Claiming, Granting, and Authorization: How to Go from 'Able to Lead' to 'Being a Leader'

This is the final installment in our “Leader” series, where we will explore a question that puzzles many: I’ve learned so many leadership skills, and I have a grand vision, but they haven’t appointed me a leader. What should I do?

This confusion is likely shared by many. Some acquire power by being wealthy business owners, others through nepotism; these are not avenues you can rely on. You might think you can only rely on your own abilities. But before that, let me tell you a story.

One day, around 1990, two people from Xerox were on a business trip. One was executive Wayland Hicks, and the other was his young special assistant, Ursula Burns. Both were sitting in economy class. During their conversation, when another company executive was mentioned, Burns suddenly said: “I could do that person’s job with my eyes closed, but I earn only a quarter of what he does—you might as well just give me his job.”

Hicks said, “No.”

It wasn’t a lack of ability. He said: “You have knowledge and competence, but you don’t yet have ‘credibility’—people need to be willing to follow you, you must ‘create followship’ to truly be effective” [1].

Of course, Burns eventually did it. In 2009, she became the CEO of Xerox, the first Black female CEO in Fortune 500 history. We’ll tell her story later.

Please reflect carefully on Hicks’ words: Having ability doesn’t automatically mean you become a leader.

Perhaps you, like Burns, once believed that by working hard, achieving results, and getting noticed by superiors, you would receive a promotion… or at least should receive one. You might imagine power as a prize, but this thinking is mistaken.

Many people, and even many companies, believe that the best performers should be leaders. However, this may not be a good idea. In 2019, three economists from the University of Minnesota, MIT, and Yale University published an empirical study on promotions [2]. They analyzed data from 38,843 salespeople across 131 U.S. companies and found that companies indeed tend to promote sales champions to manager—but the value these salespeople added to their teams after promotion showed a negative correlation with their sales performance before promotion.

In short, sales champions’ team leadership abilities are often inferior to those of average salespeople. The best individual contributors are not necessarily the best leaders, because excellent individual execution ability and the ability to lead a team to collaborate and achieve goals are two fundamentally different talents.

To be worthy of power, what you need is not general ability, but leadership. But even with leadership, one doesn’t necessarily gain power. In this installment, we will uncover an “approach” to gaining power, which comprises a three-part cycle: “Claiming,” “Granting,” and “Authorization.”

Leadership Identity Construction: From Claiming to Authorization #

“Leadership” is the ability to identify common goals, make judgments, coordinate the actions of multiple people, and be responsible for outcomes. “Power” is the asymmetric control over resources, positions, and decision-making authority. Even if you believe you possess leadership, followers may not recognize it; even if followers trust you, the organization may not be willing to invest in you. So, how can leadership be transformed into power?

This approach we’re discussing comes from two organizational behavior scholars at the University of Michigan, D. Scott DeRue and Susan J. Ashford. In 2010, they proposed a “leadership identity construction” model [3].

We have slightly expanded upon this foundation, forming a strategy for individuals without capital or a powerful background to gain power against the odds.

The overall idea is simple: You first use leadership to gain status, and then leverage that status to acquire power.

DeRue and Ashford delved into the question: If leaders are not appointed from outside but selected from within a group, how does this selection mechanism actually work? They integrated research on identity construction, leadership emergence, and social interaction into a single framework, and proposed 11 testable propositions along three levels: individual, relational, and collective. Ultimately, they concluded: Leadership identity is co-constructed through your interactions with the group—

First, you need to “claim” your identity as a leader through words and actions; subsequently, when others accept your leadership and respond as followers, the “granting” is complete, and only then can your leadership identity be truly established.

Experiments have shown that this mechanism indeed exists: For the same act of claiming leadership, if peers accept (granting), onlookers will be more inclined to see the claimant as a leader; conversely, if rejected, leadership identity becomes difficult to establish [3].

This sequence must be claiming first, then granting. After mutual confirmation, you are already a de facto leader. However, to legitimately mobilize resources and exercise authority, you also need the organization to formalize this status, upgrading it to “common knowledge.” Therefore, we add another step: “authorization.”

Simply put, to gain formal power, you need to collect three signatures—

The first is “claiming,” signed by yourself, aimed at demonstrating your leadership to others: When faced with a crisis, an ambiguous situation, or a thorny problem, and everyone is at a loss, you step forward and declare, “I will take responsibility for this problem, and I will bear the consequences.”

The second is “granting,” signed by colleagues, representing that you have earned status through your leadership: “We are willing to follow your judgment and have you represent us.”

The third is “authorization,” signed by the organization, signifying that you gain power due to your status: The organization grants you corresponding positions, resources, and authority.

Many people might think the third signature holds the most authority, after all, positions and authority are bestowed by the organization. But organizational authorization often merely formalizes the first two signatures; true leadership relationships are often formed long before formal appointment.

In November 2023, the OpenAI board fired CEO Sam Altman—a decision that was legal and compliant, executed cleanly and decisively. As a result, over 700 of the company’s approximately 770 employees co-signed a letter demanding Altman’s return. A few days later, Altman returned, and the board was almost entirely restructured instead [4]. What is authority? This is true authority.

Of course, such dramatic events are uncommon. Gaining power is often a gradual process. A position is not a diploma; it’s more like a bank’s line of credit: You are first given a small limit to see if you can convert it into collective results. If successful, the limit will be increased. With each increase, the scope of responsibility expands, challenges escalate, stakeholders multiply, and existing followers might struggle to keep up, requiring another round of signatures.

From the organization’s perspective, each of these three signatures mitigates a type of risk. The first signature proves your capacity to take risks—that you dare to assume downside risk; the second signature demonstrates that you can coordinate collective action without relying on coercive means—your influence is genuine; the third signature signifies the organization’s willingness to bet on you: granting you more resources and decision-making authority, trusting you to amplify collective outcomes.

Claiming: Taking Responsibility and Identifying Opportunities #

Let’s first discuss “claiming.” This step is both the simplest and the most difficult. It’s simple because it requires no one’s approval; as long as a power vacuum emerges, you can proactively fill it. It’s difficult because what you take on often lacks authorization, resources, and even indemnity clauses.

When Liu Bang first rose up in Pei County, in terms of administrative skills and seniority, Xiao He and Cao Can were both seasoned officials in the county government, proficient in their duties and well-connected. If a leader were to be chosen based on seniority and rank, it would certainly not have been Liu Bang, a mere pavilion chief. The problem was that Xiao He, Cao Can, and others were all civil officials, “They valued themselves, feared failure, and that the Qin would exterminate their families, so they all deferred to Liu Ji” [5]—they were too protective of their own reputations, fearing extermination of their clans if the uprising failed, so they all ceded the leadership position to Liu Bang. Liu Bang, however, dared to take on the responsibility.

What you claim is, first and foremost, responsibility and consequences, not merely tasks. Of course, corporate affairs usually do not involve life-or-death situations. Typically, the issues requiring someone to claim them are challenging problems such as system failures, deteriorating client relationships, or inter-departmental conflicts. If you can resolve them properly, your prestige will significantly increase.

Furthermore, please note: do not indiscriminately take on all work.

A 2017 study pointed out [6] that there exists a category of tasks known as “low-promotability tasks”; even if you invest significant effort, they rarely lead to promotion opportunities. Examples include organizing company meals, writing meeting minutes, answering questions for new hires, and filling out various forms. These tasks have limited value and are time-consuming; even if done perfectly, people will merely consider it normal, and it won’t highlight your capabilities. The study found that women are asked to undertake such tasks more frequently, and they are also more inclined to accept them… however, what they ultimately receive is often just thanks.

Tasks worth claiming must be able to impact critical company outcomes, ideally involve cross-departmental collaboration, cannot be solved by one person alone, and require judgment and trade-offs rather than simply piling on workload, and ultimately produce quantifiable results.

To put it plainly, don’t be the organization’s “free babysitter”; instead, become the “owner” of critical problems.

An ordinary expert can only solve individual tasks; a de facto leader can resolve conflicts between tasks; a formal leader, however, must bear the ultimate consequences of these conflicts. The level of the problem you claim will determine the value of your signature.

Granting: Earning Followership and Contributing Solutions #

Now that you have successfully claimed a task, how can you earn the “granting” from your colleagues?

As we mentioned earlier, there are two main ways to gain social status: One is through dominance, instilling fear—that is, by gaining obedience through intimidation and punishment. The second is through prestige, creating demand—that is, by earning voluntary followership through one’s abilities and contributions. Both methods can help you secure “granting.” Indeed, deterrence is still effective. A 2022 study tracked 104 project groups of 548 MBA students; within just four weeks, both paths enabled individuals to achieve high status—however, only the respect and followership earned via the prestige route were voluntarily given by members [7].

If conditions allow, you should prioritize prestige-based status. The dominance route can indeed help you rise, but what it primarily demonstrates is that others dare not oppose you. Prestige, however, proves that others are willing to follow your judgment and have you represent them—this is the second signature we truly desire to obtain. Here, we also have a tip; let’s refer to a new study published in 2026.

A large financial institution, on a whim, implemented a systemic reform, significantly eliminating management positions, allowing teams to self-manage, and promoting equality among all. This provided researchers with an excellent opportunity to observe human behavior. They closely tracked 585 employees over six months, observing whose opinions gained more weight and whose status increased [8].

Their conclusion was: If you want to raise your status, your communication must be a “promotive voice,” that is, actively offering solutions when problems arise: “We should do it this way, this way, and this way.” Those who propose solutions see their status rise; and the rise in status, in turn, encourages them to propose solutions more boldly, forming a positive feedback loop.

In contrast, if you offer a “prohibitive voice,” which merely points out problems or reveals risks, it will not produce the same positive effect.

We’ve always said bad news is important, and organizations need whistleblowers. However, if you aspire to gain prestige, you need people to associate you with solutions, not just with problems themselves.

Authorization: Trust and Modern Organizations #

Excellent, you have now solved problems for the organization and earned prestige. So, when will the organization formally “authorize” you?

In pre-modern organizations, earning authorization through ability often encounters a paradox: the more capable you are, the more the powerful need you—but at the same time, the more they fear you.

Take Zeng Guofan, for example, back then. During the critical period of the Taiping Rebellion, he proactively took on difficult challenges. The Xiang Army was trained by him, its funds raised by him, and its campaigns commanded by him. Although the imperial court allowed him to operate, it consistently refused to grant him real local power. When Zeng Guofan allocated provisions, funds, and personnel, he had to defer to the provincial governors and governors-general. This was the so-called state of “being a guest with suspended authority.” After his father’s death in 1857, he submitted a memorial outlining this predicament and requesting the authority of a governor-general. Emperor Xianfeng not only did not grant it but instead permitted him to take leave for mourning. It wasn’t until 1860, when the Jiangnan Army completely collapsed, that the imperial court, left with no other choice, appointed him Governor-General of Liangjiang and Imperial Commissioner [9].

Why was authorization granted with such reluctance? Likely precisely because Zeng Guofan was too capable. In the era of imperial power, “the superiors and subordinates fought a hundred battles a day”; the more power granted to Zeng Guofan, the more threatened the emperor felt about his own security. The more indispensable he became, the more he resembled a potential threat.

This is a prominent characteristic of pre-modern organizations. The relationship between Xiang Army generals and soldiers had a strong personal flavor. To some extent, this amounted to Zeng Guofan’s “private army.” The court’s authorization of Zeng Guofan not only enhanced his ability to get things done but also amounted to fostering a personal power center capable of operating independently from the bureaucratic system.

Modern organizations, however, embed power within roles. You can utilize budgets, deploy personnel, access clients and data, but these assets all belong to the company; your decisions must be documented, and your authority is constrained by processes and audits. The board can revoke authority or replace you at any time. Most importantly, your subordinates are also “role-based individuals,” not “people beholden to you personally.” They can grant you prestige, but they are not personally dependent on you.

This, in turn, makes organizations more willing to utilize you. If your authorization empowers the organization to become more capable, then it’s a positive-sum transaction.

Let’s revisit the career trajectory of Xerox CEO Ursula Burns, mentioned at the beginning of the article. This was a series of formalized authorizations, a process of incremental trust-building.

Burns came to Hicks’ attention due to her bold remarks at an employee meeting. Less than a year later, Hicks invited her to be his special assistant; their interactions and mentorship, which began with that argument, continued for many years. This position allowed her to observe high-level decisions and how a large company operated. This was the first circle of trust: not yet given command power, but first granted a macro perspective.

Later, CEO Paul Allaire brought Burns closer to him, involving her in company restructuring. He then assigned her a neglected business—the fax machine division. At the time, this business was losing $30 million annually, and the CEO’s request was a single sentence: “See if you can make it break even; if not, shut it down.” [1]

Burns readily accepted—this was her first true “claiming of territory.”

As a result, she performed exceptionally well. She brought together hundreds of employees from sales, manufacturing, supply chain, and other departments, achieved break-even within twelve months, and generated a $5 million profit within another six months. Those hundreds of employees became Burns’ first group of followers—this was precisely the quality Hicks had pointed out she lacked in economy class that day.

After leading a team and acquiring a core group of people, the situation immediately opened up for her. Subsequently, she was entrusted with broader business responsibilities, including manufacturing, supply chain, global clients, etc. Burns became President in 2007 and CEO in 2009.

Power and Interpersonal Relationships: Indispensable Soft Power #

So, can authorization in modern organizations completely transcend interpersonal relationships? The answer is: no. Even Burns was no exception. Burns had the backing of Hicks and Allaire, just as Zeng Guofan’s eventual appointment could not have happened without Su Shun’s strong support before the emperor. Power is always granted to a specific individual, and trust in a specific individual is always… specific. To gain power, you must have followers below you and guarantors above you—that is, individuals who can vouch for you with their own credibility in high-level meetings when you are not present.

In the Elite Daily Insights column, we previously discussed Jeffrey Pfeffer’s work, 7 Rules of Power [10]. You will understand that in reality, power is always an interpersonal game, and it is inevitably inseparable from relationships.

However, in modern organizations, interpersonal relationships can at most determine who temporarily occupies a position; whereas in pre-modern organizations, relationships could completely transform that position into a private domain.

The End of the Cycle, Also the Beginning #

This cycle of “claiming” → “granting” → “authorization” will remind you of the final installment in our previous “Making Money” section—“Entrustment”: That was a cyclical model for becoming a highly paid professional: Handling small uncertainties → gaining small trust → acquiring small leverage → handling larger uncertainties → gaining greater trust → acquiring greater leverage…

Their essence is the same. High salaries and high positions are essentially levers of trust: You must first prove through your actions that you are trustworthy, only then will others be willing to follow, and only then will the organization dare to entrust you with greater uncertainties, along with more capital, human resources, and power. Do not directly chase leverage—what you should actively expand is your “radius of trustworthiness”… As the saying goes, “Do not worry about lacking a position, but rather about the qualities you possess to establish yourself.”

If you have not only successfully entered the trust leverage cycle but also obtained the third signature, gaining legitimate power, I extend my heartfelt congratulations to you. However, I must remind you that at this moment, you have become an “organization” for others.

In your team, someone is currently signing their first signature—claiming neglected problems, resolving uncertainties for you, and gaining recognition from colleagues. The third signature they await will be signed by you.

How you sign it will determine whether your organization can cultivate the next you.

A verse as testimony:

A single claim first bears the risk, Followership forms from virtue. The red seal isn’t merely bestowed from above, It awaits your new signature.

Notes

[1] Kunhardt Film Foundation. “Ursula Burns Interview.” MAKERS: Women Who Make America, September 30, 2011, pp. 23–28；Burns, Ursula M. Where You Are Is Not Who You Are: A Memoir. New York: Amistad, 2021, chap. 7；Xerox Corporation. “Anne Mulcahy to Retire as Xerox CEO; Ursula Burns Named Successor.” May 21, 2009.

[2] Benson, Alan, Danielle Li, and Kelly Shue. “Promotions and the Peter Principle.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 134, no. 4 (2019): 2085–2134. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjz022.

[3] DeRue, D. Scott, and Susan J. Ashford. “Who Will Lead and Who Will Follow? A Social Process of Leadership Identity Construction in Organizations.” Academy of Management Review 35, no. 4 (2010): 627–647. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.35.4.zok627；Marchiondo, Lisa A., Christopher G. Myers, and Shirli Kopelman. “The Relational Nature of Leadership Identity Construction: How and When It Influences Perceived Leadership and Decision-Making.” The Leadership Quarterly 26, no. 5 (2015): 892–908. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.06.006.

[4] OpenAI. “OpenAI Announces Leadership Transition.” November 17, 2023；The Washington Post. “Nearly All OpenAI Employees Threaten to Quit, Follow Sam Altman to Microsoft.” November 20, 2023；Axios. “Sam Altman to Return as OpenAI CEO.” November 22, 2023.

[5] 司马迁：《史记·高祖本纪》：“萧、曹等皆文吏，自爱，恐事不就，后秦种族其家，尽让刘季。”

[6] Babcock, Linda, Maria P. Recalde, Lise Vesterlund, and Laurie Weingart. “Gender Differences in Accepting and Receiving Requests for Tasks with Low Promotability.” American Economic Review 107, no. 3 (2017): 714–747. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20141734.

[7] McClanahan, Kaylene J., Jon K. Maner, and Joey T. Cheng. “Two Ways to Stay at the Top: Prestige and Dominance Are Both Viable Strategies for Gaining and Maintaining Social Rank Over Time.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 48, no. 10 (2022): 1516–1528. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672211042319.

[8] Harju, Lotta K., and Maria Tims. “Stand Out, Speak Out: Change-Related Reciprocal Relations between Self-Perceived Status and Voice in Leaderless Teams.” Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (2026). https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.70116.

[9] 朱东安：《曾国藩传》，成都：四川人民出版社，1985 年。

[10] 《精英日课》第五季，《权力七规则》0：你躲不开政治和权力；Pfeffer, Jeffrey. 7 Rules of Power: Surprising—but True—Advice on How to Get Things Done and Advance Your Career. Matt Holt Books, 2022.