Discussion

2. What was the most effective influence tactic have you used? Please share your experience. 

MWH, a $1 billion revenue Broomfield, Colorado, engineering firm specializing in water projects, asked 500 employees in all of its departments where they went when they came up with a new idea. This would allow MWH to determine who possessed certain types of expertise and who offered the most help to employees. In a sense, MWH is identifying the individuals in the organization who are likely to have the most power.13 Companies such as Microsoft, Pfizer, and Google are increasingly using such networking maps to understand the power structures in their organizations and who holds the most influence.14

USING INFLUENCE

Up until now, we’ve discussed the types of power leaders possess and when their opportunities to use that power will grow or diminish. Now we turn to the specific strategies that leaders use to translate that power into actual influence.

13.3

What behaviors do leaders exhibit when trying to influence others, and which of these is most effective?

Recall that having power increases our ability to influence behavior. It doesn’t mean that we will use or exert that power. Influence is the use of an actual behavior that causes behavioral or attitudinal changes in others.15 There are two important aspects of influence to keep in mind. First, influence can be seen as directional. It most frequently occurs downward (managers influencing employees) but can also be lateral (peers influencing peers) or upward (employees influencing managers). Second, influence is all relative. The absolute power of the “influencer” and “influencee” isn’t as important as the disparity between them.16

INFLUENCE TACTICS   Leaders depend on a number of tactics to cause behavioral or attitudinal changes in others. In fact, there are at least 10 types of tactics that leaders can use to try to influence others.17 These tactics and their general levels of effectiveness are illustrated in Figure 13-2. The four most effective tactics have been shown to be rational persuasion, inspirational appeals, consultation, and collaboration. Rational persuasion is the use of logical arguments and hard facts to show the target that the request is a worthwhile one. Research shows thatrational persuasion is most effective when it helps show that the proposal is important and feasible.18 Rational persuasion is particularly important because it’s the only tactic that is consistently successful in the case of upward influence.19 At Google, for example, data is all-important. CEO Larry Page has been willing to change his mind in the face of conflicting information. Douglas Merrill, former Google CIO, said, “Larry would wander around the engineers and he would see a product being developed, and sometimes he would say, ‘Oh I don’t like that,’ but the engineers would get some data to back up their idea, and the amazing thing was that Larry was fine to be wrong. As long as the data supported them, he was okay with it. And that was such an incredibly morale-boosting interaction for engineers.”20 An inspirational appeal is a tactic designed to appeal to the target’s values and ideals, thereby creating an emotional or attitudinal reaction. To use this tactic effectively, leaders must have insight into what kinds of things are important to the target. Elizabeth Holmes, from our opening case, uses stories to solidify the impact that Theranos products make on people.21 Consultation occurs when the target is allowed to participate in deciding how to carry out or implement a request. This tactic increases commitment from the target, who now has a stake in seeing that his or her opinions are valued. A leader uses collaboration by attempting to make it easier for the target to complete the request. Collaboration could involve the leader helping complete the task, providing required resources, or removing obstacles that make task completion difficult.22 Ginni Rometty, CEO of IBM and number 1 in Table 13-1 is known inside and outside the organization for her collaborative tactics. Rometty and IBM just entered into an alliance with its biggest rival Apple to bring IBM services to Apple’s iOS platform. Apple CEO Tim Cook says of Rommety, “I think she’s wicked smart. She has an incredible ability to partner and can make tough decisions and do so decisively. And she sees things as they really are.”23

Larry Page (left), CEO of Google, is known for his willingness to allow employees to use rational persuasion (data) to change his mind on an issue.

Source: Adapted from J.J. Johnson and J.B. Cullen, “Trust in Cross-Cultural Relationships,” in Blackwell Handbook of Cross-Cultural Management, ed. M.J. Gannon and K.L. Newman (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2002), pp. 335–60.

Page 419

Four other influence tactics are sometimes effective and sometimes not. Ingratiation is the use of favors, compliments, or friendly behavior to make the target feel better about the influencer. You might more commonly hear this referred to as “sucking up,” especially when used in an upward influence sense. Ingratiation has been shown to be more effective when used as a long-term strategy and not nearly as effective when used immediately prior to making an influence attempt.24 Personal appeals occur when the requestor asks for something based on personal friendship or loyalty. The stronger the friendship, the more successful the attempt is likely to be. As described in our OB Internationally feature, there are cultural differences when it comes to this kind of an appeal just as there are with other influence attempts. An exchange tactic is used when the requestor offers a reward or resource to the target in return for performing a request. This type of request requires that the requestor have something of value to offer.25 Finally, apprising occurs when the requestor clearly explains why performing the request will benefit the target personally. It differs from rational persuasion in that it focuses solely on the benefit to the target as opposed to simple logic or benefits to the group or organization. It differs from exchange, in that the benefit is not necessarily something that the requestor gives to the target but rather something that results from the action.26

Page 420

OB INTERNATIONALLY

When Google hired Kai-Fu Lee to be vice president of engineering and president of Google Greater China, with a more than $10 million compensation package, the company was counting on his continued ability to use the same skills that allowed him to be a huge success at Microsoft. What was it that Lee possessed that made him so worthwhile? Lee argues that it was his understanding of guanxi (pronounced gwan-she). In the Chinese culture, guanxi (literally translated “relationships”) is the ability to influence decisions by creating obligations between parties based on personal relationships.

Guanxi represents a relationship between two people that involves both sentiment and obligation. Individuals with high levels of guanxi tend to be tied together on the basis of shared institutions such as kinship, places of birth, schools attended, and past working relationships. Although such shared institutions might “get someone in the door” in the United States, in China, they become a higher form of obligation. Influence through guanxi just happens—it’s an unspoken obligation that must be addressed. It is, in a sense, a blend of formal and personal relationships that exists at a different level than in the United States. There is no such thing as a “business-only” relationship, and the expectation is simply that if you take, you must also give back. Lee (who left Google) and his guanxi were so great that Google’s Chinese product managers insisted that their business cards read “Special Assistant to Kai-Fu Lee” and that their desks be placed within 100 feet of his so that they could effectively do business outside the company.

Evidence suggests that companies like Microsoft and Google that possess guanxi have higher levels of performance. American managers who go to work overseas must be conscious of these different types of relationships and expectations. In addition to understanding the power of guanxi, evidence suggests that Chinese managers from different areas (e.g., Hong Kong, Taiwan, mainland China) have different beliefs when it comes to which influence tactics are the most effective. There is also recent evidence that the norms around guanxi in China are changing with time. If anything, it goes to show that managers need to be acutely aware of both general and more specific cultural differences when trying to influence others in China.

Sources: S. Levy, In the Plex: How Google Thinks, Works, and Shapes Our Lives (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2011); R. Buderi, “The Talent Magnet,” Fast Company 106 (2006), pp. 80–84; C.C. Chen, Y.R. Chen; and K. Xin, “Guanxi Practices and Trust in Management: A Procedural Justice Perspective,” Organization Science 15 (2004), pp. 200–9; R.Y.J. Chua, “Building Effective Business Relationships in China,” MIT Sloan Management Review 53 (2012), pp. 27–33; P.P. Fu., T.K. Peng, J.C. Kennedy, and G. Yukl, “A Comparison of Chinese Managers in Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Mainland China,” Organizational Dynamics 33 (2003), pp. 32–46; Y. Luo., Y. Huang, and S.L. Wang, “Guanxi and Organizational Performance: A Meta-Analysis,” Management and Organization Review 8 (2011), pp. 139–72; M. Wong, “Guanxi Management as Complex Adaptive Systems: A Case Study of Taiwanese ODI in China,” Journal of Business Ethics 91 (2010), pp. 419–32; M.M. Yang, Gifts, Favors, and Banquets: The Art of Social Relationships in China (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1994); and X. Zhang, N. Li, and B.T. Harris, “Putting Non-Work Ties to Work: The Case of Guanxi in Supervisor-Subordinate Relationships,” Leadership Quarterly 26 (2015), p. 37

The two tactics that have been shown to be least effective and could result in resistance from the target are pressure and coalitions. Of course, this statement doesn’t mean that they aren’t used or can’t be effective at times. Pressure is the use of coercive power through threats and demands. As we’ve discussed previously, such coercion is a poor way to influence others and may only bring benefits over the short term. The last tactic is the formation of coalitions. Coalitions occur when the influencer enlists other people to help influence the target. These people could be peers, subordinates, or one of the target’s superiors. Coalitions are generally used in combination with one of the other tactics. For instance, if rational persuasion is not strong enough, the influencer might bring in another person to show that that person agrees with the logic of the argument.

Page 421

Two points should be noted about leaders’ use of influence tactics. First, influence tactics tend to be most successful when used in combination.27Many tactics have some limitations or weaknesses that can be overcome using other tactics. Second, the influence tactics that tend to be most successful are those that are “softer” in nature. Rational persuasion, consultation, inspirational appeals, and collaboration take advantage of personal rather than organizational forms of power. Leaders that are the most effective at influencing others will generally rely on the softer tactics, make appropriate requests, and ensure the tactics they use match the types of power they have. Mondelez International CEO Irene Rosenfeld (number 7 in Table 13-1) is known for her ability to persuade. A former executive with Kraft said, “When she is trying to persuade you of something, she will be relentless in coming back with facts and showing you she has the support of other people, she will be totally emotionally and intellectually committed to her idea.”28

RESPONSES TO INFLUENCE TACTICS   As illustrated in Figure 13-3, there are three possible responses people have to influence tactics.29Internalization occurs when the target of influence agrees with and becomes committed to the influence request.30 For a leader, this is the best outcome because it results in employees putting forth the greatest level of effort in accomplishing what they are asked to do. Internalization reflects a shift in both the behaviors and the attitudes of employees. Compliance occurs when targets of influence are willing to do what the leader asks, but they do it with a degree of ambivalence. Compliance reflects a shift in the behaviors of employees but not their attitudes. This behavior is the most common response to influence attempts in organizations, because anyone with some degree of power who makes a reasonable request is likely to achieve compliance. That response allows leaders to accomplish their purpose, but it doesn’t bring about the highest levels of employee effort and dedication. Still, it’s clearly preferable to resistance, which occurs when the target refuses to perform the influence request and puts forth an effort to avoid having to do it. Employee resistance could come in the form of making excuses, trying to influence the requestor in return, or simply refusing to carry out the request. Resistance is most likely when the influencer’s power is low relative to the target or when the request itself is inappropriate or unreasonable.31

POWER AND INFLUENCE IN ACTION

In this section, we look at two major areas in which leaders have the ability to use power to influence others. The first is through navigating the environment of organizational politics within the organization. The second is through using power and influence to help solve conflicts within the organization. As it turns out, it’s easy for these two areas to coincide.

3. Please think about the last serious conflict you had. Which approach did you take to resolve it? Did your conflict resolution style work well? For Question 3, please share your experience of conflict resolution.

CONFLICT RESOLUTION   In addition to using their power to shape office politics, leaders can use their influence in the context of conflict resolution. Conflict arises when two or more individuals perceive that their goals are in opposition (see Chapter 12 on team processes and communication for more discussion of such issues). Conflict and politics are clearly intertwined, because the pursuit of one’s own self-interests often breeds conflict in others. When conflict arises in organizations, leaders have the ability to use their power and influence to resolve it. As illustrated in Figure 13-5, there are five different styles a leader can use when handling conflict, each of which is appropriate in different circumstances.49 The five styles can be viewed as combinations of two separate factors: how assertive leaders want to be in pursuing their own goals and how cooperative they are with regard to the concerns of others.

13.5

How do leaders use their power and influence to resolve conflicts in the workplace?

Competing (high assertiveness, low cooperation) occurs when one party attempts to get his or her own goals met without concern for the other party’s results. It could be considered a win—lose approach to conflict management. Competing occurs most often when one party has high levels of organizational power and can use legitimate or coercive power to settle the conflict. It also generally involves the hard forms of influence, such as pressure or coalitions. Although this strategy for resolving conflict might get the result initially, it won’t win a leader many friends, given the negative reactions that tend to accompany such tactics. It’s best used in situations in which the leader knows he or she is right and a quick decision needs to be made.

Avoiding (low assertiveness, low cooperation) occurs when one party wants to remain neutral, stay away from conflict, or postpone the conflict to gather information or let things cool down. Avoiding usually results in an unfavorable result for everyone, including the organization, and may result in negative feelings toward the leader. Most important, avoiding never really resolves the conflict. Accommodating (low assertiveness, high cooperation) occurs when one party gives in to the other and acts in a completely unselfish way. Leaders will typically use an accommodating strategy when the issue is really not that important to them but is very important to the other party. It’s also an important strategy to think about when the leader has less power than the other party. If leaders know they are going to lose the conflict due to their lack of power anyway, it might be a better long-term strategy to give in to the demands from the other party.

Page 425

Collaboration (high assertiveness, high cooperation) occurs when both parties work together to maximize outcomes. Collaboration is seen as a win—win form of conflict resolution. Collaboration is generally regarded as the most effective form of conflict resolution, especially in reference to task-oriented rather than personal conflicts.50 However, it’s also the most difficult to come by because it requires full sharing of information by both parties, a full discussion of concerns, relatively equal power between parties, and a lot of time investment to arrive at a resolution. But this style also results in the best outcomes and reactions from both parties. Compromise (moderate assertiveness, moderate cooperation) occurs when conflict is resolved through give-and-take concessions. Compromise is perhaps the most common form of conflict resolution, whereby each party’s losses are offset by gains and vice versa. It is seen as an easy form of resolution, maintains relations between parties, and generally results in favorable evaluations for the leader.51 Women are also more likely to use compromise as a tactic in comparison to men, whereas men are more likely than women to use competing as a tactic.52Recent research shows that individuals with higher levels of emotional intelligence (see Chapter 10) are more likely to adopt constructive forms of conflict management (the green areas of Figure 13-5).53 Like most things when it comes to power and influence, it’s not as much a function of which style you use, but rather when you use it that determines success. It is a mistake to think that one specific style is superior to another—research has shown that whether a certain style is effective is dependent on lots of situational issues.54 For instance, trust (see Chapter 7) is extremely important when using the more cooperative forms of conflict resolution, especially when there is a larger degree of conflict.55 For more discussion of when to use the various conflict resolution strategies, see Table 13-4.

Source: From K.W. Thomas, “Toward Multi-Dimensional Values in Teaching: The Example of Conflict Behaviors,” Academy of Management Review, 1, pp. 484–90. Copyright © 1997. Reproduced with permission of Academy of Management via Copyright Clearance Center.

Page 426

One example of conflict resolution is the ongoing battles that Uber faces with the cities that it tries to do business in.56 Early in its existence, Uber took a very one-sided competing approach when moving into new markets—moving in without formal permission, developing clientele, and then using that support to fend off city councils or opposition groups that might have an issue with the way Uber does business. CEO Travis Kalanick called the approach “principled confrontation.”57 While this approach worked (and might have been necessary for Uber’s success) in some instances, Kalanick recognizes that it’s not the best approach for all situations. One reason is that the battles it causes can be extraordinarily time consuming for a company growing as quickly as Uber has been. David Plouffe, Uber’s senior vice president of policy and strategy, says, “We are trying to intensify our partnerships with cities, intensify discussions, intensify engagement. We are looking for good ways to compromise.”58 The new approach seems to be working in the city of Portland, where city officials and Uber negotiated for more than a year. Frustrated, Uber officials went ahead and launched without an agreement in place and the city filed a lawsuit against the company. Uber has since stopped business while city officials rewrite rules on taxis that prohibit companies like Uber from operating—the first time Uber has ever relented in such a case.59

4. “Leaders are born” or “Leaders are made”. Which statement made more sense to you? After you study the chapter content, how do you think about it?

5. Please consider the definition and characteristics of transformational leadership. Can you think of any potential “dark sides” of it? If so, what would it be? For Question 4 & 5, please make sure to read Chapter 14 to understand terms and definitions before you post your response. 

By describing decision-making styles and day-to-day leader behaviors, we’ve covered a broad spectrum of what it is that leaders do. Still, something is missing. Take a small piece of scrap paper and jot down five people who are famous for their effective leadership. They can come from inside or outside the business world and can be either living people or historical figures. All that’s important is that their name be practically synonymous with great leadership. Once you’ve compiled your list, take a look at the names. Do they appear on your list because they tend to use the right decision-making styles in the right situations and engage in effective levels of consideration and initiating structure? What about the case of Elon Musk? Do decision-making styles and day-to-day leadership behaviors explain his importance to the fortunes of SpaceX?

The missing piece of this leadership puzzle is what leaders do to motivate their employees to perform beyond expectations. Transformational leadership involves inspiring followers to commit to a shared vision that provides meaning to their work while also serving as a role model who helps followers develop their own potential and view problems from new perspectives.64 Transformational leaders heighten followers’ awareness of the importance of certain outcomes while increasing their confidence that those outcomes can be achieved.65 What gets “transformed” is the way followers view their work, causing them to focus on the collective good more than just their own short-term self-interests and to perform beyond expectations as a result.66 Former president Dwight D. Eisenhower once noted, “Leadership is the ability to decide what is to be done, and then to get others to want to do it.”67 Former president Harry S. Truman similarly observed, “A leader is a man who has the ability to get other people to do what they don’t want to do, and like it.”68 Both quotes capture a transformation in the way followers view their work and what motivates them on the job.

Mother Teresa’s inspiring humanitarian work with India’s sick and poor, and her founding of the influential Missionaries of Charity, became known around the world and suggest that she was a transformational leader. She was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979.

Transformational leadership is viewed as a more motivational approach to leadership than other managerial approaches. Figure 14-5 contrasts various approaches to leadership according to how active or passive they are and, ultimately, how effective they prove to be. The colored cubes in the figure represent five distinct approaches to motivating employees, and the depth of the cubes represent how much a leader prioritizes each of the approaches. The figure therefore represents an optimal leadership approach that prioritizes more effective and more active behaviors. That optimal approach includes low levels of laissez-faire (i.e., hands-off) leadership, represented by the red cube, which is the avoidance of leadership altogether.69 Important actions are delayed, responsibility is ignored, and power and influence go unutilized. One common measure of leadership reflects laissez-faire styles with this statement: “The leader avoids getting involved when important issues arise.”70

Source: Adapted from B.M. Bass and R.E. Riggio, Transformational Leadership, 2nd ed. (Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2006).

Page 457

The three yellow cubes represent transactional leadership, which occurs when the leader rewards or disciplines the follower depending on the adequacy of the follower’s performance.71 With passive management-by-exception, the leader waits around for mistakes and errors, then takes corrective action as necessary.72 After all, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!”73 This approach is represented by statements like: “The leader takes no action until complaints are received.”74 With active management-by-exception, the leader arranges to monitor mistakes and errors actively and again takes corrective action when required.75This approach is represented by statements like: “The leader directs attention toward failures to meet standards.”76 Contingent rewardrepresents a more active and effective brand of transactional leadership, in which the leader attains follower agreement on what needs to be done using promised or actual rewards in exchange for adequate performance.77 Statements like “The leader makes clear what one can expect to receive when performance goals are achieved” exemplify contingent reward leadership.78

Page 458

Transactional leadership represents the “carrot-and-stick” approach to leadership, with management-by-exception providing the “sticks” and contingent reward supplying the “carrots.” Of course, transactional leadership represents the dominant approach to motivating employees in most organizations, and research suggests that it can be effective. A meta-analysis of 87 studies showed that contingent reward was strongly related to follower motivation and perceived leader effectiveness79 (see Chapter 6 on motivation for more discussion of such issues). Active management-by-exception was only weakly related to follower motivation and perceived leader effectiveness, however, and passive management-by-exception seems actually to harm those outcomes.80 Such results support the progression shown in Figure 14-5, with contingent reward standing as the most effective approach under the transactional leadership umbrella.

14.5

How does transformational leadership differ from transactional leadership, and which behaviors set it apart?

Finally, the green cube represents transformational leadership—the most active and effective approach in Figure 14-5. How effective is transformational leadership? Well, we’ll save that discussion for the “How Important Is Leadership?” section that concludes this chapter, but suffice it to say that transformational leadership has the strongest and most beneficial effects of any of the leadership variables described in this chapter. It’s also the leadership approach that’s most universally endorsed across cultures, as described in our OB Internationallyfeature. In addition, it probably captures the key qualities of the famous leaders we asked you to list a few paragraphs back. To understand why it’s so powerful, we need to dig deeper into the specific kinds of actions and behaviors that leaders can utilize to become more transformational. It turns out that the full spectrum of transformational leadership can be summarized using four dimensions: idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration. Collectively, these four dimensions of transformational leadership are often called “the Four I’s.”81 For our discussion of transformational leadership, we’ll use Steve Jobs, former CEO of Apple, who was widely recognized as one of the most transformational leaders in the corporate world, as a running example. Fortune named Jobs “CEO of the Decade” for the 2000s.82 Although Jobs died in 2011, his legacy as a transformational leader continues to this day. The fact that Elizabeth Holmes in Chapter 13 and Elon Musk are continually called “Steve Jobs-like” illustrates this fact. Jobs’s leadership continues to affect employees at Apple in profound ways.83

Idealized influence involves behaving in ways that earn the admiration, trust, and respect of followers, causing followers to want to identify with and emulate the leader.84 Idealized influence is represented by statements like: “The leader instills pride in me for being associated with him/her.”85 Idealized influence is synonymous with charisma—a Greek word that means “divinely inspired gift”—which reflects a sense among followers that the leader possesses extraordinary qualities.86 “Charisma” is a word that was often associated with Steve Jobs. One observer noted that even though Jobs could be very difficult to work with, his remarkable charisma created a mysterious attraction that drew people to him, keeping them loyal to his collective sense of mission.87

To some extent, discussions of charisma serve as echoes of the “great person” view of leadership that spawned the trait research described in Table 14-2. In fact, research suggests that there is a genetic component to charisma specifically and to transformational leadership more broadly. Studies on identical twins reared apart show that such twins have very similar charismatic profiles, despite their differing environments.88 Indeed, such research suggests that almost 60 percent of the variation in charismatic behavior can be explained by genes. One explanation for such findings is that genes influence the personality traits that give rise to charisma. For example, research suggests that extraversion, openness to experience, and agreeableness have significant effects on perceptions of leader charisma,89 and all three of those personality dimensions have a significant genetic component (see Chapter 9 on personality and cultural values for more discussion of such issues).