Kat Sanders

Using Influence Tactics to Lead a Project

December 10, 2013 by Kat Sanders

An essential element of leadership is influence. Influence tactics “are the actual behaviors used by an individual to change the attitudes, opinions, or behaviors of a target person” (The Pennsylvania State University, 2013, Lesson 14: Power & Influence). Influence can also be used by groups of people on other groups.

In the course of my professional career, I have experienced and used many influence tactics, which I will share in this post. Understanding influence tactics is critically important for being a leader, as well as when you encounter any negotiation situation. My hope is that sharing my experience will help to apply this information to your own environment.

In this particular experience, I was the assigned as a project manager for implementing a new administrative process. Because I was assigned the leadership role of project manager, I had legitimate power. However, one of the colleagues assigned to my team was actually a senior manager, so in some ways, they had equal legitimate power. This meant that using legitimizing influence tactics to force compliance was not likely. When I first began working with my colleague on the project I quickly came to realize that this person’s influence tactic was rational persuasion. They were adept at crafting logical arguments and would rapidly reject anything short of fact and reasoned judgment. Tense feelings would arise when they were met with counter influence tactics, such as ingratiation, inspirational or personal appeals. Such appeals were seen a flawed judgment, based on emotion and relationships, and had nothing to do with the matter. During the course of our work together, we had to solve many problems. This meant that we had to work together. Not having the background in linguistics and negotiation as my colleague did, I had to develop my own strategy for communicating, collaborating, and meeting work goals. What was I to do as the leader of this project?

In order to influence my colleague, I had to employ several influence tactics. Because my colleague responded best to rational persuasion, I tried my best to present all the facts and justify action based on logical arguments. However, this was not always possible. There were times when we were dealing with unknowns, and I had to find a way to move the project forward. In such cases, I would use the influence tactic of consultation. This involved me soliciting input from my colleague as well as from others. During the process of consultation with others, it also became possible for me to use the coalition tactic. Using the influence tactic of coalition building, I was able to attain support for a decision from others in the organization. Having the support of my colleague’s immediate supervisor was very powerful in influencing them to agree to a decision. At some points, it was critical that a decision be made, so I would employ pressure tactics to keep the process moving, including persistent reminders/inquiries, and expressing the important nature of the decisions. In all, the only influence tactic that was not attempted was exchange, such as asking for a return favor, as it was not appropriate for the matter.

All in all, being project manager and working with my colleague was an informative and challenging experience. I learned first-hand what influence entails, and how it can alter the course of a project, and the decisions that ultimately effect the organization. I hope my experience was helpful to you, and that you are able to identify influence tactics in your situation, and possibly use them in the course of your own leadership.

Reference

The Pennsylvania State University. (2013). Lesson 7: Power and Influence. PSYCH 485: Leadership in Work Settings. [Online Lecture Notes]. Retrieved from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/fa13/psych485/001/content/07_lesson/07_page.html

Leadership and Power

December 10, 2013 by Kat Sanders

The study of leadership would likely be incomplete without mention of power. For many years, it was argued that leadership was the control of power, “with a common theme of domination” (Northouse, 2013, p. 2). However, over time, researchers were able to distinguish power “as a function of the leader, the followers, and the situation” (The Pennsylvania State University, 2013, Lesson 7: Power and Influence). Specifically, power has been defined as “the capacity or potential to influence” others (Northouse, 2013, p. 9).

People derive power from various sources, including themselves, their followers and the situation. There are five distinct forms of power, which are: expert; referent; legitimate; reward; and coercive (Northouse, 2013; PSU, 2013). Expert power is determined by the amount of knowledge that one possesses and on which others must depend. Referent power is determined by the strength of regard follower’s have for a leader, such as someone who is highly respected. Legitimate power is determined by a formal power structure, such as with an organizational hierarchy that defines certain positions as supervisors. Reward power is determined by the leader’s control over resources, such as benefits. Lastly, coercive power is derived from fear, force and punishment (Northouse, 2013; PSU, 2013).

Although expert and referent power have been found to have the best performing followers, it is possible to use more than one form of power, for any given situation with any given followers (PSU, 2013). Sometimes a single situation with different followers might involve different forms of power.

ford president.jpg

Take for example an organization that has a formal hierarchy with a President, Vice-President, Treasurer, and several executive board members. The hierarchy determines that there is legitimate power given to the President that takes precedent over the other members. Likewise, the President might have expert power, as they have amassed large amounts of knowledge about the organization, and they might as well have reward power, with the ability to make decisions that control team resources. However, it might be the case that the members of the organization are unhappy with the President due to some policy changes, and therefore the leader has lost some of their referent power. Having no regard for the President, the executive board members and the rest of the President’s cabinet may challenge the President due to the loss of referent power. The President may then result to using coercive power in order to enforce rules.

The aforementioned example demonstrates how there is not one single form of power that is best. Leaders must develop an awareness of different sources of power, and understand what the appropriate form of power is for the follower(s) and situation(s).

References

Northouse, P.G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Self-defeating Behaviors

November 19, 2013 by Kat Sanders

Some managers exhibit self-defeating behaviors, which can have significant impact on a team and the ultimate results of an organization. Some self-defeating behaviors include: (1) inability to build relationships; (2) failure to meet business objectives; (3) inability to lead and build a team; (4) inability to adapt; and (5) inadequate preparation for promotion (Penn State University, 2013, Lesson 5: Style Approach). One specific management team, some of who have been in management roles for over thirty years, exhibits the following self-defeating behaviors: failure to meet business objectives; inability to lead and build a team; and inability to adapt. Self-defeating behaviors appear incompatible with being a leader, and I will discuss how they influence the organization.

To begin, these managers are in a position of legitimate power – they are all Partners and own portions of the company – as well as expert power – they know a lot about the product and how to do produce it (Northouse, 2013). However, these individual are not leaders. First of all, they are unable to meet business objectives in the sense that they are not able to cope with change, conflict, or mistakes. They often “throw people under the bus” so-to-speak whenever something goes wrong (usually their own doing). Also, this failure to meet business objectives coexists with an almost chronic tendency to get distracted. Often, employees (and probably clients) lament over having to meet with these individuals because they go off on tangents and are unable to stick to an agenda or stay on point and move forward. Secondly, these managers are unable to lead or build a team. They tend to hire people unqualified for a job and then be upset when they are not able to perform the job. If they are not hiring someone completely unqualified, they are hiring someone almost identical to them. They also micromanage any task, not matter how small or large, by trying to lead when they often have no relevant education, knowledge or experience in said area, other than being the Partner/owner. Lastly, they demonstrate an inability to adapt. Over the years, the company structure, employees and processes have changed. These managers exhibit strong resistance to change (i.e. they act like the company is still the same as it was in the 1970s, such as being more hierarchical, as well as being resistant to technological change – one manager has never learned and refuses to learn how to type – and, not paying attention to nor leveraging the strengths of its employees).

These self-defeating behaviors have real influence over the organization. First, the inability to meet business objectives translate into employee distrust, frustration, slow production, and even lost contracts. Secondly, the inability to lead or build a team contributes to low employee performance, stagnant overall organizational performance, disappointment, frustration, boredom, and errors. Third, the inability to adapt also leads to stagnant performance, frustration and errors. What is interesting is that these managers have remained in power despite these failures. What is true, and the reason why they have stayed in power is because these self-defeating behaviors result in turnover. Employees simply leave the organization, and thus it continues to perpetuate under its current mode of operation. It appears that until a major loss occurs, this will be the case.

References

Northouse, P.G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

The Pennsylvania State University. (2013). Lesson 5: The Style Approach. [Lesson Commentary]. Retrieved https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/fa13/psych485/001/content/05_lesson/03_topic/07_page.html

Archetypal Leadership – What’s Your Story?

November 4, 2013 by Kat Sanders

One approach to leadership analysis is the psychodynamic perspective. Within the psychodynamic perspective, Carl Jung developed the concept of archetypes based upon common allegories throughout world history. In regards to leaders, some of the archetypal figures are: the warrior, the sage, the great mother, the hero and the magician (Penn State University, 2013, Lesson 3: The Psychodynamic Approach). The archetypes might seem far removed from the standard leadership research, but it may actually be more relevant than one might think.

Think about a time when you had a hard-driving boss, who was seemingly only concerned with getting the job done and was uninvolved with the personal affairs of his employees. Perhaps this boss did not care they you had a child to take care of and could not work late, so you worked overtime for fear of losing your job. The fear of losing your job stems from the leader’s behavior. It is also possible that this boss was only interested in his or her perspective and did not care to collaborate on solutions. This individual had an “it’s my way or the highway” type of attitude. In this scenario, you were likely complaining to your friends and family that you worked for a tyrant. Indeed, you were subconsciously associating your boss’ leadership with an archetype, most closely aligned with the “warrior.”

Now, think about a time when you had a boss who was very understanding and comforting. This boss likely socialized often and was interesting in your personal life, your family, your health, more so than what work you were actually doing on the job. You probably felt some type of familial connection to this employer, almost as if they were an aunt or uncle, or even parent or grandparent. Again, you were making an accurate connection between their leadership and the archetype of “great mother.”

What is also interesting about these two particular archetypes is that they are complete opposites in regards to leadership, where the warrior is solely focused on task achievement, and the great mother is solely focused on relational development. These two concepts, of task and relational focus, can be found in other areas of leadership analysis. In fact, they are part of Style theory, and have been demonstrated as a common occurrence in organizations (Northouse, 2012).

So, the next time you have a reaction to a boss or leader, try to identify the key characteristics of their behavior – are they heroic? are they philosophical and wise? are they idealistic and energetic? – you may surprise yourself how often you experience an archetypal form of leadership.

References

Northouse, P.G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

The Pennsylvania State University. (2013). Lesson 3: The Psychodynamic Approach. [Lesson Commentary]. Retrieved from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/fa13/psych485/001/content/03_lesson/08_page.html

The Dark Side of Personality – The Argumentative Trait

September 8, 2013 by Kat Sanders

Have you ever tried to work with someone who has a negative opinion on everything, who insists on debating to the death until you submit to their decision, but then refuses to take the lead on their decision, avoids accountability and absolutely abhors criticism? If you have, you may have been dealing with an argumentative personality trait – someone who prefers to sit on the sideline while criticizing everyone else. I was very relieved to see this trait covered in the Lesson 2 material, but am not unfamiliar with the concept (The Penn State University, 2013, PSYCH 485, Lesson 2: The Trait Approach {Lecture Notes], https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/fa13/psych485/001/content/02_lesson/06_page.html).

I have had the experience of working with a person who is characterized by a highly argumentative personality. Everyone on the team dreads talking with this individual, either for work-related or personal purposes, because this individual always has a negative opinion on the matter, and will insist on debating that their opinion is correct. What is worse, the argumentative person is highly sensitive to criticism, so they will usually make their judgmental statements but remove themselves from taking any responsibility, and actually avoid leadership roles. More than often, if they make an error on the job, they will deny having any knowledge of a matter, or say they can’t remember their actions or decisions. Simply put, they want to control people, but not lead them by example. It has been a very difficult situation.

I think that the argumentative trait is not necessarily a negative leadership trait in all situations, however, in my experience, it is not a cohesive trait for our situation. Our work environment requires team work, group decisions, follow-through, accountability, and trust. Soon after it was realized that the team was unsatisfied with the individual’s argumentative personality, I went to work on developing a formal performance appraisal with key performance indicators, that included such things as positive attitudes, team work, contributing to the job, ability to accept constructive criticism and accountability. We have seen a complete change with this individual since implementing the performance appraisal. In part, the issue this individual had was not knowing what was expected of them.

Nonetheless, I tend to agree that the argumentative trait is a hindrance for leadership, at least for our situation. It will take many years for this individual to gain the respect of their colleagues in order to attain a leadership position, because they have behaved unprofessionally in past situations. However, I do believe, that given the right leadership position, this individual might be successful. For instance, a lawyer would likely succeed with an argumentative personality.

References

The Pennsylvania State University. (2013). PSYCH 485. Lesson 2: The Trait Approach. [Lecture Notes]. Retrieved September 7, 2013 from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/fa13/psych485/001/content/02_lesson/06_page.html