Influence Strategies

One of the most powerful aspects of leadership is the ability to influence others. It is also one of it’s most illusive.

It may be useful to think first about your Influence Strategy.

Here are four possible Influence Strategies

1. The Direct Strategy – used when the relationship is strong, your proposal is within the range of acceptable options and opposing proposals are relatively weak.  Build a strong rational case with the supporting evidence needed to convince your audience. Focus on the benefits of your proposal in relation to your audience’s values.
2. The Indirect Strategy – used when other options may be better positioned than your proposal. Put your specific proposal aside and focus on changing the ground rules for discussion. Change the agenda. If the agenda is rational, make it emotional or political. If the agenda is Process Improvement, make it Customer or another agenda that makes your proposal a stronger option.
3. The Divide & Conquer Strategy – used when parts of your proposal are acceptable and others aren’t. Focus on convincing your audience about those aspects that are likely to be accepted. Build from agreement and a stronger track record. Alternatively, focus on those parts of your audience who can be convinced.
4. The Hold Strategy – used when the timing of your proposal isn’t good. Stop influencing and focus on building a relationship of mutual understanding. The right proposal and timing will emerge.

I’ve always felt that most mistakes start at the beginning. Choosing the right Influence Strategy at the start –  can save time, money and reputations later on.

 

 

Frames

Been thinking a little about influence without advocacy.

I was reminded of an old story of a long ago US presidential campaign. I think it was Roosevelt. The story goes that millions of campaign posters were printed with Roosevelt’s photo. Unfortunately no-one had obtained permission from the photographer. Instead of seeking permission and negotiating a fee with the photographer. Someone suggested approaching the photographer with an opportunity to have his photo on millions of campaign posters. How much would the photographer pay? They accepted his first offer!

I’m not commenting on the ethics!  But it’s interesting how reframing the problem resulted in a significantly different outcome. The frame influenced the choice that was made. Different frames, different choices

There are two frames worth thinking about:

• buy or sell eg. Roosevelt story
• life or death (positive or negative)

eg. Tversky and Kahneman  (1981) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_effect_(psychology)

Others might be:

• simple or complex
• quality or quantity
• vision or execution
• individual or group
• change or status-quo

More soon…

Post growth society

I see September’s HBR focuses on the ‘green’ economy and life in the post growth society. Yes the idea of limitless growth seems to have been exposed as a myth over the last 12 months. But post-growth society?

There will be growth alright, it just won’t be evenly distributed. While the ‘net’ might be flat, some will grow strongly and others contract significantly. I’m already sensing an inspiring and revolutionary undercurrent of activity and change. Expect a significant redistribution of capital and wealth. Keep your eyes open. Stay light on your feet. Make sure you’re on the right side!

Materialism has taken a heavy blow though. About time. Don’t think that will change any time soon.

iLove U.

One the best things I did this year was switch to Apple. iMac and iPhone ilove U.

Apple has just released its new Snow Leopard operating system. It’s radical. Not because it’s bloated with new features. But because it just faster,smaller, cheaper. Never been done before. Congrats Apple. The New York Times reviews it here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/27/technology/personaltech/27pogue.html?_r=1&em

It’s a great example of the power of simplifying. Getting back to what really matters.

Might be useful to consider our own operating system.

What are the few things that make the difference in how we operate in our world?Perhaps we should focus on them. Strip out, outsource or ignore the 80% that generates little value for us. Double the 20% that matters. Would 20% to 40% of our effort improve our result by 60%?

Russian roulette

The track record for organisational change seems poor. Some research puts the success rate for change initiatives at 20% or less. Measured against the expected benefits. That’s like playing russian roulette with 5 bullets!

Almost all of the research seems to focus on faulting the change management process. The problem was poor communication or lack of ownership or insufficient consideration of culture or poor implementation, or …

But how much of the underachievement is because the change itself was wrong? The expected benefits are clear, it’s just that the ‘what’ of the change won’t deliver the expected benefits. I imagine, some change sounds good but isn’t. For example, consolidating process into the ‘back office’, may in fact increase costs and reduce quality.

It seems unfair to criticise the change process if the change itself is flawed. And yet it may not be easy to detect the flaws before the change has been implemented.

With such a bad track  record, a prudent course would be to tread carefully. Perhaps change is best approached as a series of small experiments to trial and validate different changes. Big bang approaches seem too dangerous. When you’re playing russian roulette, it really can be a big bang!

Debating sacred cows

I’m having an interesting debate at the moment over some  sacred cows. My friend is argueing that:

• success isn’t just about results, but about starting something,
• failure is valuable, and
• it’s all about learning.

He is, of course, wrong. Success is entirely about results (achievements). Failure or learning have no value.

It is the outcome that has value, or not. By all means start something but value should be judged on achievements. By all means fail, learn from the experience but the value of both will be judged on what is achieved by applying that learning. Not the learning itself.

It seems the more we think in terms of the abstract (eg learning) the less we focus on the concrete (eg. achievements).

Just another plug for achievement guys.

Above average?

As humans we have an enormous capacity for self delusion. Psychologists tell us that the average person thinks they are above average in looks, intelligence, honesty, generosity, and most other human attributes. We think we’re special!

Some delusion is useful. It gives us confidence. But sometimes it is fatal. Effective leaders confront the reality of a situation with evidence and logic. Without making it personal. I think they do it by:

• engaging openly with those around them.
• leaving a space between ego and opinion (‘there is a crack in everything, that’s how the light gets in’ – Leonard Cohen).
• understanding where to look for the evidence of success/failure.
• fronting up to critical conversations.
• the courage to look reality in the face.

Confronting reality is the fifth and final aspect of my evolving Achievership framework. It looks like this:

1. Assure self with purpose.
2. Create relevance with a specific mission.
3. Engage the right people.
4. Create momentum in pursuit of the mission.
5. Confront reality and adjust course accordingly.

For my own film project, I found I got stuck at (4) and have had to go back to (2) and (3) to move forward.

Where are you at with your Achievership?

HR2.0

I spoke yesterday at HRINZ on change and HR. It was version 1.o of some thinking I’ve started on these two topics. It was a start. One of upsides of the current economic turmoil is that its forcing individuals and organisations to think again about ‘value’.

I often encounter unflattering comments about HR’s value from senior and line managers in organisations. I wonder if HR has become overly preoccupied with process, systems, tools, technologies and frameworks.  It reminded me of the IT industry. And led me to thinking about how pervasively we use the web today. It’s a long way from the IT industry I knew in the late 80’s.

The internet has transformed itself from simply a transport mechanism into something that delivers real value to people. The current term being used is Web2.0.

Web2.0 is about technology:

• as a platform for it’s users to create individual value (eg Flickr)
• as an architecture of participation (eg blogging)
• as a means of harnessing collective intelligence (eg Wikipedia)
• providing users with a rich user experience (eg RSS)
• letting users pull information to meet their immediate demands (eg Google)

WEb2.0 has lead to an exponential rise in the use and creativity of the web. No change management plan here!

What would HR2.0 look like?

As a starter I’d suggest that HR 2.0 could:

• insist managers are responsible for achievement of goals aligned with the overall strategic intent of the organisation.
• let individual managers decide what they need (from HR and others) to achieve those goals. And who, when and how those needs are met.
• focus at least 70% of their effort and resources (budget) on meeting the individual in-action needs of managers striving to achieve clear goals.
• work within an organisational framework of clear values, culture and shared sense of accountability.
• offer a suite of useful tools, frameworks and resources without advocating any.
• inspire people to be bolder in their sense of possibility and potential.

Interested in talking with anyone interested in further developing this thinking.

Influence without Advocacy

I had a boss once who was a master of making you think it was your idea.

George was able to create the right  context. To get you thinking. To wait to recognise behaviours and conversations that seemed to be heading in the direction he wanted. He would ask great questions, which although leading didn’t appear to be driven by his agenda. He’d tell stories and leave them hanging, without explaining. He’d let others join the dots. But would take care in where the dots were. He built great relationships and others admired and respected him.

He didn’t lead with his position and agenda. When others would have. He could influence without advocating a position or agenda. He had them, but didn’t advocate them. He let others arrive at his conclusions. They were always their positions and their agendas. Without obvious positions and agenda, he was irresistable!

George made  subtlety work. With great questions and illuminating stories.

I’ve seen examples recently where well-meaning and genuine advocacy has polarised stakeholders.

Is advocacy as an influencing tool losing its effectiveness? Is it time for subtlety?

Huh?

Trying to focus on achievership (the discipline formerly known as leadership!) by thinking of the questions that achievers should ask themselves daily.

1. What is my personal purpose?
2. What am I doing about it in terms of a personal mission?
3. Who needs to be committed to achieving my mission?
4. What needs to be done today to achieve my mission?
5. Am I on course?

Looking at our world there seems to be plenty of challenges and opportunities to make a difference. Pick one. Get started.