(L02) The Basis of Authority

The Question

How to handle your newfound authority may well be the biggest question facing managers when they’re promoted in charge of other human beings for the first time.

I have seen some new bosses go a little mad with the taste of power. This type can turn into a tiny dictator, demanding total obedience while never stooping to ask for advice from their staff or to think about anyone else’s needs. Their see loyalty as a one-way street and being in charge as simply an opportunity to give orders to others, while doing whatever they want themselves.

In contrast, I’ve seen managers who were so diffident about their authority it almost paralyzed them, leaving them utterly unable to set a clear direction for their team. This type tends to be ultra-aware that their people are just as intelligent, just as well-educated, and (in some cases) even more experienced than they are themselves. So, what right do they have to be giving the orders?

From a leadership point of view, both behaviours are equally dysfunctional.

The tiny dictator’s exaggerated sense of authority causes them to abuse their power in ways that are fatal to the cohesion and function of any team. While the diffident manager’s failure to take up the burden of authority means they don’t provide the leadership their staff needs. (Even the smallest organization needs some sort of authority to help it work toward a common vision, set priorities, or break ties when there’s a disagreement.)

In contrast, a good leader knows how to exercise a just authority that inspires team members to willingly follow them. This could be described as “legitimate authority”. And an understanding of how it works is, I think, vital for any new manager who wants to steer between the Scylla of the tiny dictator and the Charybdis of the diffident manager.

The Answer

I’ve been thinking about the question of legitimate authority ever since I flew to Gagetown, New Brunswick to begin officer candidate training at the Army’s Armour School (so, for a long, long, long time). My classmates and I weren’t the most thoughtful young men (it was all men, then) but we knew that those of us who survived the next two summers would be sent back to our home regiments as brand-new 2nd Lieutenants, ready to take command of an armour troop. Meaning that we would be leading soldiers with far more experience than us, and our second in command would be a highly qualified Sergeant or Warrant Officer with up to ten years of service.

The Army’s two-tier rank structure (in which the most junior commissioned officer outranks even the most senior non-commissioned member) means that young officers, as we were, are routinely put in command of more experienced subordinates. It’s an extreme version of the dilemma faced by the diffident manager above.

So, even the dullest member of our class found themselves thinking about the question of legitimate authority. What right — beyond the formality of rank — did we have to command such men? And, even more to the point, why should they follow us?

Fortunately, our course officer was — besides being the terror of our existence — a thoughtful mentor who hadn’t forgotten his own years as a young 2nd Lieutenant. In addition to our formal classes, he regularly gathered us together for a series of discussions on leadership, professional conduct, regimental duties, and so on.

On the question of authority, his advice was always to read the Queen’s Commission we’d receive upon graduation (now a King’s Commission, of course). Here’s the key passage: “You are therefore carefully and diligently to discharge your Duty as such in the rank of [Second Lieutenant] Or in such other Rank as We may from time to time hereafter be pleased to promote or appoint you to, and you are in such manner and on such occasions as may be proscribed by Us to exercise and well discipline both the subordinate Officers and men serving under you and use your best endeavour to keep them in good Order and Discipline”.

Excuse the archaic grammar and punctuation. The essence here is that an officer’s commission places them under permanent standing orders to carry out any duties accompanying their rank and appointment. An officer is aways responsible for their mission and their people, whether they have been given orders to complete a particular task or not. You can never say, “Sorry, no-one told me”. Or “I was on a break”.

In civilian life you don’t usually receive a fancy scroll. However, promotion to a leadership role is a form of commission and brings the same expectation of responsibility.

The Implications

Understanding that responsibility is the basis for legitimate authority broke the code for me. Think about it:

• Wielding authority without responsibility is a form of tyranny. It would mean having the power to do whatever you want to your organization its people without any consequences — a license for bad behaviour.
• On the other hand, responsibility without authority is a form of reverse tyranny over you. It puts you in the impossible position of being held accountable for an organization’s results without having any power to affect them.

Perhaps the main distinction between a leader and someone who remains merely a boss is that leaders accept the responsibility that comes with their authority over an organization, a department, or a staff. Legitimate authority and responsibility are two sides of a coin; they can’t be separated.

It’s a simple idea, but the implications are profound. To begin, this should help new leaders steer clear of the Tiny Dictator / Diffident Manager trap.

If the basis of authority is your acceptance of responsibility, then the purpose of your authority is to ensure you can lead your unit in the accomplishment its goals. Any decisions you make or directions you issue to help it succeed are, thus, legitimate. Whereas actions for your own benefit, or to demean your people, are not.

Likewise, it doesn’t matter whether your staff are more experienced or better qualified than you. As leader of your unit, you have accepted responsibility for its performance, and they have not. If you’re going to wear the results, you have a legitimate right to make the decisions that determine those results. This doesn’t mean you have to make them alone, of course. But, if the buck stops with you, then you get to make the call.

So, accepting the burden of responsibility is the core requirement for leadership (as opposed to boss-ship). If you aren’t willing to do this, you shouldn’t apply for leadership positions, and you should turn down any that are offered. There is no shame in this. I have worked with many intelligent, talented, experienced people who were happy to give advice, but became uncomfortable the moment I suggested they take charge. (The Army even recognizes this by having several pay grades for trades qualifications and years of service so that those who enjoy soldiering, but don’t want to be leaders, can afford to remain Privates.)

And make no mistake, should you take up the burden of leadership, absolutely everything to do with your unit is now your concern, 24 hours a day. Again, that doesn’t mean doing everything yourself — that’s what you have people for — but it does mean wearing whatever consequences come due.

In my second career, as a college administrator, one of the most surprising things I heard was a dean respond to the report of a problem in one of her departments with the words: “That’s not my job”. My head literally snapped around. The department in question might have its own subordinate head. But, as Dean of the whole faculty, it was absolutely her job to intervene and provide the Department Head with direction, support, or intervention — whatever they needed.

Responsibility is absolute; when you become the leader/manager/director/head of an organization, you take responsibility for the whole thing. This cannot be split or shared. (And institutions that try, by appointing equal co-leaders, just create a whole new category of dysfunction.)

Toto Wolff’s “No Blame” Culture

Toto Wolff’s leadership of the Mercedes F1 team provides a good example of what taking responsibility looks like in practice. Formula 1 racing is the pinnacle of world motorsport and its stakes are huge — both financial and in prestige. Yet, Wolff has always emphasized that the team’s core value is its “no-blame culture”.

That might seem an easy-going approach for a high-performance workplace, especially in such a competitive environment. Yet, Mercedes is the most successful F1 team of all time. It won eight Constructors’ titles and seven World Drivers’ Championships between 2014 and 2021.

When the regulations changed in 2022, Mercedes chose what proved the wrong concept for their new car, resulting in a tumble down the order. Even in these challenging times, though, Wolff never changed his tune. In a 2023 interview for PlanetF1 magazine he emphasized that their recent poor results had not triggered a round of finger pointing within the ranks. In fact, Wolff derided the tendency, in times of crisis to, “blame the person and not the problem”.

Wolff is Austrian so, to get the full flavour of the following, imagine it in Arnold Schwarzenegger’s voice: “I think the human reaction is always, when something goes wrong, to say, ‘it’s your fault…’ Fundamentally, though, it’s all my fault. If we have a bad pit stop, it’s not because the mechanic has underperformed, it’s because his equipment is not up to the job, or the training hasn’t been good enough, or our wheel nuts are not how they should be. So, at the end, you can always retrace where the problem is and generally, it is up to us, the leadership… So that’s why we blame the problem and we’ve stuck to it.”

So, Wolff’s “no blame” philosophy is, essentially, another way of saying that responsibility for the team’s performance rests with him. “No blame” only applies to the employees. In fact, Wolff explicitly says, “it’s all my fault”, in his example.

I particularly like the emphasis this puts on solving problems as opposed to finding scapegoats when things go wrong. This attitude comes naturally when leaders live up to their responsibilities, and it makes for a supportive and positive culture — a secure environment within which team members can focus on doing their best work.

Wolff’s story also demonstrates the importance of staying calm in the face of adversity. He had to show enormous self-confidence, even courage, to stick with his philosophy through the bad times. His ability to stay focused on solutions, rather than assigning blame, though, was key to the resilience Mercedes F1 would need to fight their back into the winner’s circle.

That opportunity came when the regulations changed again in 2026, with the requirement for yet another car redesign providing a chance to reset the competitive order. The Mercedes team, united in its determination to get it right this time, roared back to the front. At the time of writing, they have just won the first five races of 2026.

Courage

Finally, Wolff’s example shows why courage is such an important leadership quality. Most people tend to think of physical courage when they hear the word, but moral courage is what really matters for a leader. Moral courage is what you need to stay calm in the face of adversity, steer a steady course when everyone doubts you, make hard decisions, and take responsibility when there’s a failure.

Every boss has a bigger boss above them, which means that every boss is, sooner or later, called upon to explain why their unit lost money, didn’t meet its target, or experienced some other failure. At such times it’s incredibly difficult to muster the necessary moral courage to take responsibility for whatever happened. The temptation is equally incredible to point a finger at a subordinate and blame them instead. Bosses sometimes do this, but it’s an utter failure if want to be a leader.

Should you be brave enough to act like a leader, though, something wonderful happens. Every time you stand up and let yourself be held accountable, you’re demonstrating, in the most practical and meaningful way possible, your loyalty to your team and your trust that, if you have their backs, they won’t let you down again. Do that often enough, and your team begins to repay you with loyalty in return. (Loyalty and trust are like electricity, they make a complete circuit or don’t flow at all.)

This is how you build a healthy relationship (and it is a relationship) with their team. (Of course, it’s also up to you to follow through with the necessary internal action to ensure there is no next time. That may mean more training, reviewing your processes, improving supervision, and so on. Ultimately, if every genuine attempt at remediation fails, you may have to let someone go — which also takes courage.)

Ironically, while taking responsibly for your team may seem like a bit of a career risk, the healthy organizational culture this creates is what enables your people to do their best, most creative work. Try as you might (and you should try) to pass on the praise and recognition this earns, the credit for their excellence inevitably reflects on you.

Fortune does indeed favour the brave!

Checklist: Things a Leader Never Says

You can use the checklist below to perform a quick-self-evaluation. Here are seven things that bosses sometimes say, but a leader never does:

• “That’s not my job.”
• “I Wasn’t trained for this.”
• “Nobody told me.”
• “I’m so busy.”
• “I’m so stressed out.”
• “This is your fault.”
• “Go ahead, but if there’s any trouble, I never told you to do it.”