Chapter 3 – what is influencing

‘Influencing’ is the process by which we obtain what we want by affecting the thoughts, feelings and behaviors of others who
are able to make decisions that affect ourselves and over whom we may have limited or no formal authority. Influencing is not
a one-shot event. You are unlikely to prevail by attempting a single act of influence. Influencing is an interactive
process spread across many events and interactions. Influencing behavior serves a purpose. It aims to secure for
influencers – immediately or at some time in the future – something that they want, be it a policy preference, a
promotion, access to resources, a decision they prefer, continuation of policies they adhere to, changes in policies to
which they are opposed, or anything that motivates them in or around the organization in which they operate.

Influencing behavior is unlike negotiation, where we obtain what we want from somebody who wants something
from us. In negotiation, there is an explicit exchange or trade. The transaction is immediate, Simultaneous and
bounded by contractual laws and obligations. In an influencing transaction there is only an implicit exchange,
unbounded by laws of contract or even recognition by the target players that they are being influenced.

Benefits of Influence: In flatter orgs. Managers need to interact. Influence is an informal encounter. Usually do not
have authority over those you are trying to influence.
Influence and the modern manager - In the traditional bureaucratic organization, individual discretion is strictly
limited, closely monitored and subject to formal audits of accountability – and not just when things go wrong. There
is a formal hierarchy of authority through which individual units must communicate. Where it is not prohibited,
lateral communication is restricted and individual initiative discouraged. People are accountable upwards and not
downwards or sideways. Influence is associated with a person’s position in the formal hierarchy and is acquired
solely by promotion. For modern managers the traditional org is not the norm. Downsizing has had a noticeable
effect in flattening of organizations and managers forcing discretion downwards. More is demanded of the managers
– behavioral complexities increase.
In a modern management structure (futuristic) – highly skilled and committed teams guide the process, working
environment would welcome success, management style would be consultative and neither arbitrary nor tyrannical,
would be egalitarian in terms of rights, managers by being highly visible would exhibit leadership, guidance, advice
and support rather than direction and instructions, they would exert discipline by example not coercion.
Communication would be upwards, downward, lateral and diagonal to ensure that orgs goals and objectives were
clearly understood and prioritized were clear. Investment in training and development would be a permanent feature
of orgs. Budgets and plans.
Relationships and results – Business orgs have culture as well as structural differences. Blake and Mouton
Managerial Grid – developed five combinations of results and relationships. (improvised, organization man,
authority-obedience, country club, and team management). The author of the book has divided them in 4 –
(cooperative, competitive, collegiate, and cooperative. High relation ships are associated with informal networks of
friends that cut across organization’s functional boundaries. Low relationships are associated with low tolerance of
poor performance. Results are about being task centered. High results managers get the job done. Low results
managers play down group results and eschew punishments for individual poor performance.
collegiate – requires people to work around formal
structures. They are large, successful, mature organizations.
Competitive –are results oriented. Managers are paid highly
are required to perform above the norm tolerated in
collegiate environment. (e.g. big four accountancy firms)
Have high staff turnover from individual burnout and forced
disengagement.
Compartmentalized – high flyers – who are ambitious for
themselves and not the group. Pursue individual tasks. i.e
consultancy arm of accountancy and law firms, university
academic departments.
Cooperative – combines relationship with tight focus on
achieving org results. (.e computer and software sectors.)

Trust level higher in the high relationship firms.

 Chapter 3 – what is influencing
Stakeholders: Shareholders - they provide capital in exchange for shares in a company. Always have the right
of last or even first to resort to sell their shares – if they don’t like the firm’s performance, policies of board or even
the personalities of the members. Some shareholders prefer income some growth. Employees and trade unions –
senior level managers have separate interests than the unskilled blue collar employees. Newer orgs tend to be flatter
with fewer level of management. Unionized employees tend to be influenced by the policies of their trade unions.
Suppliers – Two other stakeholders that influence the policy and performance are suppliers and the customers of the
firm. A single supplier or a single customer
has a different influence to one of many
suppliers or many hundreds of thousands of
customers. A large part of suppliers influence
on a company has to do with service level,
quality, reliability and responsiveness of the
firm’s dependence. Influence is related to the
degree of dependency we have on another’s
“goodwill”.
Final Customers: All production is
ultimately aimed at final customers or
consumers. Customers have the options in
competitive markets. Companies invest in
brands to create loyalty. Governments –
Their role is complex. They can’t be ignored as a stakeholder due to their determining trade value, currencies
policies, grants and penalties, strategic investment, purchasing levels, health, education, police and defense policies
and others. All of the above stakeholders are made up of individuals who bring their own degrees of interpretation.
Identifying the stakeholders is a first step – you still have to influence the people who make up the group.
EPILOGUE
Formal titles, job descriptions, organizational charts, detailed procedure manuals and legal statutes do not cover the
extent to which people interact on a persontoperson basis within an organization. True, some behaviors are
prohibited by law (racism, sexual harassment, bullying, bribery, coercion and such like) and others are restricted by
procedures (against favoritism, requirements of advantageous disclosure, public notice of job vacancies and tenders,
double signatures on cheques, annual audits and such like) but there would never be enough laws or means to
enforce them to control the myriad interactions of people going about their business. Influencing flourishes in the
gaps between laws and procedures. It is about ‘affecting the thoughts, feelings and behaviors of others who are able
to make
decisions that affect ourselves and over whom we may have limited or no formal authority’. Influencing is about
managing without power. If you have power – the ability to compel people to do what they otherwise would not –
you may not need influencing processes to get what you want, though you can use your power to extend your
informal influence over the people that your power does not reach. If you do not have power or authority (the right
to compel people to do what they otherwise would not) you can only get your way by grace of their benevolence or
by the exercise of your influence.