Most transformation initiatives are cross-functional by nature, which means the leader accountable for the outcome often has authority over only a fraction of the people whose work determines whether it succeeds.
Formal authority and real influence are different currencies
A transformation lead can have a clear executive mandate and still find that the people doing critical work report through a completely different chain, with their own priorities, incentives, and performance reviews that have nothing to do with the transformation's success. Formal authority does not automatically translate into the influence needed to keep that work on track.
This is where many capable leaders struggle, not because they lack the skill to lead people directly, but because leading through influence, across organizational boundaries, requires a different set of tools: negotiated agreements, shared metrics, and relationships built before they are needed.
What working across the org chart actually requires
The leaders who do this well tend to invest early in explicit agreements with the managers whose teams they depend on: what capacity is committed, how conflicts between the transformation's priorities and the team's other work will be resolved, and who escalates when those agreements break down. They do not assume goodwill will be sufficient once real tradeoffs appear.
Designing around the mismatch, not against it
The org chart is not going to be redrawn for the sake of one initiative. Leading effectively within that reality means designing governance and agreements that work across its boundaries, rather than hoping influence alone will hold the effort together. That design work, done early, is often what separates transformation leaders who sustain momentum from those who spend their energy fighting the structure itself.
Formal authority and real influence run on different tracks
A transformation lead can hold a clear executive mandate and still discover that the people doing the most critical work report through an entirely different chain, with their own priorities, incentives, and performance reviews that have nothing to do with the transformation's success. Formal authority, on its own, does not reliably translate into the day-to-day influence needed to keep that work moving on schedule.
Where this becomes a real leadership challenge
This is where many genuinely capable leaders struggle, not because they lack the skill to lead people who report directly to them, but because leading effectively across organizational boundaries requires a different toolkit: negotiated agreements instead of direct instructions, shared metrics that both sides actually care about, and relationships built well before they are urgently needed.
What effective cross-boundary leadership actually requires
Leaders who navigate this well invest early in explicit agreements with the managers whose teams they depend on: what capacity is genuinely committed, how conflicts between the transformation's priorities and the team's other obligations get resolved, and who escalates when those agreements start to break down under pressure. They do not simply assume goodwill will hold once real tradeoffs and competing deadlines appear, because goodwill alone rarely survives a genuinely difficult resourcing conflict.
Bring this thinking to your organization.
Dakhalfani speaks on leadership & complexity for executive audiences, conferences, and leadership programs.