How can one person get someone to do something with ease, while it's
an uphill battle for someone else? The answer is being able to use
influence and being persuasive, without the use of power or control.
Our organizations and management styles are quickly evolving to
accommodate our changing world and workforce. Gone are the days of the
command and control management style and autocratic decision makers.
Most best practice organizations use team approaches, and empower
workers to think and perform independently. Effective communication is
become more important that ever, especially as workers are being
encouraged to ask questions of "why?" Technology makes information
more widely available and delivered more quickly than ever before
forcing us to move quickly on new decisions. The more adept leaders
are at the art and science of using influence and persuasion, the more
likely the goals of the organization will be successfully met with less
frustration and resistance.
Contrary to popular belief, persuasion is not a bad thing.
Persuasion is not the same as manipulation. The difference is the
intent behind the action. While persuasion can be used as a tool to
manipulate, ill intent and self-serving motives are the hallmark of
manipulation.
A number of psychologists, brain researchers,
self-help gurus and sales training experts have added a considerable
body of knowledge in recent years regarding how leaders, or anyone for
that matter can be more persuasive.
Kevin Hogan, widely acknowledged as one of the foremost researchers and trainers in the area of persuasion, argues in his books, such as The Science of Influence, The Psychology of Persuasion and Covert Persuasion,
focus considerably on NLP principles of mastering rapport and using
non-verbal communication to first connect more powerfully with people
and then influence them to help you achieve mutually beneficials.
Robert Cialdini, who wrote the book, Influence, and co-authored Yes! 50 Scientifically Proven Way to Be Persuasive,
tapped into extensive brain research to illustrate effective strategies
and techniques, many of which are counter intuitive, that can be used
to become more persuasive in dealing with people. They argue that
leaders, to be more effective need to activate reciprocity with people
by being positive, doing good deeds, sharing information openly, and
helping others and focusing on others' positive attributes, rather than
finding their weaknesses.
Allan R. Cohen and David L. Bradford, authors of Influence Without Authority, explain how to coax cooperation from people who control resources, information and support you need to succeed.
The use of influence and persuasion is a wonderful tool for moving organizations and people forward, inspiring others to reach beyond their current borders and by creating motivated teams. The best leaders have a firm grasp on how to help people develop trust and ownership through the use of influence and persuasion.
What's clear is that no matter what your organizational position or what kinds of clients and customers you have, part of your success depends on being able to influence and persuade people over whom you have no official or assigned control in addition to those that you do.
Ray Williams is Co-Founder of Success IQ University and President of Ray Williams Associates, companies located in Phoenix and Vancouver, providing leadership training, persoanl growth and executive coaching services.
Related Stories: | Topics:Leadership, Management, Careers, happiness, success, teamwork, Work/Life, workplace, Ray Williams, Robert Cialdini, Allan Cohen, David Bradford, Kevin Hogan |
Email
Digg
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Buzz Up!
LinkedIn
Recent Comments | 3 Total
June 20, 2009 at 9:17am by Peter Freeth
An organisation with around 200 employees working in the public sector asked us to develop a coaching program for their senior managers which would accelerate the implementation of their new strategy.
An ambitious 10 year business plan needed strong leadership to guide an underlying culture change, shifting the focus of the business from a public sector mentality to one of business and commercial awareness. The CEO had been in place for only a short time, having been promoted rapidly from company accountant to Finance Director to CEO.
We coached the CEO to develop this strategy, and this evolved into a coaching program for the senior managers, supporting them in implementing the strategy in their own areas of the business.
From the beginning, the CEO avoided key issues during coaching and inconsistencies began to show during conversations between the CEO and the Directors. During a strategy workshop, Directors closed ranks, recited rehearsed statements about the strategy and looked to the CEO for approval.
After just two months into the coaching program, it was clear that some managers' ideas to implement the strategy were being blocked, whilst others were contradicting themselves and avoiding accountability. The CEO was continuing to avoid key issues and was making very little progress overall.
The main issue appeared to be the avoidance of accountability. Staff would avoid work that they were not interested in and their managers would take on extra work rather than make individuals accountable for their actions, so work flowed up the organisational structure rather than down and managers took on a higher workload resulting in longer working hours, greater stress, mistrust and resentment .
We called a meeting with the CEO and told her that we were closing the coaching program.
The fundamental issue was that the CEO was manipulating her managers and the board in order to support her own hidden agenda; her early exit. She knew that she did not have enough experience as a CEO to secure her next position, so the only option was a significant achievement in the form of a merger with another organisation which would give her an instant successor from outside the organisation, enabling her to block succession from within. She had already removed two Directors and had identified a third who she was setting up to fail in key performance areas. She influenced board elections to ensure support from new members and gave the impression that she was protecting her team from the board in order to control communication between them.
This complex system of control and manipulation bred mistrust, avoidance and dishonesty throughout the management team and began to create a barrier to the CEO's own hidden agenda. The business was disintegrating faster than she could orchestrate her exit, and at some point the board would take the exit decision away from her, leaving her with neither the experience nor the achievements to move forwards yet equally unable to move backwards.
At our final meeting, we told the CEO that we had identified all of this, and that we were no longer part of the game. Although she was surprised at our withdrawal from the program, she admitted to everything that we said. She recognised the risk that she faced, and the danger that she was putting the company in. If we had said nothing and continued to coach her, the coaching would have been ineffective because of her manipulation and avoidance. By admitting to her behaviour, she had taken responsibility for it and no longer needed coaching. Either way, our feedback was more valuable than any coaching ever could be.
www.askrevelation.com