mgmt6

Too often organizational members fail to recognize just how much ability they have to influence others in the organization through mutually beneficial exchanges.

Influence Without Authority: The Use of Alliances, Reciprocity, And Exchange To Accomplish Work

Allan R. Cohen David L. Bradford

ill Healton is the director of research at a $250 million division of a large West Coast com- pany. The division manufactures exotic telecommunications components and has many technical advancements to its credit. During the past several years, however, the division's performance has been spotty at best; multimillion dollar losses have been ex- perienced in some years despite many efforts to make the division more profitable. Several large contracts have resulted in major finan- cial losses, and in each instance the various parts of the division blamed the others for the problems. Listen to Bill's frustration as he talks about his efforts to influence Ted, a col-

league who is marketing director, and Ro- land, the program manager who reports to Ted.

Another program is about to come through. Roland is a nice guy, but he knows nothing and never will. He was responsible for our last big loss, and now he's in charge of this one. I've tried to convince Ted, his boss, to get Roland off the program, but I get no- where. Although Ted doesnt argue that Roland is capable, he doesn't act to find someone else. Instead, he comes to me with worries about my area.

I decided to respond by changing my staffing plan, assigning to Roland's program the people they wanted. I had to override my staff's best judgment about who should be assigned. Yet I'm not getting needed progress reports from Roland, and he's never

ALLAN R. COHEN is The Walter H. Carpenter

Professor of Management at Babson College in Wellesley. Massachusetts. In January 1989. he completed a term as chairman of the manage- ment division there. He specializes in organiza- tional change, leadership, negotiations, and experience-based education.

Cohen's best-selling book with David Brad- ford, Managing for Excellence: The Guide to High Performance in Contemporary Organiza- tions (}ohn Wile}/ & Sons. 1984) has been de- veloped into a three-day training package through Wilson Learning Corporation. His coauthored textbook. Effective Behavior in Or- ganizations (Richard D. Irwin. 4th ed., 19881 is used by more than 300 colleges and universi- ties. His book with Herman Gadon. Alterna- tive Work Schedules: Integraling Individual and Organizational Needs (Addison-Wesley, 1978). received a best book award by the American Society for Personnel Administration (ASPA).

Cohen has consulted on organizational change and leadership for a variety of compa- nies. He holds an A.B. degree from Amherst College and M.B.A. and D.B.A. degrees from Harvard Business School. He and his coauthor. David Bradford, are completing a new book on influence without authority to be published by John Wiley & Sons in autumn 1989. The book builds on the ideas in this article.

available for planning. I get little argument from him, but there's no action to correct the problem. That's bad because I'm responding but not getting any re- sponse.

There's no way [0 resolve this. If they disagree, that's it. I could go to a tit-for-tat strategy, saying that if they don't do what I want, we'll get even with them next time. But I don'l know how lo do that without hurting the organization, which would feel worse than getting even!

Ted, Roland's boss, is so much better than his predecessor that I hate to ask that he be removed. We could go together to our boss, the general manager, but I'm very reluctant to do that. You've failed in a matrix organization if you have to go to your boss. I have to try hard because I'd look bad if I had to throw it in his lap.

Meanwhile, I'm being forceful, but Im afraid it's in a destructive way. I don't want to wait until the pro- gram has failed to be told it was all my fault.

Bill is clearly angry and frustrated, leading him to behave in ways that he does not feel good about. Like other managers who very much want to influence an un- cooperative co-worker whom they cannot control, Bill has begun to think of the intran- sigent employee as the enemy. Bill's anger is narrowing his sense of what is possible; he fantasizes revenge but is too dedicated to the organization to actually harm it. He is genu- inely stuck.

Organizational members who want to make things happen often find themselves in this position. Irrespective of whether they are staff or line employees, professionals or managers, they find it increasingly necessary to influence colleagues and superiors. These critical others control needed resources, pos- sess required information, set priorities on important activities, and have to agree and cooperate if plans are to be implemented. They cannot be ordered around because they are under another area's control and can le- gitimately say no because they have many other valid priorities. They respond only when they choose to. Despite the clear need

and appropriateness of what is being asked for (certainly as seen by the person who is making the request), compliance may not be forthcoming.

All of this places a large burden on organizational members, who are expected not only to take initiatives but also to re- spond intelligently to requests made of them by others. Judgment is needed to sort out the value of the many requests made of anyone who has valuable resources to contribute. As Robert Kaplan argued in his article "Trade Routes: The Manager's Network of Relation- ships" {Organizational Dynamics, Spring 1984), managers must now develop the or- ganizational equivalent of "trade routes" to get things done. Informal networks of mutual influence are needed. In her book The Change Masters (Simon & Schuster, 1983) Rosabeth Moss Kanter showed that develop- ing and implementing all kinds of innova- tions requires coalitions to be built to shape and support new ways of doing business.

A key current problem, then, is finding ways to develop mutual Influence without the formal authority to command. A peer can not "order" a colleague to change pri- orities, modify an approach, or implement a grand new idea. A staff member cannot "command" his or her supervisor to back a proposal, fight top management for greater resources, or allow more autonomy. Even Bill Heatton, in dealing with Roland (who was a level below him in the hierarchy but in an- other department), could not dictate that Roland provide the progress reports that Bill so desperately wanted.

DAVID L. BRADFORD IS a lecturer in organiza-

tiorial behavior at the Graduate School of Busi- ness. Stanford University. He received his Ph.D. degree from the University of Michigan and was a member of the faculty at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. He was the founder and first executive director of the Organiza- tionai Behavior Teaching Society. He also has consulted with a variety of organizations in the public and private sectors.

Bradford's research interests have fo- cused on the types of leadership, interpersonal. and group behaviors that produce extraordi- nary performance in organizations. Out of this work came the book Managing for Excellence: The Guide to High Performance in Contem- porary Organizations (lohn Wiley & Sons. 1984) and a new book on influence without au- thority (to be published by John Wiley & Sons in autumn 1989). Both books were coauthored by Allan Cohen.

one good (or bad) deed deserves another. This belief is held by people in primitive and not-so-primitive societies all around the world, and it serves as the grease that allows the organizational wheels to turn smoothly. Because people expect that their actions will

EXCHANGE AND THE LAW OF RECIPROCITY

The way influence is acquired without formal authority is through the "law of reciproc- ity"—the almost universal belief that people should be paid back for what they do, that

be paid back in one form or another, influ- ence is possible.

In the case of Bill Heatton, his ina- bility to get what he wanted from Roland and Ted stemmed from his failure to understand fully how reciprocity works in organizations. He therefore was unable to set up mutually beneficial exchanges. Bill believed that he had gone out of his way to help the marketing department by changing his staffing patterns, and he expected Roland to reciprocate by providing regular progress reports. When Roland failed to provide the reports. Bill be- lieved that Ted was obligated to remove Roland from the project. When Ted did not respond. Bill became angry and wanted to retaliate. Thus Bill recognized the appropri- ateness of exchange in making organizations work. However, he did not understand how exchange operates.

Before exploring in detail how ex- change can work in dealing with colleagues and superiors, it is important to recognize that reciprocity is the basic principle behind all organizational transactions. For example, the basic employment contract is an exchange

("an honest day's work for an honest day's pay"). Even work that is above and beyond what is formally required involves exchange. The person who helps out may not necessar- ily get (or expect) immediate payment for the extra effort requested, but some eventual compensation is expected.

Think of the likely irritation an em- ployee would feel if his or her boss asked him or her to work through several weekends, never so much as said thanks, and then claimed credit for the extra work. The em- ployee might not say anything the first time this happened, expecting or hoping that the boss would make it up somehow. However, if the effort were never acknowledged in any way, the employee, like most people, would feel that something important had been vio- lated.

The expectation of reciprocal ex- changes occurs between an employee and his or her supervisor, among peers, with higher- level managers in other parts of the organiza- tion, or all of the above. The exchange can be of tangible goods, such as a budget increase, new equipment, or more personnel; of tangi-

"The expectation of reciprocal exchanges occurs hetween an employee and his or her supervisor, among peers, with higher-level managers in other parts of the organization, or all of the above. . . . Whatever form exchanges take, unless they are roughly equivalent over time, hard

8 feelings will result."

ble services, such as a faster response time, more information, or public support; or of sentiments, such as gratitude, admiration, or praise. Whatever form exchanges take, unless they are roughly equivalent over time, hard feelings will result.

Exchanges enable people to handle the give-and-take of working together with- out strong feelings of injustice arising. They are especially important during periods of rapid change because the number of requests that go far beyond the routine tends to esca- late. In those situations, exchanges become less predictable, more free-floating, and spontaneous. Nevertheless, people still ex- pect that somehow or other, sooner or later, they will be (roughly) equally compensated for .the acts they do above and beyond those that are covered by the formal exchange agreements in their job. Consequently, some kind of "currency" equivalent needs to be worked out, implicitly if not explicitly, to keep the parties in the exchange feeling fairly treated.

CURRENCIES: THE SOURCE OF INFLUENCE

If the basis of organizational influence de- pends on mutually satisfactory exchanges, then people are influential only insofar as they can offer something that others need. Thus power comes from the ability to meet others' needs.

A useful way to think of how the process of exchange actually works in organi- zations is to use the metaphor of "currencies." This metaphor provides a powerful way to conceptualize what is important to the in- fluencer and the person to be influenced. Just as many types of currencies are traded in the world financial market, many types are "traded" in organizational life. Too often peo- ple think only of money or promotion and status. Those "currencies," however, usually

are available only to a manager in dealing with his or her employees. Peers who want to influence colleagues or employees who want to influence their supervisors often feel help- less. They need to recognize that many types of payments exist, broadening the range of what can be exchanged.

Some major currencies that are commonly valued and traded in organiza- tions are listed in Exhibit 1. Although not ex- haustive, the list makes evident that a person does not have to be at the top of an organiza- tion or have hands on the formal levers of power to command multiple resources that others may value.

Part of the usefulness of currencies comes from their flexibility. For example, there are many ways to express gratitude and to give assistance. A manager who most values the currency of appreciation could be paid through verbal thanks, praise, a public statement at a meeting, informal comments to his peers, and/or a note to her boss. How- ever, lhe same note of thanks seen by one per- son as a sign of appreciation may be seen by another person as an attempt to brownnose or by a third person as a cheap way to try to repay extensive favors and service. Thus cur- rencies have value not in some abstract sense but as defined by the receiver.

Although we have stressed the inter- active nature of exchange, "payments" do not always have to be made by the other person. They can be self-generated to fit beliefs about being virtuous, benevolent, or committed to the organization's welfare. Someone may re- spond to another person's request because it reinforces cherished values, a sense of iden- tity, or feelings of self-worth. The exchange is interpersonally stimulated because the one who wants influence has set up conditions that allow this kind of self-payment to occur by asking for cooperation to accomplish or- ganizational goals. However, the person who responds because "il is the right thing to do" 9

and who feels good about being the "kind of person who does not act out of narrow self- interest" is printing currency (virtue) that is self-satisfying.

Of course, the five categories of cur- rencies listed in Exhibit 1 are not mutually ex- clusive. When the demand from the other person is high, people are likely to pay in sev- eral currencies across several categories. They may, for example, stress the organizational value of their request, promise to return the favor at a later time, imply that it will in- crease the other's prestige in the organization, and express their appreciation.

ESTABLISHING EXCHANGE RATES

What does it take to pay back in a currency that the other party in an exchange will per- ceive as equivalent? In impersonal markets, because everything is translated into a com- mon monetary currency, it generally is easy to say what a fair payment is. Does a ton of steel equal a case of golfclubs? By translating both into dollar equivalents, a satisfactory deal can be worked out.

In interpersonal exchanges, how- ever, the process becomes a bit more compli- cated. Just how does someone repay another person's willingness to help finish a report? Is a simple thank-you enough? Does it also re- quire the recipient to say something nice about the helper to his or her boss? Whose standard of fairness should be used? What if one person's idea of fair repayment is very different from the other's?

Because of the natural differences in the way two parties can interpret the same ac- tivity, establishing exchanges that both par- ties will perceive as equitable can be prob- lematic. Thus it is critical to understand what is important to the person to be influenced. Without a clear understanding of what that person experiences and values, it will be ex-

10 tremely difficult for anyone to thread a path

through the minefield of creating mutually satisfactory exchanges.

Fortunately, the calibration of equiv- alent exchanges in the interpersonal and or- ganizational worlds is facilitated by the fact that approximations will do in most cases. Occasionally, organizational members know exactly what they want in return for favors or help, but more often they will settle for very rough equivalents (providing that there is reasonable goodwill).

THE PROCESS OF EXCHANGE

To make the exchange process effective, the influencer needs to (1) think about the person to be influenced as a potential ally, not an ad- versary; (2) know the world of the potential ally, including the pressures as well as the per- son's needs and goals; (3) be aware of key goals and available resources that may be valued by the potential ally; and (4) under- stand the exchange transaction itself so that win-win outcomes are achieved. Each of these factors is discussed below.

Potential Ally, Not Adversary.

A key to influence is thinking of the other person as a potential ally. Just as many con- temporary organizations have discovered the importance of creating strategic alliances with suppliers and customers, employees who want influence within the organization need to create internal allies. Even though each party in an alliance continues to have freedom to pursue its own interests, the goal is to find areas of mutual benefit and develop trusting, sustainable relationships. Similarly, each person whose cooperation is needed in- side the organization is a potential ally. Each still has self-interests to pursue, but those self- interests do not preclude searching for and building areas of mutual benefit.

Seeing other organizational mem-

'k-

Exhibit 1

COMMONLY TRADED ORGANIZATIONAL CURRENCIES

Inspiration-Related Currencies

Vision

Excellence

Moral/Ethical Correctness

Task-Related Currencies

Resources

Assistance

Cooperation

Information

Position-Related Currencies

Advancement

Recognition

Visibility

Reputation

Importance / Insiderness

Network /Contacts

Relationship-Related Currencies

Acceptance/Inclusion

Personal Support

Understanding

Personal-Related Currencies

Self-Concept

Challenge/Learning

Ownership/ Involvement

Gratitude

Being involved in a task that has larger significance for the unit, organization, customers, or society.

Having a chance to do important things really well.

Doing what is "right" by a higher standard than efficiency.

Lending or giving money, budget increases, personnel, space, and so forth.

Helping with existing projects or undertaking unwanted tasks.

Giving task support, providing quicker response time, approving a project, or aiding implementation.

Providing organizational as well as technical knowledge.

Giving a task or assignment that can aid in promotion.

Acknowledging effort, accomplishment, or abilities.

Providing chance to be known by higher-ups or significant others in the organization.

Enhancing the way a person is seen.

Offering a sense of importance, of "belonging."

Providing opportunities for linking with others.

Providing closeness and friendship.

Giving personal and emotional backing.

Listening to others' concerns and issues.

Affirming one's values, self-esteem, and identity. ^

Sharing tasks that increase skills and abilities.

Letting others have ownership and influence.

Expressing appreciation or indebtedness.

11

bers as potential allies decreases the chance that adversarial relationships will develop — an ali-too-frequent result {as in the case of Bill Heatton) when the eager influencer does not quickly get the assistance or cooperation needed. Assuming that even a difficult person is a potential ally makes it easier to under- stand that person's world and thereby dis- cover what that person values and needs.

The Potential Ally's World

We have stressed the importance of knowing the world of the potential ally. Without awareness of what the ally needs (what cur- rencies are valued), attempts to influence that person can only be haphazard. Although this conclusion may seem self-evident, it is remarkable how often people attempt to in- fluence without adequate information about what is important to the potential ally. In- stead, they are driven by their own definition of "what should be" and "what is right" when they should be seeing the world from the other person's perspective.

For example. Bill Heatton never thought about the costs to Ted of removing Roland from the project. Did Ted believe he could coach Roland to perform better on this project? Did Ted even agree that Roland had done a poor job on the previous project, or did Ted think Roland had been hampered by other departments' shortcomings? Bill just did not know.

Several factors can keep the in- fluencer from seeing the potential ally clearly. As with Bill Heatton, the frustration of meet- ing resistance from a potential ally can get in the way of really understanding the other person's world. The desire to influence is so strong that only the need for cooperation is visible to the influencer. As a result of not be- ing understood, the potential ally digs in, making the influencer repeat an inappropri-

12 ate strategy or back off in frustration.

When a potential ally's behavior is not understandable ("Why won't Roland send the needed progress reports?"), the influencer tends to stereotype that person. If early at- tempts to influence do not work, the in- fluencer is tempted to write the person off as negative, stubborn, selfish, or "just another bean counter/whiz kid/sales-type" or what- ever pejorative label is used in that organiza- tional culture to dismiss those organizational members who are different.

Although some stereotypes may have a grain of truth, they generally conceal more than they reveal. The actuary who un- derstands that judgment, not just numbers, is needed to make decisions disappears as an in- dividual when the stereotype of "impersonal, detached number machine" is the filter through which he or she is seen. Once the stereotype is applied, the frustrated in- fluencer is no longer likely to see what cur- rencies that particular potential ally actually values.

Sometimes, the lack of clear under- standing about a potential ally stems from the influencer's failure to appreciate the or- ganizational forces acting on the potential ally. To a great extent, a person's behavior is a result of the situation in which that person works (and not just his or her personality). Potential allies are embedded in an organiza- tional culture that shapes their interests and responses. For example, one of the key deter- minants of anyones behavior is likely to be the way the person's performance is measured and rewarded. In many instances, what is mistaken for personal orneriness is merely the result of the person's doing something that wiil be seen as good performance in his or her function.

The salesperson who is furious be- cause the plant manager resists changing pri- orities for a rush order may not realize that part of the plant manager's bonus depends on holding unit costs down —a task made easier

with long production runs. The plant mana- ger's resistance does not necessarily reflect his or her inability to be flexible or lack of con- cern about pleasing customers or about the company's overall success.

Other organizational forces that can affect the potential ally's behavior include the daily time demands on that person's posi- tion; the amount of contact the person has with customers, suppliers, and other out- siders; the organization's information flow (or lack of it); the style of the potential ally's boss; the belief and assumptions held by that person's co-workers; and so forth. Although some of these factors cannot be changed by the influencer, understanding them can be useful in figuring out how to frame and time requests. It also helps the influencer resist the temptation to stereotype the noncooperator.

Self-Awareness of the Influencer

Unfortunately, people desiring influence are not always aware of precisely what they want. Often their requests contain a cluster of needs (a certain product, arranged in a certain way, delivered at a specified time). They fail

to think through which aspects are more im- portant and which can be jettisoned if neces- sary. Did Bill Heatton want Roland removed, or did he want the project effectively man- aged? Did he want overt concessions from Ted, or did he want better progress reports?

Further, there is a tendency to con- fuse and intermingle the desired end goal with the means of accomplishing it, leading to too many battles over the wrong things. In The Change Masters, Kanter reported that success- ful influencers in organizations were those who never lost sight of the ultimate objective but were willing to be flexible about means.

Sometimes influencers underesti- mate the range of currencies available for use. They may assume, for example, that just be- cause they are low in the organization they have nothing that others want. Employees who want to influence their boss are espe- cially likely not to realize all of the supervi- sor's needs that they can fulfill. They become so caught up with their feelings of powerless- ness that they fail to see the many ways they can generate valuable currencies.

In other instances, influencers fail to be aware of their preferred style of interaction

Teople who desire influence are not always aware of precisely what they want. Often their requests contain a cluster of needs (a certain product, arranged in a certain way, delivered at a specified time). They fail to think through which aspects are more important and which can he jettisoned if necessary" • . 13

and its fit with the potential ally's preferred style. Everyone has a way of relating to others to get work done. However, like the fish who is unaware of the water, many people are oblivious of their own style of interaction or see it as the only way to be. Yet interaction style can cause problems with potential allies who are different.

For example, does the influencer tend to socialize first and work later? If so, that style of interaction will distress a poten- tial ally who likes to dig right in to solve the problem at hand and only afterward chat about sports, family, or office politics. Does the potential ally want to be approached with answers, not problems? If so, a tendency to start influence attempts with open-ended, ex- ploratory problem solving can lead to rejec- tion despite good intentions.

Nature of the Exchange Transaction

Many of the problems that occur in the actual - exchange negotiation have their roots in the

failure to deal adequately with the first three factors outlined above. Failure to treat other people as potential allies, to understand a potential ally's world, and to be self-aware are all factors that interfere with successful exchange. In addition, some special problems commonly arise when both parties are in the process of working out a mutually satisfac- tory exchange agreement.

• Not knowing how to use reciproc- ity. Using reciprocity requires stating needs clearly without "crying wolf," being aware of the needs of an ally without being manipula- tive, and seeking mutual gain rather than playing "winner takes all." One trap that Bill Heatton fell into was not being able to "close on the exchange." That is, he assumed that if he acted in good faith and did his part, others would automatically reciprocate. Part of his failure was not understanding the other

14 party's world; another part was not being

able to negotiate cleanly with Ted about what each of them wanted. It is not even clear that Ted realized Bill was altering his organization as per Ted's requests, that Ted got what he wanted, or that Ted knew Bill intended an ex- change of responses.

• Preferring to be right rather than effective. This problem is especially endemic to professionals of all kinds. Because of their dedication to the "truth" (as their profession defines it), they stubbornly stick to their one right way when trying to line up potential al- lies instead of thinking about what will work given the audience and conditions. Organiza- tional members with strong technical back- grounds often chorus the equivalent of "I'll be damned if I'm going to sell out and become a phony salesman, trying to get by on a shoe- shine and smile." The failure to accommodate to the potential ally's needs and desires often kills otherwise sound ideas.

• Overusing what has been success- ful. When people find that a certain ap- proach is effective in many situations, they often begin to use it in places where it does not fit. By overusing the approach, they block more appropriate methods. Just as a weight lifter becomes muscle-bound from overdeveloping particular muscles at the ex- pense of others, people who have been reasonably successful at influencing other people can diminish that ability by overusing the same technique.

For example, John Brucker, the hu- man resources director at a medium-size company, often cultivated support for new programs by taking people out to fancy restaurants for an evening of fine food and wine. He genuinely derived pleasure from en- tertaining, but at the same time he created subtle obligations. One time, a new program he wanted to introduce required the agree- ment of William Adams, head of engineering. Adams, an old-timer, perceived Brucker's proposal as an unnecessary frill, mainly be-

cause he did not perceive the real benefits to the overall organization. Brucker responded to Adams's negative comments as he always did in such cases — by becoming more friendly and insisting that they get together for dinner soon. After several of these invitations, Adams became furious. Insulted by what he considered to be Brucker's attempts to buy him off, he fought even harder to kill the pro- posal. Not only did the program die, but Brucker lost all possibility of influencing Adams in the future. Adams saw Brucker's at- tempts at socializing as a sleazy and crude way of trying to soften him up. For his part, Brucker was totally puzzled by Adams's frostiness and assumed that he was against all progress. He never realized that Adams had a deep sense of integrity and a real commit- ment to the good of the organization. Thus Brucker lost his opportunity to sell a program that, ironically, Adams would have found valuable had it been implemented.

As the case above illustrates, a broad repertoire of influence approaches is needed in modem organizations. Johnny- one-notes soon fall flat.

THE ROLE OF RELATIONSHIPS

All of the preceding discussion needs to be conditioned by one important variable: the nature of the relationship between both par- ties. The greater the extent to which the in- fluencer has worked with the potential ally and created trust, the easier the exchange pro- cess will be. Each party will know the other's desired currencies and situational pressures, and each will have developed a mutually pro- ductive interaction style. With trust, less energy will be spent on figuring out the inten- tions of the ally, and there will be less suspi- cion about when and how the payback will

occur. A poor relationship {based on pre-

vious interactions, on the reputation each party has in the organization, and/or on stereotypes and animosities between the functions or departments that each party represents) will impede an otherwise easy ex- change. Distrust of the goodwill, veracity, or reliability of the influencer can lead to the de- mand for "no credit; cash up front," which constrains the flexibility of both parties.

The nature of the interaction during the influencer process also affects the nature of the relationship between the influencer and the other party. The way that John Brucker attempted to relate to William Adams not only did not work but also ir- reparably damaged any future exchanges be- tween them.

Few transactions within organiza- tions are one-time deals. (Who knows when the other person may be needed again or even who may be working for him or her in the fu- ture?) Thus in most exchange situations two outcomes matter: success in achieving task goals and success in improving the relation- ship so that the next interaction will be even more productive. Too often, people who want to be influential focus only on the task and act as if there is no tomorrow. Although both task accomplishment and an improved relationship cannot always be realized at the same time, on some occasions the latter can be more important than the former. Winning the battle but losing the war is an expensive outcome.

INCONVERTIBLE CURRENCIES

We have spelled out ways organizational mem- bers operate to gain influence for achieving or- ganizational goals. By effectively using ex- change, organizational members can achieve their goals and at the same time help others achieve theirs. Exchange permits organiza- tional members to be assertive without being 15

antagonistic by keeping mutual benefit a cen- tral outcome.

In many cases, organizational mem- bers fail to acquire desired influence because they do not use al! of their potential power. However, they sometimes fail because not all situations are amenable to even the best ef- forts at influencing. Not everything can be translated into compatible currencies. If there are fundamental differences in what is valued by two parties, it may not be possible to find common ground, as illustrated in the example below.

The founder and chairman of a high-technology company and the president he had hired five years previously were con- stantly displeased with one another. The president was committed to creating maxi- mum shareholder value, the currency he valued most as a result of his M.B.A. training, his position, and his temperament. Accord- ingly, he had concluded that the company was in a perfect position to cash in by squeez- ing expenses to maximize profits and going public. He could see that the company's prod- uct line of exotic components was within a few years of saturating its market and would require massive, risky investment to move to sophisticated end-user products.

The president could not influence the chairman to adopt this direction, how- ever, because the chairman valued a totally different currency, the fun of technological challenge. An independently wealthy man, the chairman had no interest in realizing the $10 million or so he would get if the company maximized profits by cutting research and selling out. He wanted a place to test his intui- tive, creative research hunches, not a source of income.

Thus the president's and chairman's currencies were not convertible into one an- other at an acceptable exchange rate. After they explored various possibilities but failed

16 to find common ground, they mutually

agreed that the president should leave —on good terms and only after a more compatible replacement could be found. Although this example acknowledges that influence through alliance, currency conversion, and exchange is not always possible, it is hard to be certain that any situation is hopeless until the person desiring influence has fully applied all of the diagnostic and interpersonal skills we have described.

Influence is enhanced by using the model of strategic alliances to engage in mutually beneficial exchanges with potential allies. Even though it is not always possible to be successful, the chances of achieving suc- cess can be greatly increased, in a period of rapid competitive, technological, regulative, and consumer change, individuals and their organizations need all the help they can get.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Some of the classic work on exchange as a process of influence was done by Peter Blau. His book The Dynamics of Bureaucracy (University of Chicago Press, 1963) was a landmark study of how tax as- sessors traded gratitude for expert assistance. When exchange is added to notions about the universality of reciprocity, as outlined by Alvin Gouldner in his pioneering article 'The Norm of Reciprocity: A Preliminary Statement" (American Sociological Review, 25, 1960), a powerful way of thinking about influence is created.

David Berlew picked up on these ideas and wrote an interesting piece addressed to people who want more influence: "What You Can Do When Persuasion Doesn't Work" {NTL Connec- tions, 1986). He discussed three types of exchange

that can be used by those attempting to get things done.

The case for managers needing to build alliances in order to accomplish work was made by Robert Kaplan in his article "Trade Routes: The Manager's Network of Relationships" {Orgamza- tional Dynamics. 1984). John Kotter found in his study of successful general managers {The General Managers, Free Press, 1982) that they had wide networks of contacts in their organizations, which helped them find the right person(s) when trying to make things happen. Rosabeth Moss Kanter's The Change Masters (Simon & Schuster, 1983) Is the best examination of the ways organization members go about achieving major innovations through alliances. It shows the steps that innova- tive members go through, including the many ways they use influence to build coalitions and overcome resistance. We have built on her work by looking with a microscope at the mechanisms be- hind the processes she describes.

Other researchers have explored in- fluence processes from many angles. David Kipnis and his collaborators found that they can catego- rize influence styles along seven dimensions. In "Patterns of Managerial Influence: Shotgun Managers, Tacticians, and Bystanders" {Organiza- tional Dynamics, 1984), they identify the problem of managers who lack organizational power (and by implication what to do about it) and therefore give up attempting to influence. John Kotter ad- dressed ways of increasing influence in Power in Management: How to Understand. Acquire and Use It, (AMACOM, 1979). He shows the advan- tages and disadvantages of different methods.

Our own book Managing for Excellence:

The Guide to High Performance in Contemporary Organizations (John Wiley & Sons, 1984) ad- dresses influence downward by arguing that shared responsibility is needed with subordinates in order to get the best from them and that treating them as full partners in the unit's management is necessary even though formal authority rests with the manager. We also show that mutual influence is needed to allow both parties to use their full strength. These ideas translate directly into lessons for influence when formal authority is lacking.

Finally, the literature of negotiations has many applications for using exchange for in- fluence. Although there are popular books on negotiating that overlook important issues of trust when relationships are ongoing within the same organization, there is much to be learned from ap- plying negotiating insights. Roger Fisher's and Wil- liam Ury's book Getting to Yes (Houghton Mifflin, 1981) is helpful on ways to approach someone to look for common interests despite having differing specific objectives. An excellent overview of the is- sues involved in any kind of negotiation can be found in Roy Lewicki and Joseph Litterer's text Negotiation (R.D. Irwin, 1985). Their discussion of exchange and equity is particularly relevant to influence as we have described it. In addition, Roy Lewicki's comments on an earlier draft of this arti- cle were particularly helpful, and we are grateful for his wisdom and generosity.

If you wish to make photocopies or obtain reprints

of this or other articles m ORGANIZATIONAL DYNAMICS, please refer to the special reprint service

instructions on page 80.

17