Chapter 5
You Have More to Offer Than You Think If You Know Your Goals, Priorities, and Resources
[I'm part of a volunteer community organization,] The Columbus Partnership, a group of 16 CEOs. The group picked me as the leader. My inauguration speech was, “I have no authority; you're all here voluntarily—your interest is the community. I'm going to try to lead you, but understand I can only influence you. And I'm very sensitive to that, the fact that you're all presidents, some of you are presidents of businesses larger than ours, so [there is] a disparity of interests, but I can only lead from influence. So the notion of an influence model, an authority model, listening skills, organization skills, visioning skills . . . [etc.] it's the things that leaders want to practice, practicing their art and their science. It's a wonderful thing to try these things in communities, let alone your particular skill set. . . . It enriches your career and advances it.”
—Les Wexner, CEO of The Limited, Talk at the Kennedy School, Harvard University, Fall 2003
Power Sources: You Are Plugged In
Our basic premise is that your ability to influence—the power that is due to your skills, as much, if not more than your position—comes from access to resources that others want. This works because you gain influence through mutually beneficial exchanges, and the more resources you can supply, the more influence you can get. How do you find valuable things to offer so you can provide needed currencies? First of all, it helps a great deal to understand the world of the person or group you want to influence and their likely currencies, as Chapter 4 describes. Such knowledge can stimulate your imagination and let you recognize your valuable resources in the particular instance, whether or not you usually think of them that way.
For example, here Larkin Mehta describes dealing with a male colleague who was treating her as of lesser value when she was a young project manager in a Fortune 500 tech company. Though much younger and less experienced, she had to figure out what was important to him and create valuable currencies to exchange for peer status.
I was assigned to work with one colleague who called me “Kiddo.” I couldn't believe it. It was not respectful and devalued me. It was not OK. I was in my early 20s; he was a middle manager. He was using his age as a power imbalance, rather than as offering experience. Why was he doing it? I wasn't as experienced. What did I bring?
I had to get a level playing field. I had something to learn but didn't want it to be one way, lopsided, so [I] had to demonstrate what I brought.
How can I handle this so I do not come off as just green? I thought about why I was hired. What was I working on? The actual projects, my education, what experience could I bring to bear from my part-time work all through high school and college? I could see he wanted to be valued for his expertise, and I wanted to approach him in ways that recognized that while demonstrating I brought something too.
I discovered I was a similar age to his children. I was new in my career, [so] I approached it as “here is what I can learn from you, here is what I can offer you.” We were in the same business unit, so I went to him and asked how he would deal with certain issues; I could gain from what he said. I saw he felt in a higher position. OK, we were working on a common project with software vendors. I had certain vendors I was working with. I asked how he dealt with those he had. Then I told him things I was finding, how I was getting my vendors engaged.
I had to continue to work at it over a year, let him tell first, and tried to have more info to share back with him as I went along, [and let him] see how I was rolling up my sleeves, taking different approaches that also worked. It usually takes more than one interaction with anyone to build a better relationship.
I learned later he didn't want to move up but wanted to be perceived as expert, so I kept following up with what I could bring. Some of the tools from my education I was happy to share, but those were less important than actual work experience (e.g., “a team at one of my vendors is type A, here is what worked with them, how do you do it?”). I acknowledged his need to be expert, but I didn't have to diminish what I could bring to bear.
I worked on creating more of a dialogue; I always asked questions to engage, add in what I see, make it more of a balanced dynamic.
Reflecting back years later, Larkin observed, “I still do it: offering up my experience without pushing it, admit what I don't know but not acting as if I don't know anything. It's all about relationships, that flow to try to get things done. You won't get far without it. When you have to articulate your value, it can reduce your confidence, lead you to overfocus on what you don't know. When I had to identify it, it built my confidence, because I had to reflect, identify what I could do, and articulate it. When in a situation where someone else is more experienced or better, where you are forced, it drives more awareness. You have to be OK acknowledging what you don't know, not pretend to be expert when you are not, but show how you will learn, the others you can work with, the foundation you can learn from.” (See Chapter 8 for more on gender and influence.)
This kind of exchange, especially when working uphill as Larkin was, requires that you know your own world—your interests, capabilities, accomplishments—as well as your potential ally's world. (It also requires that you must not get “hooked” by the other's devaluing behavior—not always an easy thing to do.) Until this point, we have assumed that your world is perfectly clear to you, but, unfortunately, we often see that employees at all organizational levels lack clarity about what they want and what they bring to the table—the resources they command. Although they want influence, they aren't aware that they might do certain things inadvertently that diminish their potency.
As Chapter 3 suggests, you may well have more to offer than you think. Careful diagnosis can reveal your untapped resources, which you can then use to gain influence even in difficult situations. This chapter shows you how to increase your resource pool and influence repertoire by looking carefully at the elements available when you know your own world and that of your potential ally.
What Do You Want Anyway? Gaining Clarity on Your Objectives
The first step is to figure out exactly what you want and in at least roughly what order of priority. This is often easier said than done. Since most significant influence attempts usually have multiple goals, the problem comes in deciding which goal or goals are most important and which you are willing to give up if necessary.
In general, it is important to think carefully about what you want from each person or group that you are trying to influence. Decide in advance the minimum you need from each. Because your wish list will often contain more than the potential ally may be willing (or able) to give, it's important to know the difference between what's nice to have and what's absolutely necessary.
For example, suppose you are asked to lead a task force that is likely to be controversial and run into considerable opposition, yet is important for your organization and could be an important turning point in your career. Ideally, you would get to choose all the members, based on their knowledge of the issues, their reputation and clout in the organization, their probable support for the kind of solutions the task force is likely to recommend, how well they work as team members, your connection to and relationship with each one of them, and perhaps more. Yet since this is controversial, your boss and her boss want to select the members mostly for political connections and to guarantee a safe recommendation, which could set the organization back several years and leave you looking ineffective at best.
You aren't likely to win on all the members or on all the criteria; which are most important, which next most, and which would you like to have but could probably live without? Put another way, what percentage of the task force could be resisters without killing any chance for an innovative solution?
Success may require many conversations with various stakeholders to learn who to avoid at all costs and who could really help, some careful diagnosis of your boss's currencies (and her boss's), a compelling vision of what is at stake and the possibilities, and eventually a clear internal sense of priorities.
What Are Your Primary Goals and What Are Secondary?
Which goals can you let go of, if necessary, so you aren't distracted by the less important?
Think of Les Charm's goals (see boxed example below) when he realized he was not enjoying his job at Prudential. He wanted to meet many people who could help him later when he went into business for himself. He wanted experience in making complicated financial deals. He wanted freedom from the usual company constraints and paperwork. He also wanted to be able to act unconventionally and feel he had not sold his soul to a large company.
Although Les eventually could do all of these things, he needed to determine his main priorities. If being unconventional was his main goal, Les might have focused on that and created an adversarial relationship with Dick Gill. (Many young hotshots have irritated their bosses by failing to understand how things work in the organization.) Then, he would have lost the chance to get out and explore new deals. Instead, by focusing on freeing himself from routine paperwork and hours, he had the time to meet people who would be potential loan candidates. Furthermore, not following conventional hours let him meet prospective clients for breakfast before their plants opened, or for dinner, rather at the bank during regular banking hours. The chance to behave in an unconventional manner otherwise would come when he proved himself, which he soon did.
One of the first requirements in any job is to deliver what is expected of you. Les would have been just a loud-mouthed, over-confident new MBA if he hadn't been good at finding financing deals. By combining clarity of what he wanted with excellent performance, he could shape his other job requirements.
Being willing to hold off your personal needs, even temporarily, isn't easy. Too often, we have seen people who are consumed by their personal demands, which drives out task goals and prevents others from hearing what they want. It isn't a matter of squelching all desires, but of getting clarity on priorities.
Personal Factors That Get in the Way
At issue here is not just failure to separate personal issues from the larger goal, but the problems that arise when personal needs and desires block the ability to obtain influence. Consider how Carl Lutz defeated himself (see next boxed example).
The lesson learned is not that you should completely set aside personal needs; doing that is both impossible and counterproductive. You need personal involvement for the processes and changes this book advocates. Without a personal investment, you won't have the drive to set goals and see them through. Recognize your needs and accept them as legitimate, rather than drive them underground and beyond your conscious control. But don't be controlled by them. Decide deliberately how much to work on them directly rather than just let them be a by-product of good performance.
In most situations where people seek major influence, they have needs above and beyond their task objectives. They may also need visibility for themselves or their department, association with the project as a way to “make a name for myself,” approval, or respect. These extra personal needs not only can provide the energy to stick through the rough spots but also can serve the organization. To have the time to reach the loan objectives he had committed to, Les Charm, for example, needed more freedom from the usual bureaucratic demands and more than the conventional autonomy. Achieving his objectives then justified his being granted that freedom. His personal needs dovetailed with his professional objectives and the true job requirements. He could meet potential entrepreneurial clients for breakfast, when convenient for them, not during banking hours. By contrast, Carl Lutz's personal needs ranked higher than the job-related tasks, producing unnecessary conflict.
Personal and organizational needs can also clash or support one another when there are interpersonal difficulties, either with someone you personally like and are reluctant to hurt or with someone you fear and don't want to arouse against you. Does your job require that you address the interpersonal difficulties, or can the work get done while allowing you some slack? Do you have to set aside your feelings to do what's right, or must you absolutely raise the delicate issues first? If your unhappiness makes you address the person's performance, can you do so tactfully, or is it impossible to do without creating a heated response? Carefully sorting priorities is all the more difficult when personal feelings and work are intertwined but is necessary if you are to be effective—or want to avoid making yourself sick with swallowed feelings that you are afraid to let out.
Another personal needs barrier arises when you are driven to want visibility and recognition but staying in the background better fits the situation. For example, you want to get high-powered and independent people to cooperate in establishing a new process they find uncomfortable. If you focus on getting them to take a back seat so you get credit for the idea, your overriding need could push them to demand the spotlight. Do you need credit so badly that you have to jump into the foreground? Or can you make suggestions, show benefits, and then step back to let them feel that they have ownership, too?
We are not suggesting that personal needs should always take second place. Sometimes they are so important that ignoring them has too high a cost. This was the case with Marta, a skilled but discontented professional who believed that she was long denied the full recognition she deserved.
The Straw That Broke…
Marta looked at the e-mail she had just typed to her boss, “Since we appear to be at an impasse, please accept my resignation as of the end of the month,” and hit Send.
After a long battle, Marta had finally had enough. She worked for a consulting firm that conducted strategic planning projects for companies without fully developed in-house strategy groups. The work was exciting and she liked seeing the positive impact on client companies. She was also doing quite well, which pleased her, since unlike most of her colleagues, she didn't have an MBA.
In spite of her performance, the lack of the right degree was a hindrance. Frequently she was not included in top-level planning meetings, and at times she felt that the choice assignments went to others despite her belief that she was equally or more competent. Her pay also trailed that of her (mostly male) degreed colleagues.
She had also developed a new protocol for implementing strategy that could be applied across projects. While the organization appreciated that, it didn't get the accolades that a new approach to formulating strategy might have. It was seen as “only a tool,” even though it facilitated the implementation of various projects and helped the organization's bottom line.
The firm was organized around content areas, and Marta had been working in the marketing group. In addition to other tasks, she started to focus on strategic e-commerce issues. This was a rapidly growing area, with over $350 billion in overall e-commerce retail trade. The firm was interested in this area and encouraged Marta to develop it. (And she agreed that it had provided generous financial support for her work.)
Over the past eighteen months, Marta had grown the e-commerce strategy area so it was close in size and revenue to several other units. This assignment had been somewhat temporary, so she was faced with two issues. First, should she take it over as a permanent assignment, and second, should it be part of marketing or an independent unit?
Even though being part of marketing hadn't caused any problems, Marta was concerned whether there would be continued support; would she be the “poor step-child”? She thought that as an independent unit she could argue better for budget and personnel. Also, she very much wanted to be recognized for her achievement and was proud that she would be the only non-MBA to head a unit.
She went to Peter, her boss, to discuss the idea. “You certainly have done a great job and deserve to head the unit,” he said. “I don't think there would be any opposition to your taking that as your permanent assignment.” But then he hesitated. “I am not sure that this is the most opportune time to form a new unit. Our new CEO has been on the job only seven months, and coming from the outside, he is still trying to get his hands around the organization. He is also not sure the firm is organized the right way. Let's first talk about what it would look like for you to take this on within marketing.”
Marta pushed back. “Look, this isn't something radically new; we have added units before. I must say, Peter, that I am feeling a bit used. I perform well but don't get the rewards that others do. I worked hard to develop this e-commerce area and that was on top of my other work.” Peter acknowledged her work and said that he would do the best he could, but he thought that the organization was in a holding pattern. “But let's try and work out the details of what it would be like if this area was your permanent assignment.”
In the ensuing discussion, they agreed on salary level and the degree of autonomy. Marta asked about the title. “Anything that you and HR agree on as long as it isn't unit director. Go check with HR and I will check with the executive committee about whether it can be seen as an independent unit and the issue of title.”
HR told Marta, “any title that you and the exec committee agree to, we can make happen.” She happily e-mailed that news to Peter expecting a positive response. Three days later, he buzzed and asked her to come to his office.
I am afraid that I don't have great news. The executive committee is firmly against starting any new areas or any differentiation at this time. They are in support of your taking over the e-commerce area, but with no new title, and we are not going to make any big announcement of this.
Marta was upset and expressed her disappointment and frustration. “But look, Marta, you have what's important—you have this area, you have a higher salary, and you have autonomy. What's so important about a title for you or your area?” She replied, “You just don't understand,” and stood up to leave. By the time she got back to her office, she knew what she was going to do.
From an external point of view, it is possible to conclude that Marta had her priorities “wrong” and stumbled on issues of status. After all, as Peter said, she would have received a plum job with autonomy and more pay. How important is a title? But that is seeing Marta and her currencies from the outside (and a male point of view), not from what she valued most.
Marta valued what the title and separate unit stood for—especially because of the way she had been treated while at the firm. Her priorities, though not fully understood by Peter and the firm, were more about being valued and recognized than money. The pay discrepancy mattered to her, but not quite as much as the feeling that the firm did not fully appreciate and publicly acknowledge her accomplishments.
In turn, Marta was so intent on what she cared about—a common issue for those wanting influence—that she discounted what was important to Peter and the firm. There was new leadership, and she ignored the signals that time was needed to reconsider the entire organizational structure. When Marta insisted that because units had been created before meant that it shouldn't be a problem now, she was ignoring what it might mean for a CEO who is thinking of shaking up the structure (and in turn reporting relationships, therefore formal power, possibly pay, etc.). In addition, “right” or not, in the firm, degrees apparently were an important factor in determining status, not just performance. A new CEO could well want to move slowly before taking on such a powerful symbolic component of the culture, especially if it is deeply held by many senior consultants.
All this apparently made it difficult, if not impossible, for both sides to correctly hear and give full value to the priorities of the other. And even if they had, in this situation no exchange might have been satisfactory anyway. Marta confided later to a friend, “I know that if I would have taken the job as it was offered, I would have been so resentful that I couldn't have functioned effectively.” (This complex example has issues of gender interwoven throughout; for more on gender and influence, see Chapter 8.)
Another problem occurs when personal discomfort with one currency or another keeps you from using it. For example, some people are so uncomfortable with conflict that they can't do anything controversial, no matter how necessary. “Oh, I can't ask for that; it will make him argumentative and attacking.” Similarly, some people are so in need of being liked that they can't discuss anything that might produce anger before the other person has a chance to digest the request. Still others don't like intimacy and, therefore, have trouble dealing with people who want to exchange feelings and closeness.
The last problem is one we have mentioned before: refusing to pay in a particular currency because you don't like or approve of it and don't think anyone should value it. Perhaps those who want power and domination get your blood boiling. Perhaps you are turned off when people strive for status because you believe that everyone should treat others equally. Or maybe you see colleagues so worried about being seen as self-seeking that they deflect every compliment until you never want to say anything positive to them. But influence is about what you have to do to get cooperation, not about imposing your preferences on others. You are entitled to feel so strongly about some currencies that you refuse to pay in them even though it would get you the influence you want. You can choose to be right (by your definition), rather than effective. Just do it knowing the consequences.
Be Flexible about Achieving Goals
Even when they know their primary goals, people can lose influence by being too inflexible in the way they go about achieving them. Sometimes, having an exciting idea and high commitment causes one to become single- minded about how that is achieved. Getting locked into one approach leads to ignoring the variations that also could work. Thus, they miss the chance to get half a loaf—or sometimes an improved, though different, loaf—through the adaptation of their potential allies' ideas.
Research found that people who had carried out important changes from the middle of their organizations were both highly persistent and flexible.1 They stuck to the essence of the desired results they envisioned but were open to change their approach as they dealt with the many stakeholders whose cooperation they needed. Occasionally, even the fundamental vision changed as encounters with reality brought to light new limits and possibilities, but, more often, it was the details and pathways that changed while the vision remained intact.
Les Charm, for example, knew that he wanted his own business, and the skills and contacts to do that. Initially he thought he would work for Prudential for only two years, but when the importance of experience and connections became clear, he stayed more than five to continue learning and building his network.
Adjust Expectations of Your Role and Your Ally's Role
People can limit their potential power and cut off options when they arbitrarily define the job boundaries between themselves and their potential allies.
There are several reasons that conventional job descriptions overly constrain people. One is the changing world of work. The historical contract (or exchange) between organizations and individuals was, “Do your job and the company will take care of you.” This emphasized staying within the lines and boxes of the organizational chart and not interfering with anyone else's carefully limited job. People now must do more than what's in their job descriptions because no single set of rules can anticipate all the changes. As a result, now initiative, rather than conformity, is required.
People also tend to overly constrain themselves from outmoded attitudes toward authority. It is one thing to step over the bounds in dealing with peers, but it is another in dealing with a superior with formal power over you. Also, traditionally, there has been an explicit exchange between boss and subordinate. “Let me make the important decisions and I, the wise boss, will do them right.” Subordinates buy into this exchange because they can in effect delegate the difficult issues upward. Who doesn't dream of the perfect boss: the manager who is considerate but doesn't forget the work, who can correct you without being harsh, and who is capable of giving autonomy without casting you adrift? But such a wise and omnipotent superior exists only in imagination, which leaves the hope-filled subordinate trapped in an organizational box. If bosses don't “do what they're supposed to do,” what can someone lower in the hierarchy possibly do?
You Can Influence Even Your Boss
Although we offer a whole chapter (9) on influencing your boss, we briefly explore the topic here as one key area where most people act less influentially than they could. Too often, they limit their focus to “doing quality work on time” or “keeping their noses clean” and ignore the other vital currencies the boss needs. They too seldom do what Les Charm did: learn the boss's critical needs and then figure out ways to meet them that also meet the direct report's needs.
When you are genuinely aligned with your boss's goals and interests, you can push hard for what you want. You can disagree with your boss and be praised for it. In most cases, delivering what your boss needs lets you make demands, talk straight, and effect change.
But just what do you have that your boss needs? What currencies do you command? Although every boss has unique particular interests, most bosses would be delighted to receive some widely valued currencies beyond those we mentioned in Chapter 3. Think of those you control (Table 5.1).
Table 5.1 Currencies You Control That Are Valuable to Any Boss
|
Although the list in Table 5.1 is far from exhaustive, if you are aware of how to generate such currencies, you move from just “making a request” (when you depend on the other person's good graces) to linking your requests with the boss's goals and/or creating credits to exchange for your desired outcomes.
Know Your Needs and Desires, but Don't Forget the Person You Want to Influence
In the first section of this chapter, we stressed the importance of knowing your own goals and gaining a clearer picture of your needs. While crucial, that serves only as the first step for dealing with the person you want to influence. When you focus only on what you want, change will be defined in terms of meeting your needs, rather than the needs of the person you want to influence, which is less likely to be successful.
If you see clearly what you want (and if others can reasonably deliver these demands), you are free to focus on what they need from the transaction. Then, by examining what resources you command, you can decide how the exchange can meet their needs. Not being able to deliver a valuable currency is a formula for powerlessness.
Self-Traps: Power Outages in Making Exchanges
Reluctance to Assert Legitimate Claims.
In the forthcoming example (page 92), Jim set out to create currencies that would be valuable to his boss. Some people, however, experience power failures because they don't know how to collect on obligations others have incurred. When someone “owes you” but doesn't acknowledge it, do you give up in frustration? Are you afraid pushing will harm the relationship? Have you considered that maybe the other person doesn't realize all that you have done or knows but isn't focused on it? Maybe your colleague assumed you were just doing your job, so you need to show how much effort you expended being helpful. Can you make it clear how much offering a currency costs you without sounding as if you are whining? Perhaps a factual recounting of the steps necessary to deliver will be helpful. And consider that you are probably valuable to your colleague, who might be just as concerned about losing your goodwill as you are about harming the relationship. At the minimum, some testing is in order.
You don't have to become a miser, hoarding currency and constantly reminding people of their debts, to stake legitimate claims when others fail to notice your efforts. At the very least, initiate a direct conversation in which you ask straightforwardly but politely if your view that your efforts on their behalf are being ignored matches theirs. Until your colleague understands your side of things, you are tossing away the ball before the match has started. Raising the question doesn't guarantee the response you desire, but at least it puts the ball in play.
Reframing a Personal Need into a Possible Benefit to the Boss; (Jim and Wes)
Jim encountered a problem with Wes, his boss, who tended to withhold information. Jim was often first told about new plans coming down from corporate headquarters by his own subordinates, which wreaked havoc on Jim's credibility and influence.
For example, Jim found out from one of his people that corporate was planning a major divestiture of another division. The subordinate was clearly surprised, then embarrassed, that Jim hadn't yet heard.
Jim's previous attempts to ask Wes to keep him better informed had produced no results. Jim began to fear that Wes saw him as demanding and insecure. To get better information, Jim needed to provide something Wes valued. Rather than emphasizing what he needed for himself, Jim went to Wes and said, “We've talked before about the importance to our department of being seen as knowledgeable and on top of issues. As you've said many times, we get credibility by being ‘in the know.’ I agree with that and want to deliver, but sometimes I can't. When things are breaking and I don't hear from you, the department looks foolish. Could we set up a ten-minute meeting each Tuesday morning where you can quickly brief me on what's coming down the pike?”
Phrasing his request in terms of Wes's (and the organization's) best interests—rather than just Jim's—finally did the trick. Jim offered Wes currency—departmental reputation—that Wes valued enough to hold regular meetings.
Reluctance to Demand What You Need.
A variation of failing to remind people of legitimate obligations is failing to make clear demands for your primary goals. This happens when you know you can't give orders and you expect the other person to be resistant, so you speak only indirectly about what you want. If you are doing an important project not for your personal glory but for true business reasons, you don't have to hold back and sound mealy-mouthed or try to back into your request. Just asserting that your cause is just may not be enough unless you help others see how compliance gets them something desired, but requesting with confidence helps.
Reluctance to Collect Debts.
Sheila Sheldon, a curator of an important collection at a major art museum, complained that she accommodated many other department heads' needs, but they didn't respond well to her requests. “I'm always going out of my way for people, lending staff members for projects, researching questions, or giving up storage space. But I can't bring myself to remind them when I want something. They should know! That's the least I can expect if they're good colleagues. Why can't they live up to their obligations?”
Sheila's model of influence and relationships depended solely on her colleagues' awareness of her effort, its value to them, and their goodwill, any of which could be lacking. Did they realize how much she had inconvenienced herself for them? Did they think she was only doing her job? Did they find the usefulness of her gestures far more modest than she had thought? Because she always suffered in silence, were they completely oblivious to her efforts and her need for reciprocity, or were they led to believe she was happy to be self-sacrificing? Without raising the issue, she had no way of finding out.
Monitor Your Self-Awareness
To achieve all the power of which you are capable, you must understand yourself as well as your potential ally. Use the checklist in Table 5.2 to monitor your self-awareness.
Table 5.2 Self-Awareness Checklist
|
Pay careful attention to the questions on the checklist if you want to be as powerful as possible. You will then be able to gain influence by making successful exchanges.
This should help you get the most from your capacity for influence. Next, in Chapter 6, we discuss in greater depth how to acquire, build, and repair relationships needed for influence.