General Douglas MacArthur was one of the most decorated commanders of his generation. In 1951, President Truman fired him anyway.
What actually happened
MacArthur repeatedly acted and spoke in ways that exceeded the authority his role as a battlefield commander actually held, most consequentially issuing a public ultimatum toward China that undercut a peace effort the president was actively pursuing. Whether MacArthur's underlying military judgment had merit turned out to be a separate question from the one that determined his fate. Truman removed him for exceeding the authority of his position, not for being wrong.
Why this distinction is easy to lose sight of
It is tempting to believe a good enough outcome retroactively justifies however it was achieved. Organizations, and history, tend not to grade it that way. The process violation is what gets remembered and acted on, and the quality of the underlying judgment rarely buys it back.
Where to start
If you want more authority than your current mandate gives you, the reliable path is demonstrating exceptional judgment inside the authority you already have, not assuming the authority you think the outcome deserves.
Acting outside your mandate, even when you turn out to be right, is a bet that the result will be judged separately from the overreach. That bet rarely pays off the way it feels like it should in the moment.
Reading exactly where the edge of your own authority actually sits, versus where it feels like it should sit given what you are capable of, is a judgment worth checking rather than assuming. What this gives you is the reason that check is worth doing before acting, not after.
There is a specific way to make the case for more authority using the judgment you have already shown, and it is worth building deliberately rather than waiting to be offered it.