Influence

Understanding Influence Tactics

Graphics courtesy of Keller InstituteOpens in new window

Influence has long been recognized as an essential element of leadershipOpens in new window. A commonly used definition of leadership states that leadership is “a process of social influence in which one person is able to enlist the aid and support of others in the accomplishment of a common task.”

The nine most common ways leaders try to get direct reports and others to do what they want are listed in Table X-1, beginning with the most frequently used.

Hard Versus Soft Tactics

Some refer to the first five tactics—rational persuasion, inspirational appeals, consultation, ingratiation, and personal appeals—as soft tactics because they are friendlier than, and not as coercive as, the last four tactics—exchange, coalition, pressure, and legitimating tactics, which are hard tactics because they exert more overt pressure.

Research suggests that hard leadership tactics tend to create no commitment to action and change, or only very little. However, they create a high level of compliance. They lead to others carrying out the requested actions with little enthusiasm, but still carrying them out.

Unlike soft influence tactics that require facts and figures (rational persuasion) or necessitate gaining others’ understanding, hard tactics are simple and straightforward.

For requests that are easy and routine, like performing a straightforward, short task, and for times when compliance may be the only thing needed to accomplish a leader’s objective, hard influencing tactics are effective and efficient in terms of cost and time.

Thus, it appears that the correct leadership tactic depends on the situation. In a number of situations, hard influence tactics may be more effective and efficient than soft tactics, for example:

• Static situations — these are situations of limited change, when the required tasks are routine or standard procedures; hard influence tactics and, in particular, legitimating may be the most efficient tactic.
• Simple, clear tasks — when there is little ambiguity about a simple task, a straightforward pressure/requesting tactic is very effective and efficient.
• Urgency — when there is time pressure and actions have to happen swiftly, requesting and legitimating tactics may again be superior to soft tactics that tend to take more time to unfold.
• Leader’s relevant knowledge — when the leader knows exactly what needs to be done, either because of knowledge or previous experience, pressure/requesting tactics may work best.
  
  For example, a leader who is spearheading an organization turnaround, and who has a good understanding of the industry and the organization, and knows exactly what needs to be done (and has, for example, led a similar turnaround before) may want to use pressure/requesting, that is, command and control tactics.

Compared to hard influence tactics, soft ones are more effective for gaining commitment. But they are less efficient. That means they take more time and effort. For example, rational persuasion requires arguments and facts, which may not be readily available. A leader needs time to think through a situation and put him- or herself in someone else’s shoes.

Soft tactics are the most effective in these situations:

• Dynamic environment — when decisions need to be taken across the organization, not just by a handful of leaders, soft tactics work well since they create widespread commitment and energy in the organization.
• Complexity — soft tactics are more effective for complex tasks, which require extra effort, initiative, and persistence to carry out effectively.
• Ambiguity — in situations of ambiguity, when it isn’t totally clear to the leader what actions may be needed for success, soft tactics empower people to make decisions at lower levels of the organization, where the necessary information and facts supporting a decision may be available.

Relative Effectiveness of Influence Tactics

It is important for leaders to match tactics to influence outcomes as suggested in the following useful lessons from research and practice.

• Rely on the core. Core influence tactics—rational persuasion, consultation, collaboration, and inspirational appeals—are most effective at building commitment.
• Be authentic. Don’t try to be someone else. Be authenticOpens in new window to your values and beliefs.
• Consult rather than legitimate. Some employees are more apt to accept change when leaders rely on a consultative strategy and are more likely to resist change when leaders use a legitimate tactic.
• Ingratiation. Ingratiation is not a good long-term strategy. Ingratiation improved short-term sales goal achievement, but reduced it in the long term in a study of salespeople. Glad-handing may help today’s sales but not tomorrow’s.
• Be subtle. Subtle flattery and agreement with the other person’s opinion (both forms of ingratiation) were shown to increase the likelihood that executives would win recommendations to sit on boards of directors.
• Learn to influence. Research with corporate managers of a super-market chain showed that influence tactics can be taugh and learned. Managers who received 360-degree feedback on two occasions regarding their influence tactics showed an increased use of core influence tactics.

To be effective, leaders need to understand and effefctively apply a range of influence tactics. Leaders can learn and improve influence tactics to move resisters to compliance and move those who are compliant to commitment.