You Can Mandate Change But Not Commitment: How Leaders Can Influence Change Down, Across And Up

–:– / –:–This voice experience is generated by AI. Learn more.This voice experience is generated by AI. Learn more.Dr. Andriana Eliadis, Executive Education Facilitator & Coach at Cornell University, NY, USA and President at Executive Communication.

gettyA leader I will call Elena led a major transformation. The business case was strong, senior leadership had approved it and the timeline was clear. Yet the change was not moving.

Her direct reports were complying, but enthusiasm was low. Cross-functional partners were slow to cooperate. Senior executives kept questioning the implementation.

Elena’s instinct was to communicate more forcefully. She believed people simply needed more clarity about what was expected of them.

But through coaching, a different question emerged: What if the problem was not the change itself but how she was trying to influence people to support it?

Elena is a composite, based on patterns I frequently see in coaching: Leaders often assume that communicating a decision is the same as creating commitment. It is not.

Organizations can mandate new structures, processes and behaviors; set deadlines and establish accountability. They cannot mandate whether people believe in the change, feel motivated by it or invest discretionary effort in making it work.

Research makes an important distinction: People may support change because they want to, because they believe they have to or because they feel they ought to—and those motivations are not equivalent. Compliance may produce movement. Commitment produces ownership.

That is why change leadership is ultimately an exercise in influence.

Leaders frequently begin with what: what’s changing and when, and what people need to do. Employees are asking different questions: Why are we doing this? What does it mean for me? What might I lose?

Leadership and change expert John P. Kotter identified urgency and a clear change vision as critical to transformation—but urgency should never mean manufacturing fear. Effective leaders make the cost of inaction visible while helping people see the opportunity ahead.

Transparency matters too. Leaders don’t need every answer—pretending certainty can undermine credibility. Sometimes the most trustworthy message is simply: Here’s what we know, here’s what we don’t yet and here’s when you’ll hear more.

Leaders also need to acknowledge loss. Change can threaten expertise, status or autonomy, and how people weigh its benefits against its harms shapes their response. Telling people only why the organization benefits ignores what they stand to lose personally.

When leaders have positional authority, it’s tempting to use it.

But “Because leadership decided” rarely inspires commitment. That was Elena’s instinct: Repeat the mandate more forcefully. It didn’t work. Her team had already heard what was changing; what they hadn’t heard was why it mattered or what say they had in it.

Influencing downward means connecting purpose to personal meaning and giving people room to shape implementation—autonomy, competence and relatedness are what drive that kind of motivation. That’s what changed for Elena’s team: Once she asked what worried them, compliance became ownership—not because the mandate got clearer, but because she let them help shape it.

That distinction gives people agency, and agency can turn recipients of change into participants in it.

Elena discovered she had been communicating with her peers almost exactly as she communicated with her team. But peers did not report to her. They had their own priorities and stakeholders. Her initiative created extra work for some of them, while the benefits seemed to belong mainly to her function.

Her strategy changed when she stopped asking herself, “How do I convince them?” and started asking, “What matters to them?”

Leading across an organization means finding mutual value: What problem does this solve for the other function? What risks are they seeing that you aren’t? Where do your interests intersect?

Influence across organizational boundaries begins with perspective, not persuasion.

Influencing upward requires another shift. Elena’s early updates to senior leadership read like status reports—what had been completed, what was on schedule—and the questions kept coming anyway.

Senior leaders evaluate change through the lens of strategy, risk and performance. Leaders need to translate their case into those terms: What business problem does this address? What is the cost of delay? What are the risks of acting—and of not acting? When Elena reframed her updates that way, the room’s tone changed—fewer questions, and sharper ones.

Leading up is not about making senior leaders agree with you. It is about helping them see something they may not yet see.

Eventually, Elena recognized the real problem: The change was the same, but the influence strategy could not be. Her team needed meaning and voice, her peers needed shared value and senior leaders needed strategic relevance.

Once she began approaching each group differently, the conversations changed. Weeks later, one of her most skeptical peers spoke up in a leadership meeting—not to object, but to explain why the change mattered for his team too.

Resistance didn’t disappear, and leaders shouldn’t expect it to. But Elena was no longer trying to overcome it through authority—she was creating the conditions for commitment.

You can mandate a new process, a new structure, even new behaviors. But you cannot mandate belief, motivation or commitment. Those must be influenced.

Leaders who understand that distinction do more than implement change. They create the conditions for people to own it.​

Forbes Coaches Council is an invitation-only community for leading business and career coaches. Do I qualify?