How do successful leaders create commitment in matrix organisations?

You have responsibility but not authority. You are accountable for a project, programme, customer relationship, strategic initiative, or organisational change. Success depends on people across multiple functions, teams, or business units. Yet many of those people do not report to you, do not share your priorities, and may already be stretched by competing demands.

Welcome to one of the defining leadership challenges of modern organisations. I often call this the challenge of lateral leadership.

Many leaders discover that the skills that helped them succeed in hierarchical environments are less effective in matrix organisations. Clear reporting lines are replaced by shared accountability. Direct control gives way to negotiation and influence. Progress depends less on directing activity and more on aligning diverse interests around a common goal.

The instinctive response is often to look for more authority. Leaders seek clearer governance, stronger sponsorship, or greater decision rights. While these can be helpful, they rarely address the underlying challenge. In matrix organisations, success depends less on what authority you possess and more on your ability to mobilise people who have a choice about whether and how they contribute.

Research from the Center for Creative Leadership suggests that leadership is fundamentally about creating direction, alignment, and commitment. In traditional hierarchies, authority can help create these conditions. In matrix organisations, leaders must often create them through relationships, credibility, shared purpose, and collaboration. This shift requires a different view of leadership.

The most effective matrix leaders are not necessarily the most senior, the most charismatic, or the most politically connected. They are the leaders who know how to create movement without relying on formal authority. They understand how to build influence, how to develop strong networks, how to bring people together around shared outcomes, and how to act in ways that serve the wider organisation rather than a single function or department.

These capabilities matter because organisational performance increasingly depends on collaboration across boundaries. Products are developed by cross-functional teams. Customer solutions require multiple areas of expertise. Strategic initiatives depend on cooperation across geographies, functions, and stakeholder groups. No single leader possesses all the resources, knowledge, or authority required to succeed alone.

The question, therefore, is not whether you have enough authority. The question is whether you can create enough commitment with all of the stakeholders.

In this article, we explore four capabilities that help leaders achieve exactly that: influence, networks, convening, and stewardship. Together, they provide a practical guide for leading when you are not the boss.

Capability 1: Influence

If authority is the currency of a hierarchy, influence is the currency of a matrix.

When leaders first enter matrix environments, they often underestimate how much of their success will depend on people they cannot direct. A project manager may need support from technology teams. A business leader may depend on finance, procurement, legal, or operations. A transformation sponsor may require cooperation from multiple departments with competing priorities.

In each case, progress depends less on authority and more on influence. This is often where leaders encounter frustration. They have a strong business case, clear objectives, and executive sponsorship, yet struggle to gain traction. Stakeholders seem slow to respond. Priorities conflict. Meetings end with apparent agreement but little follow-through.

The problem is rarely the quality of the proposal. More often, it is the assumption that logic alone creates commitment.

Research into influence consistently suggests otherwise. Studies highlighted in Harvard Business Review, alongside the work of Robert Cialdini and Gary Yukl, indicate that people are influenced not only by the strength of an argument but also by trust, credibility, relationships, reciprocity, and perceived relevance. Before people commit to an initiative, they need confidence in both the message and the messenger.

This means influence is not a single event. It is a leadership practice.

The most effective matrix leaders spend less time trying to convince people and more time creating the conditions that make commitment possible. They help stakeholders understand the context, align around shared priorities, and feel ownership of the outcome.

Leadership move 1: Lead with context before requests

One of the simplest ways to strengthen influence is to begin with context rather than action.

Many leaders start conversations with what they need.

• “We need resources.”
• “We need approval.”
• “We need to move faster.”
• “We need your team involved.”

While these requests may be entirely reasonable, they often arrive before stakeholders understand why the request matters.

Highly influential leaders take a different approach. Before discussing actions, they create direction. They explain what is changing, what challenge the organisation faces, and why the issue deserves attention.

People are far more likely to support an initiative when they understand the broader picture.

Consider a leader seeking support for a customer transformation programme. Rather than immediately requesting resources from other departments, they might begin by sharing customer feedback, market trends, competitive pressures, or operational challenges. The conversation shifts from “help me with my project” to “help us address an important organisational challenge.”

This creates a fundamentally different dynamic.

Practical actions:

• Explain the business challenge before presenting the solution.
• Connect requests to organisational goals, customer needs, or strategic priorities.
• Use evidence, stories, and examples to make the issue tangible and relevant.

Influence becomes easier when people understand not only what needs to happen, but why it matters.

Leadership move 2: Build credibility before you need influence

Many leaders attempt to build influence at the precise moment they require support. Unfortunately, influence rarely works that way. Trust is accumulated long before it is needed.

When colleagues consistently experience a leader as reliable, competent, and supportive, they become more willing to invest their time, attention, and resources when requests eventually arise. Conversely, leaders who only engage with others when they need something often struggle to generate commitment.

Credibility has two dimensions. The first is competence. People want confidence that a leader understands the issue, has exercised sound judgement, and can deliver results. The second is character. People want confidence that the leader is trustworthy, fair, and willing to act in the interests of the wider organisation rather than solely for personal or departmental gain.

Both dimensions matter. A leader who is highly capable but perceived as self-serving may generate compliance but not commitment. Equally, a well-liked leader who lacks credibility may struggle to gain support for important initiatives.

Practical actions:

• Follow through consistently on commitments, including small ones.
• Share useful information, insights, and support without expecting immediate returns.
• Look for opportunities to help colleagues succeed in their own objectives.

The strongest influence is often the by-product of a strong reputation.

Leadership move 3: Create ownership rather than compliance

One of the biggest mistakes leaders make is assuming that agreement equals commitment. A stakeholder may agree during a meeting while privately remaining unconvinced. A team may accept a decision without feeling any responsibility for making it successful. Compliance can create movement, but it rarely creates energy. Commitment emerges when people feel ownership.

This is why effective matrix leaders involve stakeholders earlier than most. Rather than presenting a finished solution, they invite people into the process of understanding the problem, exploring options, and shaping the path forward.

This approach may appear slower initially, but it often accelerates implementation because stakeholders feel a greater sense of responsibility for the outcome.

Research on participation and organisational commitment suggests that involvement increases both engagement and follow-through. People are more likely to support decisions they have helped shape.

This does not mean every decision should be democratic. Leaders still need to make choices. However, there is a significant difference between consulting people before a decision and simply informing them afterwards.

Practical actions:

• Engage key stakeholders early when exploring important issues.
• Ask questions before advocating solutions.
• Incorporate stakeholder ideas and visibly acknowledge their contributions.

As organisations become more interconnected, the ability to create ownership becomes increasingly important. The goal is not simply to secure agreement. The goal is to build enough commitment that people willingly contribute their expertise, resources, and energy towards a shared outcome.

Ultimately, influence is not about getting people to do what you want. It is about creating sufficient trust, understanding, and shared purpose that people choose to move in the same direction.

Capability 2: Networks

If influence is the currency of a matrix organisation, networks are the roads along which that currency travels.

Many leaders assume that organisational performance is primarily shaped by formal structures. Organisation charts show reporting lines, decision-making authority, and functional responsibilities. Yet research into organisational networks repeatedly demonstrates that work often flows through a different system altogether: the informal web of relationships that connects people across functions, departments, geographies, and levels of hierarchy.

Ideas spread through conversations. Problems are solved through trusted relationships. Information moves through informal channels long before it appears in official reports.

This helps explain why two leaders with similar roles and responsibilities can achieve very different outcomes. One struggles to gain support and remove obstacles. The other consistently mobilises people, accesses expertise, and creates momentum. The difference is often not authority. It is network position.

Research by Rob Cross and other organisational network researchers suggests that highly effective leaders are rarely those with the largest number of relationships. Instead, they understand how connections create value. They know where expertise sits, how information flows, and which relationships are most critical to achieving results.

In matrix organisations, leadership becomes less about managing a team and more about working through a network.

Leadership move 1: Build relationships before you need them

One of the most common networking mistakes is treating relationships as transactional.

A leader encounters a problem, needs resources, or requires support and suddenly begins contacting colleagues they have rarely engaged with before. While this may occasionally work, it is rarely an effective long-term strategy.

Trust develops through repeated interaction.

The most effective matrix leaders invest in relationships long before a project, transformation, or crisis requires them. They seek to understand how other functions operate, what challenges colleagues face, and where organisational priorities overlap.

This investment creates familiarity, trust, and mutual understanding. When collaboration eventually becomes necessary, conversations begin from a foundation of relationship rather than uncertainty.

Importantly, these relationships are not built solely with senior stakeholders. Some of the most valuable connections often exist several layers away from formal authority. Experienced specialists, project managers, technical experts, and operational leaders frequently possess critical knowledge and influence.

Practical actions:

• Schedule regular conversations with stakeholders outside active projects.
• Learn about the priorities and challenges facing other teams.
• Offer support and information without expecting an immediate return.

Strong networks are rarely built during moments of urgency. They are built through consistent attention over time.

Leadership move 2: Become a bridge between groups

One of the most valuable positions in any network is that of the bridge builder. Research by Ronald Burt highlights the importance of what he calls “structural holes”, gaps between groups that do not regularly communicate or collaborate. Leaders who connect these groups often gain access to diverse perspectives, information, and opportunities that would otherwise remain isolated.

In organisations, these gaps frequently exist between functions, business units, regions, or stakeholder groups.

• Sales may not fully understand Operations.
• Technology may have limited visibility into Customer Service.
• Head Office may be disconnected from regional realities.

Matrix leaders create value by helping these worlds connect. This role is sometimes described as boundary spanning. Rather than focusing solely on their own function or team, effective leaders actively build relationships across organisational divides and help others do the same.

Many of the most influential leaders in matrix organisations are not those with the greatest authority. They are those who can bring together people, expertise, and perspectives that would otherwise remain disconnected.

Practical actions:

• Introduce people who could benefit from collaborating.
• Participate in cross-functional initiatives and communities.
• Look for recurring disconnects between groups and help bridge them.

Innovation, collaboration, and problem-solving often emerge at the boundaries between functions rather than within them.

Leadership move 3: Identify the people who make the network work

Not all network relationships carry equal influence. Within every organisation, there are individuals who play a disproportionate role in how information, ideas, and decisions move. Effective matrix leaders learn how to identify these individuals and engage them appropriately.

One useful lens comes from network research and the work popularised by Malcolm Gladwell.

Some people act as mavens. These individuals possess deep expertise and are often the people colleagues turn to when they need reliable information, technical insight, or practical advice. If you want to improve the quality of an idea, involve the mavens.

Others act as connectors. They know people across multiple functions and communities and often understand how the organisation really operates. If you want an initiative to spread, engage the connectors.

Some individuals function as brokers. These people sit between groups that would not normally interact. They connect silos, bridge organisational boundaries, and often play an important role in innovation and collaboration. If you want to connect different parts of the organisation, find the brokers.

Recent research has also highlighted the importance of energisers. These are individuals who leave others feeling more motivated, engaged, and capable after an interaction. People seek them out because they generate momentum rather than drain it. If you want to create enthusiasm and movement, engage the energisers.

The challenge for leaders is not simply identifying these people. It is recognising the different value they bring: 

• The maven helps improve thinking.
• The connector spreads information.
• The broker bridges boundaries.
• The energiser creates momentum.

Practical actions:

• Observe who colleagues consistently seek out for advice.
• Identify who connects different parts of the organisation.
• Engage key network influencers early when introducing important initiatives.

Formal authority may determine who approves a decision, but network influence often determines whether that decision gains traction.

Ultimately, matrix leadership is not simply about managing tasks or coordinating resources. It is about understanding and working within a complex web of relationships. Leaders who invest in networks gain access to information, expertise, trust, and support that cannot be obtained through hierarchy alone.

Influence helps create movement. Networks determine how far that movement can travel.

Capability 3: Convening

Influence helps leaders gain support. Networks help leaders connect with the right people. Yet many matrix initiatives still struggle to generate momentum.

Stakeholders understand the business case. The right people attend the meetings. Cross-functional teams are established. Governance structures are put in place. And still, progress remains slow. The reason is often simple. Understanding is not commitment. Attendance is not commitment. Agreement is not commitment.

In matrix organisations, where people often have competing priorities and considerable discretion over how they invest their time and energy, commitment becomes one of the most valuable leadership resources. Unlike authority, however, commitment cannot be assigned through an organisation chart or secured through a reporting relationship. It must be created. This is where convening becomes a critical leadership capability.

Convening is the ability to bring people together around a shared challenge and create the conditions under which commitment can emerge. Research into collaboration, participation, and collective leadership consistently suggests that people contribute more fully when they understand why their involvement matters, can see a meaningful possibility for the future, and feel a sense of ownership over the outcome.

Effective matrix leaders therefore focus on three conversations that help create commitment: invitation, possibility, and ownership.

Leadership move 1: Create a compelling invitation

Many leaders assume that participation begins when people enter the room. In reality, participation begins much earlier. It begins with the invitation.

One of the most common mistakes in organisational life is confusing attendance with engagement. A stakeholder may accept a meeting invitation, join a steering committee, or agree to participate in a project while remaining only partially committed to the work. They may comply with expectations without investing their best thinking, creativity, or energy. Effective matrix leaders understand that commitment is voluntary.

People decide whether they will merely participate or genuinely contribute long before the first discussion begins. This means the quality of the invitation matters enormously.

A strong invitation does more than communicate logistics. It explains why the challenge matters, why the person’s contribution is important, and what opportunity exists to help shape the outcome. Rather than focusing exclusively on tasks, deliverables, or responsibilities, it creates meaning and relevance.

Research on engagement and motivation suggests that people are more likely to invest effort when they understand the purpose behind the work and can see how their contribution connects to a larger objective. Similarly, Block (2008) argues that powerful invitations create choice, clarify expectations, and identify a meaningful possibility worth pursuing.

This is particularly relevant in matrix organisations where leaders often depend on cooperation from people who have no formal obligation to prioritise their initiative above competing demands.

Before asking people to contribute, effective leaders answer four questions:

• What challenge are we trying to address?
• What possibility are we trying to create?
• Why does this matter now?
• Why does your participation matter?

When people can answer these questions clearly, commitment becomes significantly easier to build.

Practical actions:

• Frame requests around purpose and possibility rather than tasks alone.
• Be deliberate about who is invited and why their perspective matters.
• Clarify both the opportunity and the expectations associated with participation.

In matrix organisations, influence often begins long before the first conversation. It begins with the quality of the invitation.

Leadership move 2: Focus on possibility, not just problems

Many organisational conversations are dominated by problems. Risks are analysed. Constraints are discussed. Obstacles are examined. Resources are debated. While these conversations are necessary, they can also create a narrow focus on what is difficult rather than what is achievable.

Effective matrix leaders create space for a different conversation. They help people explore possibility. This does not mean ignoring reality or pretending challenges do not exist. Rather, it means balancing analysis of current problems with discussion about what success could look like and why it matters.

Research into vision, motivation, and organisational change consistently suggests that people are more willing to invest effort when they are moving towards something meaningful rather than merely attempting to avoid failure.

The most effective leaders therefore spend time helping stakeholders imagine a future worth creating.

• What would success look like?
• How would customers benefit?
• What would become possible if the challenge were solved?
• What opportunities would emerge?

These questions create energy because they shift attention from constraints to opportunities.

Practical actions:

• Spend as much time discussing desired outcomes as current problems.
• Help stakeholders develop a clear picture of success.
• Encourage conversations that explore opportunities rather than only analysing barriers.

People are more likely to commit when they can see a future they want to help create.

Leadership move 3: Build ownership, not dependency

Perhaps the greatest temptation for leaders is to assume responsibility for solving every problem themselves. When initiatives stall, they intervene. When uncertainty emerges, they provide answers. When disagreements arise, they attempt to resolve them. While these behaviours are often well intentioned, they can unintentionally reduce ownership. People become dependent on the leader rather than responsible for the outcome.

The strongest matrix leaders take a different approach. Rather than asking, “How do I get people to support this?” they ask, “How do we create shared responsibility for success?” Ownership emerges when people have opportunities to contribute to decisions, influence solutions, and define their own commitments. It grows when stakeholders move from being recipients of decisions to co-creators of outcomes.

Research on participation and engagement consistently demonstrates that people are more committed to outcomes they have helped shape. This does not mean every decision should be made collectively. Leaders still need to exercise judgement and make choices. However, involving people in the process of shaping the future significantly increases commitment to the result.

Practical actions:

• Involve stakeholders before major decisions are finalised.
• Ask individuals what contribution they are willing to make.
• End discussions with clear commitments owned by those responsible for delivering them.

People are far more likely to support what they help create than what they simply receive.

Ultimately, convening is the capability that transforms influence and relationships into collective action. Influence creates understanding. Networks create connection. Convening creates commitment.

In matrix organisations, leaders rarely succeed because they have all the answers. They succeed because they create the conditions under which others choose to contribute their expertise, energy, and commitment towards a shared purpose.

Capability 4: Stewardship

The first three capabilities of matrix leadership help leaders create movement. Influence helps create support. Networks create connections. Convening creates commitment.

Yet there remains a fundamental question. To what end?

A leader can use influence to advance their own agenda. Networks can be used to accumulate political capital. Commitment can be generated around initiatives that benefit one department while creating problems elsewhere. A highly skilled leader can become very effective at securing resources, building alliances, and driving outcomes that improve the performance of their own area.

But what if those outcomes weaken the wider organisation? This is why effective matrix leadership requires a fourth capability: stewardship. At its simplest, stewardship means taking responsibility for the success of the whole system rather than merely protecting your own part of it. This sounds straightforward. In practice, it is one of the most difficult leadership challenges in modern organisations.

Every leader sits somewhere within the system. They belong to a function, business unit, geography, programme, or professional discipline. They have targets to achieve, stakeholders to satisfy, and performance measures to meet. It is therefore natural to view decisions through the lens of local priorities.

Stewardship requires something different. It asks leaders to look beyond their immediate area of responsibility and consider what will create the greatest value for the organisation as a whole. The difference can often be seen in everyday decisions. Without stewardship:

• Sales pushes for commitments that Operations cannot realistically deliver.
• Technology optimises for technical perfection while customer needs remain unmet.
• Departments compete for resources while enterprise priorities stall.
• Leaders protect local objectives even when collaboration would produce better outcomes.

With stewardship:

• Leaders consider downstream impacts before making commitments.
• Functions align around customer and organisational outcomes.
• Resources are allocated according to enterprise priorities rather than local influence.
• Decisions are evaluated based on their contribution to the wider system.

In other words, stewardship changes the leadership question. Instead of asking: What is best for my team? The steward asks: What is best for the organisation?

Research from systems thinking, enterprise leadership, and organisational collaboration consistently suggests that many organisational failures occur not because people are incompetent, but because they optimise locally rather than systemically. Individual departments achieve their goals while overall performance declines. Teams become more efficient while customers experience greater frustration. Local success creates enterprise failure.

The challenge of matrix leadership is therefore not simply influencing others. It is influencing others in service of the larger whole.

Leadership move 1: Think beyond your function

Every leader views the organisation through a particular lens. Finance sees risk and investment. Operations sees efficiency and execution. Sales sees growth and customer demand. Technology sees systems and capability. Human Resources sees talent and culture.

Each perspective is valuable. Problems emerge when leaders become trapped within a single perspective and begin to treat their own priorities as synonymous with organisational success.

Effective matrix leaders regularly step back and ask broader questions:

• How will this decision affect other parts of the organisation?
• What unintended consequences might emerge?
• Will this create value for the enterprise or simply improve local performance?

This mindset reflects one of the core principles of systems thinking: actions that appear beneficial in one area can create problems elsewhere. Leaders who understand this are more likely to make balanced decisions and less likely to create hidden costs for other teams.

Practical actions:

• Consider how decisions affect stakeholders beyond your own function.
• Invite perspectives from departments with different priorities and objectives.
• Evaluate success using enterprise outcomes as well as local measures.

Leadership becomes more effective when leaders expand the boundaries of what they consider their responsibility.

Leadership move 2: Manage trade-offs openly

One reason matrix organisations become frustrating is that competing priorities are often hidden. Every function has legitimate goals. Every stakeholder has valid concerns. Every initiative requires choices. Yet many leaders attempt to avoid difficult trade-offs rather than address them directly. The result is frustration, politics, and conflict.

Effective matrix leaders recognise that many tensions cannot be eliminated. They must be managed.

• Growth versus efficiency.
• Innovation versus standardisation.
• Customer responsiveness versus operational discipline.
• Local flexibility versus global consistency.

These are not problems that can be solved permanently. They are ongoing polarities that require judgement and dialogue.

The most effective leaders surface these trade-offs openly. Rather than framing discussions as battles between departments, they encourage conversations about competing priorities and shared outcomes.

This creates greater transparency and helps stakeholders understand the rationale behind difficult decisions.

Practical actions:

• Make competing priorities visible during discussions and decision-making.
• Explore the benefits and risks of different options openly.
• Focus conversations on enterprise outcomes rather than departmental preferences.

Many organisational conflicts become easier to navigate once the underlying trade-offs are acknowledged.

Leadership move 3: Leave the system stronger

The strongest leaders create value beyond the immediate initiative they are leading. They do not simply deliver projects. They strengthen relationships. They increase trust. They improve collaboration. They build organisational capability. In other words, they leave the system stronger than they found it.

This mindset reflects a broader view of leadership. Success is not measured solely by whether a target was achieved or a project was completed. It is also measured by whether the organisation becomes more capable of addressing future challenges.

Consider two leaders who both deliver a major cross-functional initiative.

The first achieves the target but leaves behind damaged relationships, exhausted stakeholders, and increased tension between departments.

The second achieves the target while strengthening collaboration, building trust, and improving the organisation’s ability to work together in the future.

Both delivered the result. Only one acted as a steward. Leaders who adopt this perspective invest in relationships that extend beyond the current project. They share knowledge across boundaries, develop others, and strengthen the networks that support future collaboration.

Practical actions:

• Invest in relationships that will outlast the current initiative.
• Share lessons learned across teams and functions.
• Consider how today’s decisions will influence future trust, collaboration, and performance.

Stewardship encourages leaders to think beyond immediate outcomes and focus on the long-term health of the organisation.

Ultimately, stewardship provides the compass for matrix leadership. Influence, networks, and convening are powerful capabilities, but stewardship determines how those capabilities are used.

The most effective matrix leaders do not simply advance their own agenda. They create direction, alignment, and commitment in service of something larger than themselves. They think beyond functional boundaries, navigate trade-offs thoughtfully, and strengthen the organisation’s ability to succeed in the future.

In a matrix organisation, leadership is not merely about getting things done. It is about helping the wider system thrive.

Wrapping up

Leading without formal authority is often described as one of the most difficult challenges in organisational life. Yet the challenge is not simply the absence of authority. The real challenge is learning to create progress in environments where success depends on people, teams, and functions that you cannot directly control. This is the reality of matrix leadership.

Many leaders respond by searching for more authority. They seek clearer governance, stronger sponsorship, or more formal decision rights. While these mechanisms can be helpful, they rarely provide a complete solution. Matrix organisations are built on interdependence. The work itself requires collaboration across boundaries, competing priorities, and diverse perspectives.

The leaders who thrive in these environments develop a different set of capabilities:

• They understand how to influence by creating trust, credibility, and shared understanding.
• They build networks that connect people, expertise, and opportunities across organisational boundaries.
• They convene conversations that generate commitment rather than mere compliance.
• Yhey act as stewards of the wider enterprise, balancing local priorities with the needs of the larger system.

Together, these capabilities create something that formal authority alone rarely achieves: genuine commitment. People may comply because they have to. They commit because they choose to.

This distinction matters because the most important work in modern organisations increasingly depends on voluntary contribution. Innovation, transformation, customer experience, organisational change, and strategic execution all require people to contribute ideas, energy, expertise, and effort that cannot simply be demanded through a reporting relationship.

Ultimately, leadership in a matrix organisation is not about controlling more people. It is about creating more direction. It is about building more alignment. It is about generating more commitment. And perhaps most importantly, it is about helping people move towards a shared outcome that none of them could achieve alone.

The leaders who master this capability discover an important truth. Leadership is not primarily a function of position. It is a function of contribution.

The ability to create movement, connection, commitment, and stewardship will often matter far more than the title on an organisation chart.

Three questions for reflection

1. When I need support from others, do I primarily rely on authority, expertise, relationships, or commitment?
2. Which of the four capabilities would have the greatest impact on my effectiveness today: influence, networks, convening, or stewardship?
3. Looking at my current priorities, where am I acting as a representative of my function, and where am I acting as a steward of the wider organisation?

Sources:

Block, P. (2008) Community: The structure of belonging. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Block, P. (2013) Stewardship: Choosing service over self-interest. 2nd edn. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Burt, R.S. (2005) Brokerage and closure: An introduction to social capital. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Center for Creative Leadership (2012) Direction, alignment, commitment: Toward a more integrative ontology of leadership. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.

Cialdini, R.B. (2021) Influence: The psychology of persuasion. New and expanded edn. New York: Harper Business.

Cross, R. (2021) Beyond collaboration overload: How to work smarter, get ahead, and restore your well-being. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.

Cross, R. and Parker, A. (2004) The hidden power of social networks: Understanding how work really gets done in organizations. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Ernst, C. and Chrobot-Mason, D. (2011) Boundary spanning leadership: Six practices for solving problems, driving innovation, and transforming organizations. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Gladwell, M. (2000) The tipping point: How little things can make a big difference. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.

Senge, P.M. (2006) The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. Rev. edn. London: Random House Business.

Yukl, G. (2013) Leadership in organizations. 8th edn. Harlow: Pearson.