Episode Details

This week we look at research into the most (and least) effective influencing tactics used by leaders. We explore how we can combine approaches to enhance the way we influence others.

TRANSCRIPT

Welcome to episode seven of the Leadership Today podcast. Each week we provide practical advice to address some of today's biggest leadership challenges.

This week we're looking at influencing. Leadership is all about achieving results through people, and we're often asked to achieve results through people we don't directly manage. Therefore influence is central to our effectiveness as leaders.

There are lots of popular ideas about what makes someone influential. It could be someone's charisma or style for example. But surely it's more than just personal qualities.

For a psychologist like me, that's a cue to go to the research, and one of my favourite studies on influencing was undertaken in the early 90's by Gary Yukl and Bruce Tracey. Together they pioneered our understanding of what they called influencing tactics - the approaches that people choose to take when attempting to influence others. (Consequences of Influence Tactics Used With Subordinates, Peers, and the Boss. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1992, Vol 77, No 4, 525-535).

They determined how influential someone was in an interesting way - it wasn't just about whether people committed to an action or approach - it was also about how they rated the effectiveness of the person doing the influencing. In that way, influence was not just about short-term compliance, but also about longer-term appraisals of the individual doing the influencing.

Let's start with the three tactics that they found were least effective, namely pressure, coalition and legitimating.

Pressure is about using demands, threats or persistent reminders in an attempt to influence someone. Perhaps not surprisingly, this approach was amongst the worst, actually leading to reduced commitment to the task, and negative ratings of the individual. It turns out that people don't like being forced to do something. Now, we know this intellectually, but it's amazing how frequently people use pressure as an influencing approach. By way of example, I have three sons at home, and I can assure you, pressure is an influencing tactic I default to with them far more often than I'd like to admit.

The researchers found the coalition tactic, where I gather up others to try to influence you, is also negative as an approach. The old 'lots of people agree with me' argument might make someone feel more powerful, but it doesn't help them to influence others - at best, it's neutral.

Another approach - legitimating - sounds on the surface like a good influencing tactic. It's where I point out the rules and policies that support a particular course of action, or why my role means you should listen to me. However this tactic also failed to influence others towards action, and also led to lower ratings of effectiveness.

Why are these three approaches so ineffective? The study indicates it's because they all focus on behavioural compliance without changing attitudes. Sure - I'll do what you're asking of me while you're standing there, but as soon as you walk away I'll go back to my original position.

Leaders who rely on pressure, position and rules better be prepared to micromanage every task, because their approach to influencing requires them to micromanage every task.

So what approaches are the most effective?

Yukl and Tracey found that inspirational appeal was a particularly positive influencing tactic. This is where my request is tied to your values, ideals and aspirations, or where it builds your confidence that you can make a contribution. Making an ins