important to be able to come back to the person later?
Too often, the person desiring influence does not sort personal desires from what the job truly needs, thus creating confusion or resistance.
For example, if you are overly concerned about being right at all costs, humiliating the other person, or always having the last word, your personal concerns can become central and interfere with other more important organizational goals. Would you rather be right or effective?
The challenge here is to determine the organizational situation of potential allies that drives much of what they care about. These forces usually play an even greater role in shaping what is important to them than their personality. If for any reason you can't ask that person directly, examine the organizational forces that might shape goals, concerns, or needs. For example, how a person is measured and rewarded, the manager's and peer's expectations, where the person is in his or her career, and so on, have a powerful effect on what the person might want in exchange for cooperation, and what the costs would be for getting what you want.
This diagnostic activity helps overcome the tendency to blame bad personality, character, or motives for behavior that you do not like or understand, and can help you to see the person behind the role. Understanding the pressures that person is under can help you avoid “demonizing,” and start seeing a potential ally.
We have named the things that people care about “currencies,” because that equates something of value you have that you can exchange for something valuable they have. Most people care about more than one thing (e.g., information, resources, prestige, money, being liked). If you can identify several applicable currencies, your range of possibilities to offer in exchange is wider (Table 2.2).
Table 2.2 Sources of Currencies
Assess Your Resources Relative to the Ally's Wants. It is not unlikely that your ally wants some things that you can't offer. Therefore, it is important to know what resources you command or have access to, so that you can use a currency that fits. Because many people underestimate their resources, they conclude that they are powerless. But a careful look at the many things you can do without a budget or formal permission – your alternative currencies – can reveal potential bargaining chips. Employees lose influence, for example, by failing to see the wide range of currencies they can offer their manager, such as getting work done on time, passing on important outside information, defending their manager, or alerting the manager to potential disasters.
Laying this process out explicitly can sound a bit cold and impersonal, like pure horse-trading, but in organizational life, influence is mostly for the superordinate goal of meeting organizational objectives, whether they are mentioned or just understood. As we have mentioned, if the exchange methods become (or are seen as) only about self-interest, and not mutual benefit for organizational good, suspicion and mistrust are aroused, rendering the efforts ineffective or negative. Furthermore, the relationship with the person you are trying to influence matters going in, during, and usually after the discussions.
This has two aspects: (1) What is your current relationship with that person – positive, neutral, or negative? (2) How does that person want to be related to?
If you have a prior relationship that is good, then it will be easier to ask for what you want without proving your good intentions. If, however, the relationship has a history of mistrust – whether for personal reasons or departmental conflicts – or if there has been no prior contact, proceed with caution. You will need to pay attention to building the requisite trust and credibility.
Each person has preferred ways of being related to. Some like a thorough analysis before you launch into discussion with them, while others would rather hear preliminary ideas and brainstorm. Some want to see alternatives, whereas others want only your final conclusion. Be careful to avoid relating in your preferred style instead of the other person's. You will have more influence if you use an approach the other person finds comfortable.
Once you have determined what goods or services can be exchanged, you are ready to offer what you have for what you want. Your approach will be shaped by:
● The attractiveness of your resources
● The ally's needs for what you have
● Your desire for what the ally has
● Your organization's unwritten rules about how people can express their wants and needs
● Your prior relationship with the potential ally and the preferred style of interaction
● Your willingness to take chances for what you want
This helps you plan an approach that has the best chance of being judged on its merits. There are four general options:
Can I show that what I want is also in your best interest?
For example, can you show that your boss's long-term interests are best served if you take a short-term assignment on a time-consuming task force so your area will have a voice on a critical issue and build relationships with two other departments that have not been fully cooperative?
Can I compensate by paying in another currency?
For example, you want a colleague's help on a critical market research study to validate your product idea that does not yet have a budget, so you offer an introduction to a senior executive he wants to work with in another division, with whom you happen to have a close relationship.
[These first two options are preferred when available, because they are more tangible and easier.]
Can I promise future payment?
For example, consider something like, “If you help me on this, I will owe you big time. Would you like to be on the team making the final presentation if we are successful?”
Can I draw upon past payments that I have made?
For example, when a respected colleague is reluctant to back a project proposal that needs support, gently remind him that you worked through two weekends last year to help him finish a client project by an “impossible” deadline.
We will discuss all of these issues in more detail later in this book, but for now it is important to understand that expectations of reciprocity are vital in gaining influence.
In organizations, all influence attempts simultaneously contain both a task and a relationship component. There is the work at hand and the nature of the relationship; in addition, people seldom interact without past experiences or knowledge somehow shaping the discussion. (In fact, you don't need to have actually interacted with someone for your reputation from other interactions to be a factor in how the person will treat you.)
Furthermore, ideas about the future results for the relationship are likely also to affect the discussion. Ignoring the future risks winning the battle but losing the war. You can choose to ignore the history or the consequences of your exchange attempts on the relationship, but that could be a problem when dealing with the same party again, as you usually will in organizations.
Trust plays an important part in achieving influence. If other people consider you too calculating or interested in influence for personal benefit rather than organizational work, they will be wary, resist, or go underground to retaliate later. Thus influence in organizations over time goes to those genuinely interested in the welfare of others, those who make connections and often engage in mutually profitable exchanges. Machiavellian self-seeking behavior may work for a while, but eventually it creates enemies or lack of interest in helping, making the person who will do anything to win ineffective.
Because good relationships make it easier to gain cooperation, it pays to be generous and engage in win-win exchanges. You improve