A few years into my career, I started being included in more important conversations.
I was invited into senior meetings, asked for my perspective and included in discussions that shaped decisions. I saw this as a sign that my influence was growing.
But over time, I began to notice something. People listened and often agreed with what I said, yet it carried little weight or impact on the final decision.
That was when I understood that access is not the same as influence.
Being included in the conversation gives you the opportunity to participate. Shaping it requires you to affect what people pay attention to, how they understand the issue and what they choose to do next.
Here are a few key lessons I’ve learned over the years….
I always placed great emphasis on preparing for the meeting.
I gathered evidence, anticipated objections and refined my argument. All of that matters, but it assumes the discussion begins when everyone sits down together.
It usually does not.
By then, people have already formed views, spoken to colleagues and decided which parts of the issue matter most to them. Some ideas have gained momentum while others have been dismissed before they were properly explored.
The person who shapes the outcome is often not the one with the most polished contribution. It is the person who understands how others are thinking and engages early enough to influence that thinking.
This is not about securing agreement behind closed doors. It is about recognising that people need time to consider unfamiliar ideas, question their assumptions and understand why a different perspective matters.
Waiting until the formal meeting to introduce your thinking can mean entering the conversation after everyone else has already decided what the conversation is about.
One of the biggest shifts for me was learning to pay attention to how the problem had been defined, because the way an issue is framed shapes everything that follows.
A problem is presented, the information is assessed and a recommendation is made. That demonstrates competence, but the question on the table may be too narrow, incorrectly framed, or based on assumptions no one has challenged.
If everyone is discussing how to reduce the cost of a programme, for example, the most valuable contribution may not be another cost-cutting option. It may be to ask what value the organisation is trying to protect and what could be lost if the decision is made on cost alone.
That question changes the discussion.
The facts remain the same, but the room begins to consider them through a different lens. New risks become visible and different options become possible.
Enterprise leaders do not only help their organisations find better answers. They help them ask better questions.
Another lesson I had to learn was that being right from a functional perspective does not necessarily make an argument persuasive at senior level.
A marketing leader may focus on customer perception. A finance leader may focus on cost and return. An HR leader may focus on capability and culture. Each perspective can be entirely valid, but a leadership team has to consider the implications for the whole organisation.
When your contribution remains within the language and priorities of your own function, others may agree with you without seeing why your view should influence the broader decision.
Influence grows when you connect your perspective to the outcomes the organisation is trying to achieve.
This means moving beyond explaining what your function needs and showing what the business stands to gain, protect or risk. It requires you to connect ideas across departments, recognise competing priorities and make the wider consequences visible.
The moment your thinking remains contained within your function, your influence is likely to remain there too.
A contribution does not stop influencing the decision when the meeting ends.
In many organisations, the most important discussions continue elsewhere. A senior leader may take the issue to another forum, explain it to their team, or use it to influence a stakeholder who was not present.
Your idea can only travel if people understand it well enough to carry it forward.
This is where clarity becomes more than a communication skill. It becomes a source of leadership influence.
A highly detailed explanation may demonstrate expertise, but it can leave people unsure of the central point. A clear perspective gives them something they can remember, repeat and apply.
The question I now ask is not only, “Have I explained this properly?” It is, “Could someone else explain the essence of my thinking after I leave the room?”
Influence begins to extend beyond your presence when other people can articulate your perspective without needing you there to interpret it.
A Final Thought
When people know that you will bring clarity rather than noise, consider the whole organisation rather than defend a narrow position and move the discussion forward rather than simply add to it, they begin to seek your contribution before the direction is fixed.
This is one of the clearest signs that you are shaping the conversation rather than merely participating in it.
A seat at the table gives you access, but influence depends on what you do with it.
© Donna Rachelson. All Rights Reserved
