Leading Without Authority But With a Deadline

Sue Coe, Head of Operations

At a recent conference session on influencing up and across, I spoke about a lesson many legal professionals know well: sometimes you are accountable for the outcome, but you are not the person with the authority to move it.

The presentation itself was about influencing across an organisation when the initiative matters, the risk is real, and the decision sits somewhere else. My case study was a business continuity and disaster recovery uplift. On paper, it was sensible. In practice, it kept stalling because it crossed operations, technology and risk, without sitting neatly inside any one team. But the kicker is, I was responsible for it.

“The question stopped being ‘why invest?’ and became ‘why are we still comfortable with this level of risk?’”

Sue Coe

The presentation itself was about influencing across an organisation when the initiative matters, the risk is real, and the decision sits somewhere else. My case study was a business continuity and disaster recovery uplift. On paper, it was sensible. In practice, it kept stalling because it crossed operations, technology and risk, without sitting neatly inside any one team. But the kicker is, I was responsible for it.

That is the part I think resonates with medico-legal audiences. Plaintiff and defendant lawyers deal with this all the time. The issue may be obvious. The consequence may be serious. But the people shaping the decision, funding the response, carrying the risk and managing the fallout are often not the same people. Good work does not move just because it deserves to.

The main learning I shared was simple: I did not unlock momentum by pushing the solution harder. I unlocked it by changing the frame. We stopped talking about the cost of the solution and started talking about the cost of failure. Once the business could see what inaction actually meant, the conversation changed. The question stopped being ‘why invest?’ and became ‘why are we still comfortable with this level of risk?’

It’s like the old roof on the old family Queenslander. We’re dry now, but if we have another “10-year flooding event” in the next 2 years, will it still be okay?

That shift matters in legal settings too. Whether you are coordinating a plaintiff matter across experts and evidence, or managing a defence matter across insurers, clinicians and internal stakeholders, influence often comes down to translation. You have to express the issue in terms the next decision-maker cannot sidestep. Not more words. Better framing.

“Good work does not move just because it deserves to.”

Sue Coe

The second learning was that over-explaining is not the same as influencing. Early on, I tried to build the perfect case before bringing others in. What I learned instead was that too much detail can actually give people more room to delay. The better move was to engage the right stakeholders earlier, make the risk visible, and let ownership spread before the ask became urgent.

“Influence is not about hierarchy. It is about helping people see why something matters before the cost of delay gets chosen by default.”

Sue Coe

The third learning was about restraint. When you are carrying accountability without formal authority, there is a temptation to compensate by doing more, proving more and holding more. I think that is where people burn out. Real influence is often lighter than that. Be clear on the problem. Be specific about the consequence. Bring people in early enough that the issue becomes shared.

That, for me, was the real point of the session. Influence is not about charm. It is not about hierarchy. It is about helping people see why something matters before the cost of delay gets chosen by default. For legal professionals working in complex medico-legal environments, that is not a nice-to-have skill. It is part of the job.

I’d like to thank the team at CCWomen, the session moderator Shiwon Oh, and my fellow panellists, Victoria Gardea, Bridget Dierich, and Sherri Henry.