Why Influence Is a Two-Way Street

Managers achieve better outcomes when they prioritize collaborative decision-making over powers of persuasion.

- Jonathan Hughes, Jessica Wadd, and Ashley Hetrick

THE ABILITY TO WIELD INFLUENCE IS essential to getting things done in today’s complex, often matrixed organizations. Because most strategic initiatives require cross-functional collaboration, even C-suite executives often find themselves accountable for outcomes whose success depends on resources outside of their direct control. Managers we surveyed over a nine-year period reported that they had to rely on influence and collaboration with others to accomplish about one-third of their goals, on average.

In these contexts, it’s easy to equate developing influence with developing soft power that can be used to persuade others to do what you think is right. But it’s also in these contexts where the traditional model of influence can fail organizations. Most of us need to collaborate with people who have a variety of perspectives, priorities, and incentives. Different business units and functions — which, by design, have different goals, priorities, and operating procedures — must balance competing objectives and synthesize conflicting points of view in order to advance the goals and success of the enterprise as a whole.

Based on our research and consulting experience, we’ve identified four distinct approaches to influence: coercion, manipulation, selling, and joint problem-solving. (See “How Influence Is Wielded in Organizations,” p. 75.) While coercion and manipulation are, thankfully, the least common, selling — or focusing on getting others to agree with your position or perspective — is predominant. In our research, respondents who reported that people at their organizations tended to focus on getting others to agree with them outnumbered (by nearly 2 to 1) respondents who reported that a collaborative, joint problem-solving approach was most prevalent.