slower kind of influence.

The contrast is striking. Same leader, same day, same organisation. Completely different rules of engagement. Anyone who has led in an expert-driven organization recognises this moment. The rules of leadership change depending on the room.

What makes leadership in these environments so distinctly challenging? Three structural forces, rarely named but always present:

1. Authority is plural, layered, and often in competition with itself

2. Leadership flows across multiple arenas and in four different directions simultaneously

3. Leaders must hold incompatible identities at once—expert and leader—neither of which can dominate

Together, they create a form of leadership that is less about directing and more about continuous interpretation. This article maps the terrain of leadership in expert organizations.

What Counts as an Expert Organization

This article maps the leadership terrain of organizations where specialized knowledge is the core product and authority must be earned rather than assumed.

This includes professional service firms (consultancies, advisory practices, law firms) where client delivery and commercial pressure shape the rhythm of work. It includes research organizations (think tanks, policy labs, applied research centers) where evidence standards and mission accountability are paramount. It also includes hybrid organizations where leaders navigate both worlds, delivering rigorous research while managing client expectations and fulfilling impact commitments. Purpose and mission shape priorities and raise the stakes for every leadership choice, adding intensity and even a personal dimension to the work. This means that leaders navigate not only clients, partners, and colleagues, but also the expectations that come with impact-driven work.

1.Authority is Plural, Layered, and Often in Conflict

In many traditional organisations, authority flows in one direction and rests on a predictable foundation: roles, hierarchies, and reporting lines. In expert-driven environments, authority is rarely singular. It is layered, context-dependent, and often in competition with itself.

The Sources of Authority

In expert organisations, authority is not limited to a formal role. Expertise, relationships, client ownership, and mission alignment also grant forms of authority that meaningfully shape decisions.

Leaders draw on different kinds of authority depending on the room:

• Positional authority: the formal legitimacy that comes with a role or title.

• Technical authority: depth of expertise that shapes how colleagues and clients defer.

• Client authority: ownership of key relationships or revenue streams.

• Relational authority: credibility built through fairness, reliability, and trust over time.

• Moral authority: alignment with mission and values, especially in impact-oriented settings.

None of these sources stands alone. At times, technical depth dominates the room. In others, relational trust or moral legitimacy carries more weight. Positional authority helps, but it is rarely enough.

How These Forms Interact

Different arenas reward different kinds of authority. Clients may defer to expertise or role, yet they expect clarity, confidence, and an ability to hold complexity. Internally, colleagues notice whether leaders share credit, honour commitments, and act consistently with the organisation’s stated purpose.

The result is rarely clean. A leader may hold strong positional authority but limited relational credibility. Another may be the technical anchor, yet struggles to influence peers with client ownership. Authority shifts with the situation, the people involved, and the history in the room.

What This Means in Practice

Leaders navigate competing sources of authority simultaneously. They rely on technical grounding while negotiating relational dynamics. They hold positional responsibility without the social capital to move a decision forward. They feel the pull of mission when a client's demands point in another direction.

This plurality is the nature of expert organisations: influence is distributed, legitimacy is contextual, and authority is earned repeatedly rather than assumed.

2.Leadership Across Multiple Arenas and Directions

Leadership in expert organisations does not happen in a single place or a single direction. It unfolds across two distinct arenas and four different directions, each with its own rules and expectations.

The Two Arenas

External or client-facing leadership often feels more straightforward. Leaders are invited in because of their expertise and role. Clients, funders, or public stakeholders often look to them to frame problems, propose solutions, and maintain a high standard of quality. Authority here rests partly on formal position, expertise, and reputation.

Internal or organisational leadership plays by different rules. Colleagues may see themselves as peers rather than followers. Ownership of decisions is shared or contested. Formal structures exist, especially in more traditional organizations, but day-to-day influence is shaped as much by history, relationships, and informal norms as by titles on an organisation chart. Authority must be earned and continually renegotiated.

Most leaders move between these arenas several times a day. What lands in one space does not automatically travel to the other.

The Four Directions

Within each arena, leadership also flows in different directions:

• Up: influencing senior experts, boards, or funders whose authority is often deeply entrenched.

• Down: guiding teams, setting expectations, and developing junior colleagues who have their own strong views and aspirations.

• Across: working with peers in other practices, regions, or disciplines, where incentives and priorities do not always align.

• Outward: representing the organisation to clients, partners, alliances, or public audiences.

Each direction calls on a different combination of authority, relationship, and communication. A way of speaking that works when leading down may fall flat when leading across or up.

The Daily Reality of Context Switching

By 11 AM, you've been directive with your team, deferential with a funder or partner, and collaborative with a peer whose priorities conflict with yours. By noon, you're in a client meeting where everyone expects you to hold the room.

You're not switching tasks. You're switching identities and leadership stances. You're recalibrating how directive to be, how much to accommodate, and which part of your role to lean on. There is no single leadership mode to settle into.

Over time, this continuous navigation creates a subtle form of strain. The work is not only to decide what to do, but to work out who to be in each context and how much authority the room will allow.

3.The Identity Paradox Leaders Navigate

When professionals step into leadership, they do not shed their old identities. They carry them forward. Identity does not transition in a linear way. It accumulates.

This creates a structural paradox that sits at the heart of leadership in professional and advisory firms.

The Identity Paradox

Professionals are valued for their expertise, and that expert identity remains central to their legitimacy. Yet leadership demands a different identity: one that steps back from problem solving, looks across the system, and holds responsibility for people, culture, and long-term direction and impact. They must switch between these identities repeatedly, often within the same conversation. Each shift carries a cognitive and relational cost.

Both identities are necessary. Neither can dominate. Leaders must hold the identity of the expert and the identity of the leader at the same time.

Research on identity conflict shows that this duality creates tension not because either identity is problematic, but because each one signals a different posture, pace, and purpose. Experts focus on depth and precision. Leaders focus on integration and perspective.

What This Actually Looks Like

A senior consultant is asked to review a junior colleague's report. As an expert, she sees exactly what's missing and could rewrite it in an hour. As a leader, she knows her job is to ask questions that help the colleague see it themselves.

The tension isn't about time; it's about which version of herself to inhabit in that moment. And the answer changes depending on the deadline, the client, and what that colleague needs to grow. She's not choosing between right and wrong. She's choosing between two legitimate identities, both of which the organization needs her to hold.

The Loyalties That Layer On Top

Layered onto this are loyalties that cannot always align. Client needs, team realities, peer expectations, and mission commitments each make legitimate claims on a leader’s judgment. These loyalties often align, but not always. When they diverge, leaders face choices with no clear right answer.

These tensions are not problems to eliminate. They are features of the system. The work of leadership is to interpret which loyalty the moment requires, while keeping the others in view.

What The Paradox Demands

Identity and loyalty tensions reinforce each other.

This creates a form of leadership that is deeply interpretive. It requires noticing which identity to step into, which loyalty to prioritise, and which trade-off protects long-term integrity rather than short-term harmony. It also requires developing the emotional and cognitive range to move between these positions without losing clarity or credibility.

This is the natural consequence of leading in environments where expertise, purpose, and influence are distributed rather than centralised.

The Cascading Effects: Individual, Team, Organizational

The effects of this architecture accumulate, shaping how individuals lead and how leadership teams and organisations function.

On the individual level

Leaders carry the weight of constant interpretation. Each conversation asks them to shift arenas, adjust their stance, negotiate authority, and reconcile identity tensions. This produces a form of cognitive and emotional load that is subtle but continuous.

People experience moments of hesitation that are not about uncertainty, but about weighing legitimate claims. They sense responsibility expanding faster than control. They work harder to stay grounded in a system that gives them little stable footing.

On the leadership team level

Leadership teams carry these dynamics in concentrated form. Each member brings different sources of authority, different identities, and different loyalties.

Without shared language, they can misread each other’s intentions. A colleague’s hesitation can look like resistance. A push for clarity can be interpreted as control.

Divergent interpretations of what leadership should look like make alignment harder than the quality of talent would suggest.

On the organisational level

When an organization cannot see the architecture within which it operates, it struggles to create the clarity, pace, and connection that everyone looks to leadership for.

The system begins to show its own symptoms. Decisions are slow because multiple identities and loyalties are in the room, even if no one names them. Senior professionals gravitate toward client work, not because they oppose organisational leadership, but because it is where their authority and identity feel clearest. Internal initiatives lose momentum when no single source of authority can move them forward.

What this complexity creates, at every level, is friction. Friction in decision-making. Friction in identity. Friction in influence. And friction, when unnamed, becomes the silent tax every expert organization pays.

A Reorientation for Leadership

When leaders begin to see the architecture of expert organisations more clearly, the work takes on a different meaning. Complexity becomes easier to read because it stops feeling personal or idiosyncratic. The friction makes sense. The hesitations make sense. The competing pulls make sense.

This clarity changes how leadership teams in expert organizations work together. People understand each other's behaviour with more accuracy. Colleagues interpret each other with more nuance. Hesitation looks less like resistance and more like the effect of competing loyalties. Strong technical opinions look less like control and more like the weight of expertise meeting the weight of responsibility.

At the organisational level, this understanding provides a common language for work that is often invisible. Leaders hold their roles with more coherence, and the organisation as a whole can move with a steadier sense of purpose, grounded in how expert systems actually function.

This article lays the conceptual foundation. The pieces that follow explore how leaders grow within this complexity, how teams align despite it, and how impact-driven organizations create the conditions for thoughtful and effective leadership.

---

About the Author

Nazly Frias is the founder of Leadership Impact, a boutique leadership advisory practice specializing in leadership teams and senior leaders in impact-driven professional service firms and organizations.

With over 15 years of international experience, Nazly brings a unique dual perspective: she has served as both an insider—leading and being part of leadership teams in global impact consulting firms and public innovation labs—and as an external trusted advisor. This combination allows her to understand the internal dynamics, pressures, and blind spots that leadership teams face while maintaining the objectivity needed to support change and transformation at the organizational level.

Originally from Colombia, Nazly works with clients worldwide in English and Spanish, and is based in Berlin.

Get in touch with Nazly