You’re asked to take responsibility for another team. The announcement describes a broader mandate, and your colleagues begin bringing you problems from the expanded area.
Staffing decisions still need approval from your boss. Another executive controls the budget. Commitments involving your team continue to be made in meetings you don’t attend.
You’re expected to deliver the combined result.
This is what responsibility without sufficient authority can look like in a senior role. The gap may develop gradually through vacancies, reorganizations, or additional assignments. It becomes easier to overlook when you keep finding a way to deliver.
I’d examine what the arrangement requires you to negotiate each time you try to do the job.
Identify the decision that keeps getting stuck
A general statement such as “I need more authority” can be difficult for leadership to evaluate.
Choose one recurring decision that affects an outcome you’re accountable for.
Perhaps you’re responsible for improving customer response times, but every staffing adjustment requires separate approval. You can identify the capacity problem and propose a solution. You can’t authorize the change.
What happens next matters. Does the approval arrive while it can still affect the result? Is someone weighing the request against other priorities? Does the question go unanswered while you continue carrying the performance expectation?
Describe the actual sequence.
You need to distinguish an appropriate approval requirement from an arrangement that repeatedly prevents timely decisions. Senior roles still operate within budgets, governance, and shared responsibilities. The question is whether those arrangements give you a workable way to deliver.
Separate ownership from participation
Several people may contribute to a decision without owning the same part of it.
You might develop the recommendation, Finance may validate the economics, and another executive may authorize spending above a defined limit.
That can be a sound arrangement if the responsibilities and timing are understood.
Difficulty arises when consultation becomes an undefined approval process. Everyone can raise an objection, no one is clearly responsible for resolving the disagreement, and you’re expected to keep the work moving.
I’d ask who can make the final call when the people involved disagree. What information do they need, and when must they decide?
Also clarify what you can decide independently. If your mandate includes reallocating existing capacity within an agreed budget, colleagues need to understand that boundary. Otherwise, an informal habit of seeking permission can remain in place after authority has technically been granted.
Examine what changed in the role
Look at the original agreement and the work you now carry.
You may have inherited another region, taken on a departing executive’s responsibilities, or become accountable for an initiative that crosses several functions.
For each meaningful addition, ask which decisions came with it. Were resources transferred? Did reporting relationships change? Was the original set of priorities reduced?
An expanded mandate can require a different operating arrangement even when your title stays the same.
For example, a VP may absorb another service line while keeping the same leadership team. If they’re now expected to oversee both operations, they may need authority to appoint a leader, change the reporting structure, or stop lower-priority work.
Treat those needs as part of designing the responsibility. Relying on personal effort to bridge the gap can make the arrangement appear more workable than it is.
Put the business consequence into the conversation
Leadership needs to understand what the mismatch affects.
Instead of opening with how often you have to ask permission, explain the decision, the constraint, and its consequence.
You might say: “I’m accountable for reducing response times. I can’t currently adjust staffing within the approved budget without a separate sign-off. We need an agreement on which staffing changes I can authorize and which require escalation.”
That gives the discussion a defined subject.
Support it with the examples you have. Explain where work waits, where commitments conflict, or where a choice made elsewhere creates a risk you’re expected to manage.
Avoid assuming the reason for the arrangement. There may be financial, regulatory, or coordination needs you haven’t been given. Ask what the current approval protects, then consider how to preserve that protection while improving the decision process.
Propose an arrangement people can operate
A useful proposal explains how the responsibility would work.
It might establish a spending threshold, authority to redeploy staff within a budget, a requirement to consult affected functions, and a named escalation point.
The proposal should also address expectations. If you can’t change the resources or priorities, what outcome is reasonable under the current constraints?
Suppose leadership reduces your budget while leaving every delivery commitment in place. Ask which commitments still stand, which can change, and who accepts the risk of proceeding.
If resources change while the expected outcome stays fixed, someone needs to decide which commitment or risk the business will accept.
The conversation may lead to more authority. It may instead produce a narrower scope or a revised deadline. Any of those can make the role more workable if the agreement reflects the actual conditions.
Watch what happens after agreement
A positive meeting is useful. The next decision shows how fully the agreement has taken effect.
Do colleagues continue routing decisions around you? Does your manager reverse choices that were meant to sit within your remit? Are you still receiving commitments made without your involvement?
Return to the specific agreement and the example that departed from it. Ask whether the authority has changed or whether the people involved need clarification.
A short written summary can help everyone understand the decision boundaries, consultation requirements, and escalation process. Include the people whose work is affected.
You’re looking for an arrangement that holds in ordinary work, including when the choice is uncomfortable.
Decide what continued mismatch means
You may discover that leadership wants to retain control over decisions while leaving the delivery obligation with you.
That gives you information about the role. You can assess what commitments you can responsibly make, which risks need escalation, and whether another arrangement is possible.
Strong performance doesn’t automatically change decision rights. Clearer language can make the problem easier to understand, but someone with the relevant authority still has to authorize a change.
Start with one decision that materially affects your ability to deliver. Establish who controls it, explain what the current arrangement creates, and propose the agreement the work needs.