In many conversations and sparring with IP experts, a similar hesitation surfaces.

“I could have said more in that meeting.”
“I saw the broader risk, but it wasn’t strictly my mandate.”
“I didn’t want to overstep.”

The concern is understandable. IP professionals operate in environments where roles are clearly defined, hierarchies matter, and credibility depends on staying within one’s area of responsibility. Precision builds trust and boundaries protect it.

At the same time, clients increasingly expect more than technically correct answers. They expect orientation. They want to understand implications, trade-offs, and likely consequences beyond the narrow legal question.

This creates a tension:
When does contributing strategic perspective strengthen your role and when does it cross into overreach?

Why this tension matters now

In earlier columns, we explored how the human side of expertise is becoming more visible in an AI-shaped environment. As technical knowledge becomes easier to access, the differentiating factor shifts toward judgment, framing, and responsibility.

Yet many IP experts hesitate to express that judgment explicitly. Not because they lack it. But because they are cautious about exceeding what they believe is expected of them.

This is not a branding problem. It is a role clarity problem.

Influence grows when clients experience you as someone who helps them think.
Overreach occurs when clients experience you as someone who replaces their decision-making. The distinction is subtle, but critical.

What overreach actually looks like

Overreach is rarely loud or dramatic. It often appears in small shifts of tone.

It can show up when an expert:

  • moves from outlining options to prescribing decisions without understanding the business context,
  • frames commercial strategy without having visibility into internal constraints,
  • uses certainty where caution would have signalled professionalism.

In such moments, trust erodes quietly. Not because the advice is wrong, but because it feels misaligned with the agreed role.

In analogue settings, such as board meetings, strategy workshops, negotiation rooms, this is immediately perceptible: body language changes; questions become shorter; follow-up conversations move elsewhere.

Digital spaces amplify the same risk. Public commentary, articles, or posts that drift far beyond one’s expertise may generate attention, but they can blur professional positioning. In highly specialised fields like IP, clarity of scope is part of credibility.

What influence actually looks like

Influence, in contrast, is anchored in responsibility. It does not replace the client’s decision. On the contrary It strengthens it.

An influential IP expert might say:

  • “From a legal perspective, option A is robust. From a strategic perspective, you may want to consider how this affects your licensing posture in two years.”
  • “This approach is defensible. The question is whether it aligns with the risk appetite you described earlier.”
  • “Before we decide, it may help to clarify who internally will own the consequences.”

These statements do not expand the mandate recklessly. They make implicit consequences explicit.

Clients rarely perceive this as overreach. They perceive it as maturity.

Why many experts hold back

There are good reasons why IP experts hesitate. Professional training rewards neutrality.
Firms often discourage stepping beyond narrowly defined advisory lanes.
In-house structures can reinforce departmental boundaries.

There is also a deeper factor: fear of reputational exposure. Expressing perspective feels riskier than delivering analysis.

Yet silence has its own risk. When experts consistently limit themselves to technical correctness, they may be seen as reliable, but not necessarily as strategic partners.

Over time, this shapes career trajectories. It influences who is invited into earlier-stage conversations, who is consulted on broader issues, and who remains in reactive roles.

Navigating the line deliberately

The line between influence and overreach is navigated through three disciplines.

First: clarity about your mandate. Before adding perspective, understand the expectations attached to your role in that specific context. Influence without mandate awareness easily turns into intrusion.

Second: framing. Strategic perspective should be presented as consideration, not imposition. Language matters. So does timing.

Third: accountability. Influence means being prepared to stand behind the implications of your input. It’s not about adding commentary for visibility; it’s about contributing where your insight meaningfully reduces risk or increases clarity.

These principles apply both offline and online. In meetings, in memos, on panels, in articles. A coherent professional presence across contexts strengthens perceived authority. Inconsistency weakens it.

The connection to personal positioning

This is where the broader theme of personal positioning re-enters.

Influence is not built by claiming a strategic role. It is built by repeatedly demonstrating responsible judgment within and slightly beyond your formal scope.

When this pattern becomes visible, clients begin to expect and welcome your perspective. The mandate expands organically.

For many experts, this evolution does not happen by accident. It requires reflection on how you show up, how you phrase recommendations, and how you signal boundaries.

This is also where external perspective can be valuable. When you are deeply embedded in your professional environment, it’s difficult to assess how your voice is perceived. Small shifts in framing can alter how far your influence extends without triggering defensiveness.

The goal is not to become louder, but to become clearer about where your contribution genuinely adds value.

In the next column, I will examine another subtle tension: when translating expertise increases understanding and when it unintentionally dilutes authority.

Until then, a question to reflect on:

In your last three important client interactions, where did you deliberately hold back your perspective and what would have happened if you had framed it differently?

About the columnist

Giulia Donato
Branding & Communication Advisor | Executive Coach | Lecturer
people & brand strategies
www.donatostrategies.com