“You’re leading this?” — formal role vs informal authority

Just before a client meeting, Zofia assigns roles to Nia and Marek.

— Nia, you’re leading today. Marek, you’re joining as the subject-matter expert.
— Got it.

During the meeting, Marek starts answering questions before Nia can. To him, experience gives him a reason to step in; to Nia, every intervention chips away at the role she has just been given.

What really happened

Zofia has explicitly asked Nia to lead the conversation, so Nia has a clear mandate. Marek, however, has more experience in similar situations and may feel that this naturally gives him greater influence over how the meeting unfolds. From his perspective, correcting Nia or adding detail is helpful and protects the quality of the discussion. From hers, each intervention can publicly take away part of the authority she has just been granted. The formal message—“you are leading”—collides with an informal one: “I have more experience, so people will still look to me.”

What the research says

Authority in groups does not come from a single source. Formal position matters, but so do experience, expertise, language, confidence and the person others instinctively defer to—what status-characteristics research examines. Teams do not always recognize and use members’ expertise accurately; status can become a shortcut for judging competence (Bunderson, 2003). In multinational teams, even language and nationality can shape who is granted informal leadership status (Paunova, 2017). Giving someone a formal role therefore does not automatically erase the status hierarchy that existed before.

How to handle it

Before the meeting, make the division of roles explicit: “Nia is leading and will make the decisions in this conversation. Marek is our expert and we will bring him in on two specific areas.” If Marek sees a risk, he can flag it to Nia before the meeting or ask to come in, rather than taking over. Zofia should also consistently direct questions back to Nia, because her own behavior tells the group who holds the mandate. The general rule: when responsibility is given to someone with lower informal status, the role needs more than a label—it needs visible behaviors that reinforce it in public.

How Empatyzer and Em can help

Empatyzer can help Nia and Marek see that they are drawing authority from different sources. Nia may rely on the explicit mandate she has been given, while Marek may place more weight on seniority, experience and expert standing. Culture-8 and status-related motivators can help Em anticipate that simply saying “Nia is leading” may not be enough. Before the meeting, Em can prompt Zofia to specify who leads, who advises and who decides. It can also help Marek contribute his expertise without taking the wheel. This is particularly useful when formal responsibility and informal status do not line up. Micro-lessons reinforce a key distinction: expertise gives you a legitimate voice, but it does not always give you the right to take over someone else’s role.