Influence versus Title: Who Has the Team?

There has been numerous sayings, debates, arguments and questions as to who truly “owns/has” the team? Is the team “owned” by the leader with the title or the leader with the most influence in/on the team? A leader who has a “title” can be described as one with formal authority conferred on him/her by the organisation. This authority gives such a leader the right to make decisions, assign tasks and enforce rules. Titles such as team lead, team manager, line manager and a host others puts the responsibility on the carriers of such title to guide the team, help the team set goals, provide direction to the team and ensure the team delivers results. Asides from having the responsibility of measuring the team’s productivity, title-based leaders usually also have access to organisational resources. This can include but is not limited to: power to allocate budgets, power to recruit whenever the team needs more resources, power to enforce policies as well as others. These availability of resources can help improve the team’s productivity and efficiency.

However in practice, the interplay between formal authority and informal leadership can significantly impact team dynamics and outcomes. Influence-based leadership unlike title-based leadership is an informal form of leadership. This form of leadership has been proven to not only be powerful but also effective. It is conferred by the team indirectly on the leader as a result of personal traits and proven good character. These personal traits can include: charisma, expertise, empathy or the ability to connect with others. It does not come with any formal title, but it’s based on trust, loyalty, adaptability and the ability to inspire others that the “leader” possesses. The influence-based leader earns their team’s trust and loyalty through their actions and not through their “title”. They are excellent at uniting people and can douse team members fears during times of uncertainty and organisational change. Their team members trust them and they are usually the go-tos when mistakes are made as the team is aware that the influence-based leader would approach the situation with confidence, thus helping the team stabilise eventually.

In practice however, research has shown that holding a title alone does not guarantee leadership success and also, influence without formal authority has its limitations. This is because in title-based leadership, team members might comply with “orders” out of obligation but lack genuine commitment if the leader fails to inspire by building trust. This for example can be seen in situations where the leader sometimes fails to listen, thinking the “title” bestowed on him by the organisation is enough to simply dish-out rules to team members no matter who or what is destroyed in the process. This could lead to rebellion, quiet-quitting or resignation from the organisation. Influence-based leaders on the other-hand , without a “title”, might struggle to enforce decisions or gain access to necessary resources - potentially hindering their ability to lead effectively.

While both influence and title based leaders have their pros and cons, the real question shouldn’t be just about ownership but about followership. In organisations where collaboration and innovation is valued, the team often gravitates towards the influence-based leader. This could be  a sociable team member, a senior team member with deep expertise, a frequent problem solver in the team or any member of the team that’s very approachable and easy to get along with on work related issues. If the title-holder fails to build influence, they may find themselves sidelined despite their formal role. On the other hand, in structured and hierarchical organisations, the title-holder often has the team by default. They are responsible for measuring the team’s productivity and have the authority to make decisions. However, if they lack influence, the team may fall apart, their leadership might feel hollow or the team’s loyalty may change - leaving them with just a title but no impact or influence in the team.

For leaders looking to maximize team efficiency as well as performance, the key lies in bringing together title and influence. Leaders who adopt this approach can use their formal authority to set direction for the team and their personal influence to inspire trust and foster collaboration in the team. Leaders who hold titles should endeavour to develop their influence by building relationships, showing empathy and improving their expertise. A title is a starting point; influence sustains long-term leadership. Whereas, leaders who lack a title but lead informally should be encouraged to leverage their strengths to complement the title-holder’s role. Such leaders can also consider stepping into formal leadership positions where their influence can create a greater impact.

Who has the team—title or influence? The answer depends on the organisational culture, team culture, the team dynamics and the specific challenges faced by the team. While titles establish formal ownership, influence often determines real leadership. In the best scenarios, the title-holder also commands influence, creating a powerful synergy that drives teams toward shared success.