Influence is the ability to change the thinking, feelings, or actions of others in some intended fashion.1 Gravitas is not restricted by hierarchical position. In this chapter, we’ll look at how people have influence beyond authority—not relying on hierarchical power to shape the thinking, feelings, and actions of others. This is not about a disregard or lack of respect for authority—far from it. Rather, it’s about not waiting for a certain job title in order to take ownership of driving positive change.
In so much of business today, we have to influence not just our immediate team but vertically, horizontally, diagonally, and externally to achieve collective goals. To be effective, we are called to influence across the business and outside our business. So how do we influence beyond hierarchical lines?
EXECUTIVE INFLUENCE
Aria works for a global branding and marketing agency in a senior finance role, supporting two key areas of the business. When we met, she had been with the agency for three years, and her boss (who brought me in for coaching) told me how well-regarded Aria was by the wider management team, but that she needed more gravitas with her peers. “She just doesn’t seem to have chemistry with them,” he said with some level of resignation, as though, because chemistry didn’t seem to come naturally, it was unlikely to change. But I knew he must have some faith in Aria’s ability to turn it around or he wouldn’t have sought out coaching for her.
When Aria and I met, she shared how much she loved her job. She was confident in her work with the leaders of both business units she supported and with the team who worked for her. Then she disclosed how one context made her nervous and doubt herself: finance team meetings, chaired by her boss and attended by the senior finance professionals across the business. They didn’t work together on a daily basis, but her relationships with them were important and shaped her ability to contribute to the wider financial strategies of the business. Initially, she would walk into meetings with her peer group feeling fine with speaking up, but she would experience a verbal punch in the gut when they responded critically to her. Over time, such encounters had taken their toll. When we met, Aria had not only lost confidence, but was critical of herself for not having confidence. She kept trying to tell herself to have more confidence—but, as she discovered, telling yourself to have more confidence doesn’t give you more confidence, and typically just makes you feel worse for not being confident. It can become a vicious cycle. Her reduced confidence made Aria want to withdraw from conversation and challenge. Doing so reduced her ability to influence others.
Influencing your peers can be particularly challenging. Your boss is typically the person who hired you, or at least decided to keep you in that position, so presumably, he or she is open to your contribution and influence. The people who report to you are partially influenced by hierarchical lines (you can choose to influence them in ways other than through positional power, but it still remains a factor in their response to you). Your peers, however they may like and respect you, most likely did not choose to work with you. Nor do they need to accept your attempts to influence them. And often—even in the strongest peer groups—there is competition for power and resources. Peers can be our toughest audience.
While there is a wide range of influencing techniques available to us, we often draw on only a few of these, based on three factors:
What we’ve seen modeled or been socialized at work to see as the “normal” way of approaching situations
What comes naturally to us
What has worked previously
Where we have awareness of, and skill to access, a wider range of techniques, we are better positioned to influence others effectively, adapting our approach to the situation and the people involved. Authentic gravitas grows with our ability to move flexibly between different techniques.
So how do executives effectively influence their peers? One study examined sixty-two cases where executives attempted peer influence.2 The researchers found that three things were important in this lateral process: target assessment, executive preparation, and influence tactics. As we discussed in chapter 3, target assessment is the evaluation we make of the person we want to influence. What are their resources, goals, personality, and preferences for interacting? Who has been successful in influencing them in the past? Executive preparation is the amount of time and effort put into the development and delivery of the proposal that is being communicated to those peers. Finally, influence tactics refers to matching the right tactic(s) for the situation and person. We tend to just use two or three—for example, always drawing on “rational persuasion” (using logical arguments), “inspirational appeals” (appeals to values and ideals), and “exchange” (reciprocity).
The researchers found that of these three factors, target assessment appears to matter a great deal, as it tends to drive both executive preparation and influence tactic choice. They suggest that target assessment may shape which influencing techniques executives choose, and speculate that executive preparation may have an impact on executives’ ability to successfully carry out their chosen influencing strategies. So our success in influencing comes not only from being prepared to be versatile and drawing on a variety of techniques, but also from our preparation for these encounters and, in particular, engaging in target assessment. The greater consideration we give to the people we are trying to influence, the more successful we are likely to be in having an impact that’s in line with our intention. Once you’ve done your target assessment, use your preparation time not just to think about what you’re going to say, but begin by considering which influencing techniques you may wish to draw upon.
In this chapter, we’ll look at some of the influencing techniques examined by the researchers: rational persuasion, legitimating tactics, personal appeals, apprising, exchange, inspirational appeals, ingratiation, and consulting.3 As you read through some of the influencing techniques, think about which of these you use frequently, sometimes, and rarely.
INFLUENCING TECHNIQUES
Before we get started, let’s just do a quick mind-set check. Speaking recently at a conference for business leaders, I was reminded that we sometimes have a natural hesitation toward the notion of wanting more influence. Some people may have the niggling thought, Is influence something I should want? We need to remember that wanting greater influence is not a bad or selfish thing in and of itself. What separates influence from manipulation is the goal: are we seeking to drive change to take steps toward achieving collective goals with integrity, or are we self-serving? Influence is a foundational part of leadership. So if we’re looking to lead the room and add significant value, it’s a good thing to want more influence.
“It’s Logical”: Rational Persuasion
“Show me the numbers. Show me the evidence.” Rational persuasion involves using logical arguments and factual evidence, which are clearly important in business. Many professionals are primarily influenced by seeing numbers, reviewing data, and receiving evidence of why what we’re saying will work will actually work.
Kevin excelled at research and analysis. There was no question as to his outstanding technical capability, yet clients would choose other consultants to work with. Clients liked having him on the project, but as Kevin’s senior partners repeatedly noticed, they didn’t want him as their main contact. They felt he was a great number two, but lacked the gravitas to lead projects. This came as a surprise, as he was often seen as the smartest person in the room, and his talent for analysis was certainly valued. Upon exploration, it became apparent that Kevin’s confidence in his analytical abilities led him to over-rely on rational persuasion. As important as it is to have the evidence and interpret it accurately, some people rely on it as their only approach, and why wouldn’t they? The data surely speaks for itself. Well, it doesn’t always, and reason alone won’t necessarily persuade others. So it’s all the more important to be intentional about using other techniques in addition
to rational persuasion, especially when we feel uncertain or under pressure, and are more likely to default to what we feel most comfortable with. If we have strong evidence and expertise in a certain area, it makes perfect sense to come to the table with our logical arguments to make our case: “You should buy into what I’m saying because here’s the data that tells you to listen to me.” If this is our area of expertise, then we may feel safer taking the personal out of the conversation. But gravitas almost always involves courage, and it requires connection.
Let’s take a closer look at Kevin, who is confident in his numbers but not in his relational persuasiveness. Kevin told himself, This isn’t about me and them, our relationship; it’s about the numbers and the data on the table. But business is also about relationships, and sometimes we overuse rational persuasion when other techniques may be more influential. Or we may have greater success if we partner our logic with another appropriate influencing style. Research shows that our reasons and logic, our facts and evidence don’t sit in isolation in our relationships. One study looking at relationships in the manufacturing industry showed how trustworthiness enhances the positive effects of rationality.4 Rationality alone may be influential, but it is more effective when we focus not only on showing why someone should make a deal/buy into a new initiative/work with us, but also give energy to building a foundation of interpersonal trust.
Kevin committed to up-skilling in other influencing techniques and connecting with clients. He had to acknowledge that building strong relationships with people was just as important to his job as coming up with the right information for them. He needed to understand the context of the situation, and the needs and preferences of the people he was with. It is what you do before trying to influence someone (executive preparation) that can make the difference. By taking time to look at the context and conditions of the situation, Kevin was able to introduce new complimentary influencing techniques into his approach. This enabled him to add more substantive value. He increased his gravitas, and within a few months, he had become the lead on numerous client projects.
“Because X Says So”: Legitimating
“The boss told me you need to do it.” Legitimating tactics are where we draw on a source of authority to influence others in some intended fashion. However, just as authentic gravitas is not about drawing on one’s own hierarchical power to make a difference in a situation, likewise it is not rooted in borrowing the hierarchical legitimacy of others. People with authentic gravitas can certainly have positional power, but do not need to continually rely on the argument “because I’m in charge,” and rarely does “because they’re in charge” have the desired effect, either. Another reason for being wary of legitimating in this way is that rarely do leaders appreciate having their name used by others to get someone to do something. Borrowing the weight of someone else’s authority does not give us authentic gravitas and, in fact, can lead to difficulties with the person whose authority we are trying to invoke.
When trying to gain support for an idea, it’s worth considering your relationship with the person you are seeking to influence. A study looking at organizational change and managerial influencing tactics argued that when employees have a positive relationship with their manager, they might be less likely to resist changes, as they see the use of legitimating tactics as a result of the situation at hand.5 However, if employees don’t have as positive a relationship with their manager, they may view the use of such legitimating more suspiciously and be even more likely to resist the requested changes than they would have been had the manager not tried to legitimize the changes. This suggests that whether legitimating tactics (drawing on a source of authority) have a positive or negative effect depends on the relationship between the person using that tactic and the person or people they’re trying to influence. The findings highlight that in deciding which influencing tactics to apply, it’s not enough to consider the situation, but we also need to reflect on our own relationships with those involved. Legitimating may not be the best approach (and it can even have unintended negative consequences). But when we don’t have strong relationships, legitimating can feel like the easiest, most comfortable, and “safest” influencing technique that we can slip into if we forget to be intentional. However, as we’ve discussed, comfortable isn’t the short-term priority.
Some forms of legitimating, however, can be powerful when preceded by thorough consideration of those you are trying to influence: who/what have they chosen to be a legitimate source of authority for them? It might be the client. It might be information from a journal or industry experts. There are many sources of authority that we can draw upon to support our arguments and recommendations. Keep in mind that legitimating is not about who is in a position of authority but who, or what, the people you’re working with regard as a source of authority.
“One for Me, One for You”: Favors and Exchange
“Rebecca, can you do me a favor?” I was in a taxi on my way to a breakfast meeting with a client across town when I received Lorraine’s text. After breakfast, I would jump in another cab to meet an executive team and facilitate a development program on leading change. While the participants were breaking for lunch, I would race over to the LSE to host an introductory session for our incoming master’s degree students. It was a busy day. Lorraine was having a busy day herself. While planning a meeting for more than one hundred volunteers at our church, she had just discovered there was an issue with the event organization. Because I hadn’t had any involvement in this event, it would have been easy for me to let her know I was busy but that I hoped it worked out okay. She would have understood. But her text caught my attention. I couldn’t remember the last time Lorraine had asked for a favor, though I could remember her helping me out on numerous occasions. I found windows in between my meetings (mainly in cabs) to call a few people and make some arrangements for help. I reflected later that had she not specifically asked for a favor, in the busyness of my day, I might have responded differently. Asking for a favor can be the last thing some of us want to do. But there is power in the vulnerability of needing someone else’s help. Contrary to what we may believe if we focus on surface gravitas, authentic gravitas is not reduced by relying on the input of others. Asking for a favor shows trust in the relational proximity (being close enough to ask), clarity around the goal, and a belief in the other person’s ability to have a positive impact, and it creates equilibrium in a relationship that is built on give-and-take.
Apprising is the flip side of asking for a favor—it’s demonstrating how something is going to be favorable for the other person. It’s me doing a favor for you. We apprise by suggesting to another that being involved in a project and following a suggested path will prove beneficial for them. Consider how your goal could benefit the others you would like involved. They may not be able to see the connection before you point it out. But in order to point it out, you need to know what is important to them, bringing us back to the need for target assessment and discovery to understand the environment, context, and conditions.
Exchange is often implicit in business. But as with rational persuasion, exchange is more effective when occurring within a strong relationship. We may think that the evidence of a valuable exchange is enough, but research shows that the positive effects of exchange are enhanced by the trustworthiness of the person suggesting the exchange.6 Relational strength builds influencing effectiveness, even in the seemingly simplest forms.
Happy, Sad, or . . . : Inspirational Appeals (Emotions)
As we saw in chapter 2, emotions play a powerful role in decision-making. They have a greater role than we give them credit for. Be conscious of the emotional state of those you’re with. Heightened emotions will have an impact on how someone responds to your appeal. It may mean they have a different response than they would have had if they were in a different emotional state. We’ve all had a peer, client, or customer respond in an unexpected way. Often this is a result of in
creased emotions, brought on by pressure or stress (or by favorable events leading to a more positive response, though we attune more to unexpected negative responses).
The emotions of the person we’re speaking to shape our persuasiveness. Researchers explored the impact of message recipients’ moods and “source likeability” on persuasion.7 Source likeability refers to the degree to which a recipient finds the message’s source likeable (that is, how likeable they find you, if you are the one attempting to persuade them of your argument or position). Building on previous research indicating that being in a good mood affects people’s ability to process information, the researchers found that happy people are more likely to take into account your credibility and the extent to which they like you when making decisions about what you say. People who are sad are less likely to be influenced by your likeability and credibility and are more likely to scrutinize your message. This research reinforces what we instinctively know: having a happy audience does make a positive difference.
It’s worth considering the mood of the people you are working with as you think about how to move forward. If you are looking to influence someone and find he or she is not in a good mood when you pop in to discuss an important idea or a particularly challenging issue, do not push it. You may even need to have a quick alternative question up your sleeve to justify your interruption. They will be less likely to take into account how much they like you or how credible you are, and will be more likely to scrutinize your proposal. Similarly, when it comes to meetings, sometimes it is not the right time to “just push through.” If you sense anything emotionally out of the ordinary, do ask what, if anything, is going on, or recommend taking a break and coming back together at a later stage wherever possible. A well-advocated “time-out” is often more powerful in the long run than serving as a slave to the agenda. Of course, often we just have to continue as planned. Being aware of others’ emotions means we’re able to adapt accordingly (as I should have done with the lawyers who had just been given challenging news about the future of their firm, right before I launched into an upbeat talk about leadership). We need to remember that we’re also able to influence others’ emotions. A well-placed humorous opener or getting them energized through participation or framing the interaction in a positive way could also open up positive emotional pathways.
Authentic Gravitas Page 21