There is a particular kind of meeting that happens in technical organizations. It might be called a design review, a roadmap check-in, or a sync. The people who built the thing sit on one side of the table, or one side of the Zoom grid. The people who will live with the consequences sit on the other. Somewhere near the edge sits a third kind of person: someone invited to have opinions, not to make decisions.

You can spot this person by posture. They take notes but rarely drive the agenda. Their questions arrive from slightly outside the frame, as if they are watching a different cut of the same movie. When they speak, the room listens politely, the way you listen to a thoughtful stranger at a dinner party. Their input is welcomed, but optional.

The work continues either way.

I’ve sat in that peripheral chair, and watched others in it too. Over time, the titles and rooms change. The dynamics don’t, not really.

What’s striking is how the room absorbs the role. There is a choreography to it, rarely discussed but widely and implicitly understood. The person with borrowed authority is expected to contribute, but not too much. To notice problems, but not linger on them. To be useful without becoming load-bearing. The moment their presence starts to feel overly necessary, something has slipped. The system was meant to hold without them.

Which creates a peculiar incentive. In most jobs, becoming essential is the goal. Here, becoming essential signals failure. It means decision ownership has shifted, often quietly, and the people who should carry it will eventually resent you for holding something that was supposed to be theirs.

When the work goes well, it barely shows. Decisions land a little faster. Tradeoffs get named earlier. Surprises thin out. Someone references a constraint that a peripheral chair surfaced weeks ago without recalling where it came from. The system feels lighter, and no one can quite say why.

When it goes poorly, it gets noisy. Meetings that once flowed start to need real mediation. Conversations get rerouted. The person with borrowed authority becomes something to manage rather than something to use. If you watch long enough, micro-behaviors give it away.

There’s the way a senior engineer’s eyes drift when advice lands wrong. A turn toward the laptop or a fractional pause before responding. The words stay polite, but the attention has already left. You learn to read these signals because the feedback loop in this work runs long. Months can pass before outcomes clarify. Small tells are the only real-time data.

There’s the silence after a suggestion that overreached. No argument follows. Argument would mean engagement. Instead, the conversation flows around it. Input remains technically heard, practically absent.

There’s the question that arrives too late. A review where the real decision happened weeks earlier, in a Slack thread or a one-on-one you never saw. The meeting has turned ceremonial. Your observations land on something already hardened.

Timing does most of the work.

People who do this well carry a clear sense of when decisions actually form, rather than when they are announced. Announcements happen in meetings, with slides and stakeholders. Decisions usually form earlier, in conversations that felt casual, or through assumptions that accumulated without scrutiny.

The person with borrowed authority works in that gap. They surface constraints before they become load-bearing. They ask questions while the problem is still soft. They name tradeoffs during the window when naming them still helps, before effort hardens into position.

Miss that window and the options narrow. Raise the concern and sound like you’re reopening a settled choice. Stay quiet and watch the consequence arrive months later, after the moment to intervene has faded.

Trust here runs on a strange currency. The people you advise are not tracking deliverables, because you do not have any. They are tracking how it feels to think alongside you. Whether conversations end clearer or heavier, and whether your presence adds weight or drag.

This is why consistency matters more than brilliance. One sharp insight, delivered at the wrong moment or with the wrong tone, can outweigh months of steady contribution. Systems remember friction longer than they remember help. I’ve watched people learn this the hard way. They arrive with strong opinions, well-reasoned and perhaps correct.

They share those opinions freely. They’re confused when the room cools. Being right was supposed to count. In technical organizations, being right is expected. What people protect is agency. When advice feels like direction, resistance will follow. The person with borrowed authority has only trust to work with, and trust is elusive and easy to lose.

Knowing when to stay quiet and when not is the hardest discipline.

There is a meeting where everyone knows the ship has already sailed. A decision was made and resources were committed. Months of work stacked toward an outcome you believe is flawed. You sit through the review, watching the wrongness accumulate slide by slide.

The flaw is real.

But, and it’s hard to know when this true, stopping the ship can cost even more than letting it land badly. Interrupting a team mid-stride often costs coherence. Weeks get spent relitigating decisions that already shaped the work. Sometimes the flaw matters. Sometimes it disappears into the thousand imperfections every complex system carries.

Knowing which situation you are in resists rules. Sometimes, I stay quiet. Sometimes, I don’t. Whether that’s judgment or self-preservation, I don’t know, and I’m not sure the distinction even matters. I only know that people who intervene too often eventually stop getting invited.

Success shows up differently.

Months into a working relationship, questions start arriving earlier. A Slack message before the doc is finished. A calendar invite for a working session instead of a review. The ask shifts from “tell us what you think” to “help us think.”

That shift is the work. It means the system has decided you are safe to include in the messy middle, before ideas harden into positions.

I noticed this once with a team I had been orbiting for months, tolerated but not trusted. It was not the first time I had stayed quiet in a meeting where I could have spoken. It was not the first time I had asked questions instead of offering answers.

One afternoon, an engineer I barely knew sent me a document. “This is rough,” she wrote. “Please don’t share it. I’d value your take before I send it around.”

The document was rough. Gaps everywhere. Exactly the kind of thing people hide until it’s defensible.

I spent an hour with it. I sent back questions rather than answers. Flagged assumptions that felt too load-bearing. Avoided the word “should.” Two weeks later, the polished version circulated. I could see my influence in the framing of certain tradeoffs. No one mentioned my name.

That is the texture of peripheral work when it works. Contributions that dissolve into the system. Influence without residue.

Some people find this intolerable. They want their value made visible. I fully understand the impulse. Invisible work tends to stay invisible when promotions are discussed. But these roles don’t function any other way. The moment you claim credit for decisions you didn’t own, the contract breaks. You were supposed to be safe. The system remembers.

The role exists because organizations need it. Complex systems generate more decisions than any reporting line can absorb. Context fragments. Tradeoffs optimize locally. Someone has to sit at the boundary, noticing patterns that do not fit neatly into anyone’s goals.

That person has no authority. They borrow it, meeting by meeting, as long as the loan holds.

When the work succeeds, nothing dramatic happens. The system keeps moving. Decisions feel easier than they should. And the absence of problems never quite becomes a story anyone tells.

That’s the job.

Like this? Subscribe via email here.