Have you ever been responsible for getting a project completed when none of the people involved actually reported to you? Perhaps you needed a faculty member to revise an assignment, a department chair to approve a course change, or an administrator to make a decision before development could continue. You knew what needed to happen, you understood why it mattered, and you had a deadline approaching. Unfortunately, you had no authority to require anyone to do anything.
Welcome to one of the less glamorous realities of instructional design.
Instructional designers regularly coordinate work across departments, collaborate with faculty, recommend instructional improvements, and manage projects involving people over whom they have no formal authority. We may be responsible for meeting deadlines, maintaining course quality, and supporting institutional requirements, yet the decisions necessary to accomplish those goals often belong to someone else. Success depends less on telling people what to do and more on helping them understand why a particular action matters.
This ability is known as influencing without authority, and it is one of the most important leadership skills an instructional designer can develop. It requires building trust, communicating effectively, understanding competing priorities, and guiding decisions without relying on a supervisory title. For senior instructional designers, these skills become particularly important as responsibilities expand beyond individual course development into faculty consultation, project coordination, and institutional initiatives. This article examines how instructional designers can build influence, navigate difficult conversations, and lead meaningful improvements even when they are not the ones making the final decisions.
Leadership Does Not Always Come With a Title
When people think about leadership, they often picture someone with a formal position of authority. Directors, deans, department chairs, and supervisors make decisions, establish expectations, and oversee the work of others. Their organizational roles provide a degree of authority that helps them coordinate activities and hold people accountable. Instructional designers frequently operate in a very different environment.
Consider a senior instructional designer coordinating the development of several online courses. The designer may establish timelines, review instructional materials, identify accessibility concerns, and recommend improvements before the courses launch. However, the faculty members responsible for those courses do not report to the instructional designer, and their department chairs may have priorities that differ from the development schedule. The designer must keep the project moving while respecting the authority and responsibilities of everyone involved.
This is where leadership becomes less about position and more about influence. Instructional designers lead by providing direction, sharing knowledge, solving problems, and helping others make informed decisions. They establish credibility through their work and build relationships that encourage collaboration. Over time, colleagues begin seeking their guidance not because they are required to, but because they trust their judgment.
Influence Begins With Trust
Trust is the foundation of effective influence. Faculty members are unlikely to embrace recommendations from someone they believe does not understand their discipline, respect their teaching experience, or appreciate the demands on their time. Even technically sound recommendations can encounter resistance when the relationship between the instructional designer and the faculty member has not been established.
Building trust requires consistency. Instructional designers strengthen relationships when they follow through on commitments, communicate clearly, respect confidentiality, and provide recommendations grounded in instructional reasoning. Faculty members notice when someone responds thoughtfully to their concerns rather than immediately offering a standardized solution. They also remember whether previous collaborations made their work easier or created additional complications.
Trust becomes particularly important when instructional designers must recommend changes to established teaching practices. An instructor who has used the same assignment for fifteen years may not welcome suggestions that it needs revision. However, that conversation becomes much easier when the instructor already views the instructional designer as a knowledgeable partner rather than someone evaluating their teaching. Strong relationships create room for difficult conversations because both individuals understand that the goal is improving learning, not assigning blame.
Listen Before Offering Solutions
One of the most useful leadership skills is knowing when to stop talking and start listening. Instructional designers are often approached with requests that appear straightforward but involve problems that are more complicated than they initially seem. Immediately recommending a solution can create additional work if the designer has misunderstood the underlying issue.
Imagine a faculty member requesting a new discussion tool because students are not participating in online conversations. The obvious response might be to recommend a different platform with more interactive features. However, an experienced instructional designer would likely begin by asking questions about the existing discussion activities. Are the prompts encouraging analysis or simply asking students to summarize readings? Do learners understand what meaningful participation looks like? Is the instructor actively guiding the conversation?
Those questions may reveal that the technology is functioning exactly as intended. The real problem may involve discussion design, unclear expectations, or limited opportunities for authentic interaction. By listening before recommending changes, the instructional designer demonstrates respect for the instructor's concerns while identifying a more appropriate solution. Influence becomes possible because the recommendation addresses the actual problem rather than the first solution someone proposed.
Understand What Matters to the Other Person
One of the biggest mistakes professionals make when attempting to influence others is assuming everyone shares the same priorities. Instructional designers may focus on course alignment, accessibility, learner experience, and instructional quality. Faculty members may be thinking about grading workloads, research obligations, departmental expectations, and the limited time available before the semester begins. Administrators may be concerned with enrollment, compliance, accreditation, staffing, and institutional resources.
None of these priorities is automatically unreasonable. The challenge is understanding how they intersect and finding solutions that address more than one concern. An instructional designer who recommends a change solely because it reflects good instructional practice may receive a very different response from one who explains how the same change can improve learning while reducing repetitive student questions.
For example, consider a faculty member who receives dozens of emails every semester asking where assignments are located. The instructional designer might recommend establishing a consistent module structure and clearer navigation labels. Rather than presenting the change only as a usability improvement, the designer can explain how predictable organization may reduce confusion and save the instructor time answering routine questions. The recommendation now connects directly to something the faculty member already wants to improve.
Influence becomes stronger when people understand how a proposed change supports their goals. This does not mean manipulating conversations or telling people only what they want to hear. It means recognizing that successful collaboration requires understanding what matters to everyone involved.
Use Evidence Without Turning Conversations Into Lectures
Instructional designers bring knowledge of learning theory, assessment design, accessibility, and educational technology into their consultations. That knowledge provides an important foundation for making recommendations, but it does not automatically persuade others. A faculty member may be unimpressed by a lengthy explanation of cognitive load theory when they simply want to know why their students are struggling with an assignment.
Effective influence requires translating evidence into practical recommendations. Instead of delivering a lecture about instructional principles, experienced designers connect those principles to observable problems and realistic solutions. They explain what is happening, why it matters, and how a proposed change might improve the situation. The research supports the recommendation without becoming the entire conversation.
For example, an instructor may believe that students need additional readings because they are performing poorly on assessments. An instructional designer might explain that adding more information will not necessarily address the problem if learners are struggling to apply what they already know. The designer could suggest incorporating practice activities with feedback before the major assessment. This approach connects learning science to a specific instructional challenge and gives the instructor a practical alternative to consider.
Evidence is most persuasive when it helps people make decisions. It becomes less useful when it is presented primarily to demonstrate how much the instructional designer knows. The goal is not winning an academic argument. It is helping someone understand why a different approach may produce better results.
Learn to Say No Without Closing the Conversation
Instructional designers sometimes encounter requests that are unrealistic, inappropriate, or inconsistent with institutional requirements. A faculty member may want to use a technology that does not meet accessibility expectations. An administrator may request a complete course redesign within an unreasonable timeframe. A subject matter expert may insist on including so much material that learners have little opportunity to process or apply it.
Simply agreeing with every request may preserve short-term harmony, but it can create serious problems later. Instructional designers have a professional responsibility to communicate concerns and recommend appropriate alternatives. At the same time, responding with a blunt refusal can damage relationships and make future collaboration more difficult.
Consider a faculty member who wants to upload a scanned textbook chapter as an image-based PDF. The instructor may see this as a quick way to provide required reading, particularly when the semester is approaching. The instructional designer, however, understands that the document may create accessibility barriers and could raise copyright concerns depending on how the material is being used. Rather than simply rejecting the request, the designer can explain the concerns and suggest alternatives, such as obtaining an accessible publisher version or working with the library to identify an appropriate resource.
The goal is to keep the conversation focused on solving the problem. Statements such as "Here's what we can do instead" or "Let's look at an option that meets the requirement and still accomplishes your goal" preserve collaboration while establishing necessary boundaries. Saying no becomes less about refusing to help and more about identifying a responsible path forward.
Managing Projects When Nobody Reports to You
Influencing without authority becomes particularly challenging when instructional designers are responsible for coordinating large projects. Course development frequently involves faculty, department chairs, accessibility reviewers, technology specialists, librarians, and administrators. Each person contributes something important, but each also has responsibilities beyond the project.
Imagine coordinating the development of twenty online courses before the start of a semester. Some faculty members submit materials well ahead of schedule, while others are still revising assignments as the launch date approaches. Accessibility reviews identify documents requiring remediation, and a department requests changes to a shared course template. Meanwhile, the instructional designer must communicate progress, resolve problems, and keep the overall project moving forward.
In this situation, influence depends heavily on organization and communication. Clear timelines, documented responsibilities, regular updates, and early identification of potential delays help establish shared expectations. Faculty members are more likely to respond when they understand what is needed, why it matters, and how their work affects the broader project.
Experienced instructional designers also learn to distinguish between reminding someone about a deadline and helping them understand the consequences of missing it. A message stating that materials are overdue may create frustration without encouraging action. Explaining that a delay will affect accessibility review, quality assurance, or the course launch provides context that supports more informed decisions. Effective project leadership makes dependencies visible without turning every reminder into a confrontation.
Know When to Escalate
Influencing without authority does not mean accepting unlimited responsibility without appropriate support. Some decisions require formal authority, particularly when institutional policies, academic responsibilities, staffing, or competing departmental priorities are involved. Instructional designers should understand where their responsibility ends and where leadership intervention becomes necessary.
For example, an instructional designer may repeatedly communicate that required course materials have not been submitted and explain how the delay affects the development timeline. If the faculty member remains unresponsive, the designer may not have the authority to require compliance. At that point, involving the appropriate department chair or administrator may be necessary to resolve the issue. The escalation should focus on the project requirements and documented concerns rather than personal frustration.
Effective escalation is not an admission that influence has failed. It is an acknowledgment that different organizational roles carry different responsibilities. Senior instructional designers understand when collaboration is sufficient and when a decision belongs to someone with formal authority. That judgment protects professional relationships while ensuring that important institutional requirements are addressed appropriately.
Choose Your Battles Carefully
Not every instructional design disagreement requires an extended discussion. Faculty members may prefer different wording, visual layouts, or instructional approaches that still meet the learning objectives. Spending considerable time challenging every preference can create unnecessary tension and make it harder to address concerns that genuinely affect learning.
Experienced instructional designers learn to distinguish between matters of professional preference and matters involving instructional quality, accessibility, or institutional requirements. A faculty member's preferred color scheme may not warrant a lengthy conversation if the design remains accessible and consistent. An assessment that fails to measure the stated learning objective, however, deserves more attention because it directly affects the quality of the course.
This distinction helps instructional designers use their influence responsibly. When every recommendation is presented as equally important, faculty may begin treating all recommendations as optional opinions. When designers clearly explain which changes are required, which are strongly recommended, and which are simply suggestions, conversations become more productive. People are better able to understand where flexibility exists and where standards must be maintained.
Choosing battles carefully also demonstrates respect for faculty autonomy. Instructional designers are partners in the course development process, not owners of every instructional decision. Their role is to help faculty make informed choices while protecting the standards and requirements that support effective learning.
Small Wins Build Long-Term Influence
Influence rarely develops through one impressive presentation or a single successful project. More often, it grows through a series of small interactions that demonstrate reliability and professional judgment. A faculty member receives helpful guidance on a difficult assignment, a department benefits from a clearer course template, or an instructor discovers that a recommended change reduces student confusion. Each successful experience strengthens confidence in the instructional designer's recommendations.
These small wins are particularly important when working with faculty who are hesitant about instructional changes. Asking someone to redesign an entire course may feel overwhelming, especially when they have limited time or are uncertain about the benefits. Suggesting one manageable improvement provides an opportunity to demonstrate results without requiring a major commitment.
For example, an instructor who is reluctant to revise their course structure might agree to reorganize a single module using a consistent sequence of learning materials, activities, and assessments. If students respond positively or routine navigation questions decrease, the instructor may become more willing to apply the same structure throughout the course. The initial improvement creates evidence that supports future collaboration.
Over time, these experiences change how faculty perceive instructional designers. Instead of viewing recommendations as additional work, they begin recognizing them as opportunities to solve persistent teaching problems. Influence grows because previous interactions have demonstrated that the designer's guidance is useful.
Influence Requires Patience
One of the most difficult lessons for experienced instructional designers is accepting that meaningful change does not always happen immediately. Faculty members may need time to consider recommendations, adjust established teaching practices, or develop confidence with unfamiliar technologies. Institutional decisions may involve committees, approval processes, and competing priorities that extend well beyond an individual project timeline.
This can be frustrating, particularly when the instructional designer sees a clear solution to a recurring problem. However, pushing harder does not always produce faster progress. Sometimes the most effective approach is providing information, offering support, and allowing others time to consider the recommendation. Influence is often cumulative rather than immediate.
Patience should not be confused with passivity. Instructional designers can continue documenting concerns, sharing evidence, providing resources, and identifying opportunities for improvement while respecting the decision-making process. They can also establish reasonable deadlines and communicate when delays create risks. The goal is maintaining forward movement without assuming that every disagreement must be resolved during a single conversation.
Experienced designers learn that professional relationships often outlast individual projects. A faculty member who declines a recommendation today may return to the same idea next semester after encountering the problem again. Preserving trust makes that future conversation possible.
Recognize the Difference Between Influence and Control
Perhaps the most important lesson in influencing without authority is understanding that influence and control are not the same thing. Instructional designers can provide guidance, explain evidence, identify concerns, and recommend solutions. They cannot always determine whether those recommendations will be accepted or implemented.
This distinction matters because taking responsibility for decisions outside one's authority can lead to frustration and professional burnout. An instructional designer may invest considerable effort in recommending improvements, only to discover that a faculty member prefers a different approach. If the decision remains within the instructor's authority and does not violate institutional requirements, the designer may need to accept that outcome while documenting the recommendation appropriately.
Professional influence is measured by the quality of the guidance provided, the relationships maintained, and the opportunities created for better decisions. It is not measured by how often other people agree. Strong instructional designers can advocate for effective learning without assuming that every recommendation must become a requirement.
Understanding this boundary also supports healthier professional relationships. Faculty members retain ownership of their disciplinary and instructional decisions, while instructional designers contribute specialized knowledge and guidance. Collaboration becomes more sustainable when both parties understand their responsibilities and respect the decisions that belong to the other.
Final Thoughts
Influencing without authority is one of the most demanding and least visible skills in instructional design. It requires listening carefully, building trust, understanding competing priorities, communicating evidence effectively, and guiding projects involving people who may have very different responsibilities. These skills rarely appear in a course storyboard or instructional design portfolio, yet they often determine whether meaningful improvements actually happen.
For senior instructional designers, influence becomes increasingly important as their work expands beyond individual course development. They may help shape faculty development programs, improve institutional processes, coordinate complex projects, and contribute to decisions affecting entire academic programs. Much of that work depends on relationships and credibility rather than formal supervisory authority.
The strongest instructional designers understand that leadership is not always about having the final word. Sometimes it means asking the question that changes how someone sees a problem. Sometimes it means recommending an alternative that respects both instructional quality and faculty priorities. Other times, it means knowing when to step aside and allow someone else to make the decision.
You do not need authority over people to have a meaningful influence on their work. You need credibility, trust, sound judgment, and the ability to help others see a better way forward.
References
Cialdini, R. B. (2021). Influence: The psychology of persuasion (New and expanded ed.). Harper Business.
Cohen, A. R., & Bradford, D. L. (2005). Influence without authority (2nd ed.). Wiley.
Ertmer, P. A., & Quinn, J. (2017). The ID casebook: Case studies in instructional design (4th ed.). Routledge.
Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Harvard Business School Press.
Schein, E. H. (2013). Humble inquiry: The gentle art of asking instead of telling. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.