Nobody Adopted Your Recommendation
A knowledge worker’s guide to influence without authority
You’re in a steering group meeting. A colleague presents a technically excellent recommendation: it’s well-evidenced, clearly structured and logically sound. It lands to nods from your colleagues, then the conversation moves on. Twenty minutes later, someone else raises a very similar point with far less polish, and the group comes to life. People lean in and start problem-solving together.
Most people have watched this happen. The difference between the person who gets heard and the person who doesn’t is usually about things that happened before they opened their mouth.
This article shares two stories, inspired by experiences we have lived, about how influence actually gets built.
The researcher who got invited in
Maria is a social researcher, eight months into her role. Her job is well-defined: collect the data, produce the interim reports, deliver the final evaluation. She sits in the research team but works across several programme areas, which means she interacts with people in other teams regularly without belonging to any of them. She’s not involved in strategy, she’s not part of the senior leadership group and she has no formal say in how programmes get designed or commissioned.
But when the organisation starts scoping a major new initiative, the director leading it asks Maria to sit in on the planning meetings.
She didn’t lobby for this. What she had done, over those eight months, was pay attention to the people around her, not just the work in front of her. When someone from another team asked her a data question that wasn’t part of her remit, she answered it properly and quickly. When she noticed something in her findings that was relevant to a problem another team was wrestling with, she sent a two-line email flagging it. She showed up to a couple of cross-team sessions she could easily have skipped, said something useful, and left without making a performance of it.
None of these things were remarkable on their own. Nobody pulled her aside and said, “We’ve noticed how helpful you’ve been.” The effect was cumulative and largely invisible, not until the moment someone needed a person they trusted to help them think. And Maria was already the person who came to mind. They didn’t have to go looking. She was already in their peripheral vision, because she’d spent months making herself useful to other people’s problems rather than just delivering against her own.
The thing Maria understood, whether she would have put it in these terms or not, is that professional relationships aren’t built in the margins. Many people try to build relationships at the point they need something: a promotion conversation, an invitation, a favour. But by then it’s too late. You’re asking someone to trust your judgement before they’ve had any reason to form an opinion of it.
Maria had been depositing trust for months without making a withdrawal, and when the moment came, the relationship was already there. You get invited in by being useful before anyone’s thought to ask.
The Art of Asking Questions is a reader-supported publication. To support my work, please consider becoming a paid subscriber.
The policy adviser who navigates disagreement
Wei is a policy adviser in a government agency, two years into the role. He reports to a director whose portfolio covers programme design, and his job is to provide evidence-based recommendations on how new initiatives should be structured. He’s good at it: rigorous and well-informed, clear in his written work. But so are several of his colleagues, and most of them share the same frustration. They write sound recommendations that go nowhere, or get diluted by the time the director reaches a decision.
Wei’s recommendations get picked up more often. Not always, but noticeably more than his peers’. When colleagues ask what he does differently, he doesn’t have a dramatic answer.
The current situation is a good example. The director’s preferred approach to a new initiative has a serious flaw: it underestimates the operational burden on frontline teams, and Wei has seen enough similar programmes stall for exactly this reason. He could raise it in the next planning meeting, where the full project team will be present. The evidence is on his side and he’s confident in his analysis. But he also knows that raising it publicly would put the director on the back foot in front of their own staff, and that a director who feels cornered in a meeting is a director who digs in rather than adapts.
So he asks for fifteen minutes beforehand. He lays out his concern plainly, explains the evidence behind it and offers two alternative approaches he’s sketched out. The director pushes back on one and asks sharp questions about the other, but ultimately adjusts the plan. At the end of the conversation, the director says something Wei’s colleagues rarely hear: “This is why I want you in the room for these things.” In the meeting itself, the director presents the revised approach as their own decision - which it is - but asks Wei to walk the team through the operational rationale. It’s a small moment, but it matters. Wei is being positioned as someone whose judgement the director is prepared to lean on publicly.
What earned Wei that position wasn’t any single conversation. It was the fact that, over two years, he’d been consistently right about things that mattered as well as consistently honest when he wasn’t sure. Over time, he told the director things they didn’t want to hear, and had been proven right often enough that the discomfort was worth it. He’d also been wrong occasionally, and when he was, he’d said so openly rather than hoping nobody noticed.
That combination is what makes someone’s judgement worth trusting. His peers who struggled to get their recommendations adopted were often just as rigorous. The difference was that they treated each recommendation as a standalone piece of analysis, delivered and forgotten. Wei treated each one as a chapter in a longer story about whether his judgement could be relied on.
The lesson here is that credibility isn’t something you can assert or attach to a single piece of work. It’s a reputation, built over time, and the people who have it are the ones who think about what their track record says about them as much as what their current paper says about the problem.
What the work doesn’t teach you
Maria and Wei work in very different organisations, at different levels and in different fields. But they both got the same result: when a decision needed to be made, someone turned to them because they had earned a kind of trust that doesn’t show up in job descriptions.
Most knowledge workers have never been taught how to do this. The skills that get you hired (analytical rigour, technical expertise, clear writing) are necessary but insufficient. They’ll make your work good, but they won’t make it land. The part that determines whether anyone acts on what you’ve produced is rarely assessed, and almost never developed deliberately. But it can be learned and practised.
If you've read this far and recognised yourself in the colleague whose recommendation didn't get picked up, or in the person who does good work but keeps getting passed over for the room where decisions happen, that recognition is the starting point. And we have built a playbook that helps you practise exactly this. It includes development paths for beginners, intermediate and advanced practitioners, tools, AI prompts and frameworks that we use every day.
This article maps to the Engagement section in the playbook - which is one of five! For the Engagement section, we have four tailored assets:
1️⃣ Building Effective Relationships
2️⃣ Preparing to Influence
3️⃣ The Repair Diagnostic
4️⃣ AI Prompt: The Stakeholder Simulator
Paid subscribers get this 70% off forever - find your discount code in the Members area!
This toolkit is part of our full guide on the five superpowers of consultants - the capabilities that consistently separate impactful from merely competent people in high-stakes environments. You can read more about Synthesis, Curiosity, Adaptability, Leadership and Engagement - the SCALE framework - here:
Enjoyed this piece? Become a paid member and get my Consulting with AI prompt library, the full Asking Questions Like a Pro course ($199 standalone), practical templates from a decade of fieldwork, and discounts on many other resources. 🔗 See everything included in the paid tier.
 | A guest post by
|
People often these patterns as pure luck, or just politics - being there at the right moment, with the right people. However, it’s more than that; it’s a slow and steady process that allows you to build trust and create gravity around you. People don’t feel forced into a direction; they follow you because it feels natural.
I recently wrote about how trust is the currency of chaos, and your post is a great illustration of it!
maria and wei's pattern is right but it's also a tax on people who don't have the bandwidth to do the invisible relationship building on top of their actual job