Leadership Development - Effectively Influencing Decision Makers - Marshall Goldsmith

'The great majority of people tend to focus downward. They are occupied with efforts rather than results. They worry over what the organization and their superiors 'owe' them and should do for them.'

"The great majority of people tend to focus downward. They are occupied with efforts rather than results. They worry over what the organization and their superiors 'owe' them and should do for them. And they are conscious above all of the authority they 'should have.' As a result they render themselves ineffectual."—Peter Drucker

One of my first BusinessWeek.com blogs was called "The Art of Influencing Up." In the last couple of years, I have received countless questions from leaders who not only need to influence up but also influence across in their organizations. In this post, I would like to share a more comprehensive version of my ideas on how to make a positive difference when you do not have direct line authority.

Please be warned in advance, this post is longer than my regular ones.

Peter Drucker has written extensively about the impact of the knowledge worker in modern organizations. Knowledge workers can be defined as people who know more about what they are doing than their managers do. Many knowledge workers have years of education and experience in training for their positions yet have almost no training in how to effectively influence decision-makers. As Peter has noted, "The greatest wisdom not applied to action and behavior is meaningless data."

The 11 guidelines listed below are intended to help you do a better job of influencing decision-makers. In some cases, these decision-makers may be immediate or upper managers—in other cases they may be peers or cross-organizational colleagues. I hope you find these suggestions to be useful in helping you convert your good ideas into meaningful action.

1. Every decision that affects our lives will be made by the person who has the power to make that decision, not the "right" person or the "smartest" person or the "best" person. Make peace with this fact.

As simple and obvious as this statement may seem, I am amazed at how few (otherwise intelligent) people ever deeply get this point. When your child comes home from school and complains, "It’s not fair! The teacher gave me a 'C' and I really deserved an 'A.' "" we, as parents, should say, "Welcome to the real world, kid. In life you have to accept the fact that decision-makers make decisions—and that you are not always the decision-maker." Once we make peace with the fact that the people who have the power to make the decisions always make the decisions and we get over whining that "life isn't fair," we become more effective in influencing others and making a positive difference. We also become happier.

2. When presenting ideas to decision-makers, realize that it is your responsibility to sell, not their responsibility to buy.

In many ways, influencing ultimate decision-makers is similar to selling products or services to external customers. They don't have to buy—you have to sell. Any good salesperson takes responsibility for achieving results. No one is impressed with salespeople who blame their customers for not buying their products.

While the importance of taking responsibility may seem obvious in external sales, an amazing number of people in large corporations spend countless hours blaming management for not buying their ideas. Former Harvard Professor Chris Argyris pointed out how "upward feedback" often turns into "upward buck-passing." We can become disempowered when we focus on what others have done to make things wrong and not on what we can do to make things right.

If we spent more time on developing our ability to present ideas and less time blaming others for not buying them, a lot more might get accomplished.

A key part of the influence process involves the education of decision-makers. To again quote Drucker: "The person of knowledge has always been expected to take responsibility for being understood. It is barbarian arrogance to assume that the layman can or should make the effort to understand the specialist." The effective influencer needs to be a good teacher. Good teachers realize that communicating knowledge is often a greater challenge than possessing knowledge.

3. Focus on contribution to the larger good—not just the achievement of your objectives.

An effective salesperson would never say to a customer, "You need to buy this product, because if you don't, I won't achieve my objectives." Effective salespeople relate to the needs of the buyers, not to their own needs. In the same way, effective influencers relate to the larger needs of the organization, not just to the needs of their unit or team.

When influencing decision-makers, focus on the impact of your suggestion on the overall corporation. In most cases the needs of the unit and the needs of the corporation are directly connected. In some cases they are not. Don't assume that executives can automatically make the connection between the benefit to your unit and the benefit to the larger corporation.

4. Strive to win the big battles. Don't waste your energy and psychological capital on trivial points.

Executives' time is very limited. Do a thorough analysis of ideas before challenging the system. Don't waste time on issues that will only have a negligible impact on results. Focus on issues that will make a real difference. Be willing to lose on small points.

Be especially sensitive to the need to win trivial non-business arguments on things like restaurants, sports teams, or cars. People become more annoyed with us for having to be right about trivia than our need to be right on important business points. You are paid to do what makes a difference and to win on important issues. You are not paid to win arguments on the relative quality of athletic teams.

5. Present a realistic "cost-benefit" analysis of your ideas—don't just sell benefits.

Every organization has limited resources, time, and energy. The acceptance of your idea may well mean the rejection of another idea that someone else believes is wonderful. Be prepared to have a realistic discussion of the costs of your idea. Acknowledge the fact that something else may have to be sacrificed in order to have your idea implemented.

By getting ready for a realistic discussion of costs, you can prepare for objections to your idea before they occur. You can acknowledge the sacrifice that someone else may have to make and point out how the benefits of your plan may outweigh the costs.

6. "Challenge up" on issues involving ethics or integrity—never remain silent on ethics violations.

The downfall of Enron, WorldCom, and other organizations have dramatically demonstrated how ethics violations can destroy even the most valuable companies. The best of corporations can be severely damaged by only one violation of corporate integrity. I hope you will never be asked to do anything by the management of your corporation that represents a violation of corporate ethics. If you are, refuse to do it and immediately let upper management know of your concerns. You need to take this action for the ultimate benefit of your company, your customers, your co-workers, and yourself.

When challenging up, try not to assume that management has intentionally requested you to do something wrong. In some cases, inappropriate requests may be made because of misunderstandings or poor communication. Try to present your case in a manner that is intended to be helpful, not judgmental.

7. Realize that powerful people are just as human as you are. Don't say, "I am amazed that someone at this level…"

It is realistic to expect decision-makers to be competent; it is unrealistic to expect them to be anything other than normal humans. Is there anything in the history of the human species that indicates when people achieve high levels of status, power, and money, they become completely 100% wise and logical? How many times have we thought, "I would assume someone at this level…" followed by "should know what is happening," "should be more logical,&qu "wouldn't make that kind of mistake," or "would never engage in such inappropriate behavior."

Even the best of leaders are human. We all make mistakes. When your managers make mistakes, focus more on helping them than judging them.

8. Treat decision-makers with the same courtesy that you would treat customers—don't be disrespectful.

While it is important to avoid kissing up to decision-makers, it is just as important to avoid the opposite reaction. A surprising number of middle managers spend hours trashing the company and its executives or making destructive comments about other co-workers.

Before speaking, it is generally good to ask four questions:

• Will this comment help our company?

• Will this comment help our customers?

• Will this comment help the person I am talking to?

• Will this comment help the person I am talking about?

If the answers are no, no, no, and no, don't say it! There is a big difference between total honesty and dysfunctional disclosure. As we discussed earlier, it is always important to "challenge up" on integrity issues. It is inappropriate to stab decision-makers in the back.

9. Support the final decision of the organization. Don't tell direct reports, "They made me tell you."

Assuming that the final decision of the organization is not immoral, illegal, or unethical, go out and try to make it work. Managers who consistently say, "They told me to tell you" to co-workers are seen as messengers, not leaders. Even worse, don't say, "Those fools told me to tell you…" By demonstrating our lack of commitment to the final decision, we may sabotage the chances for effective execution.

A simple guideline for communicating difficult decisions is to ask, "How would I want someone to communicate my final decision when that person disagreed with me?" Treat decision-makers the same way that you would want to be treated if the roles were reversed. If you stab your boss in the back in front of your direct reports, what are you teaching them to do when they disagree with you?

10. Make a positive difference—don't just try to "win" or "be right."

We can easily become more focused on what others are doing wrong than on how we can make things better. An important guideline in influencing up is to always remember your goal: making a positive difference for the organizations.

Corporations are different from academic institutions. In an academic institution, the goal may be just sharing diverse ideas, without a need to affect the bottom line. Hours of acrimonious debate can be perfectly acceptable. In a corporation, sharing ideas without having an impact is worse than useless. It is a waste of the stockholders' money and a distraction from serving customers.

When I was interviewed at the Harvard Business Review, I was asked, "What is the most common 'area for improvement' for the executives that you meet?" My answer was "winning too much." Focus on making a difference. The more other people can be "right" or "win" with your idea, the more likely your idea is to be successfully executed.

11. Focus on the future—let go of the past.

One of the most important behaviors to avoid is whining about the past. Have you ever managed someone who incessantly whined about how bad things are? When people consistently whine, they inhibit any change they may have for bettering the future. Their managers tend to view them as annoying. Their direct reports view them as inept. Nobody wins.

Successful people love getting ideas aimed at helping them achieve their goals for the future. By focusing on the future, you can concentrate on what can be achieved tomorrow, not what was not achieved yesterday. This future orientation may dramatically increase your odds of effectively influencing decision-makers. It will also help you build better long-term relationships with people at all levels of your organization.

In summary, think of the years that you have spent "perfecting your craft." Think of all of the knowledge that you have accumulated. Think about how your knowledge can potentially benefit your organization. How much energy have you invested in acquiring all of this knowledge? How much energy have you invested in learning to present this knowledge to decision-makers so that you can make a real difference? My hope is that by making a small investment in learning to influence decision-makers, you can make a large, positive difference for the future of your organization.

via marshallgoldsmithlibrary.com

What if you maximized your effectiveness? What if you increased employee and customer engagement? How would you rate your competitive advantage?

For over 25 years, Jim Woods has worked with hundreds of people all over the world, helping them discover their ultimate effectiveness through breakthrough educational and coaching programs. Jim is an expert on leadership, competitive strategy, and organizational issues. He is president of InnoThink Group and Center for Creative Leadership and Competitive Strategy.

For Speaking or Consulting Engagements Contact Jim
Jim Woods
President and CEO InnoThink Group
jwoods@innothinkgroup.com
Follow Jim on Twitter

719-266-6703

Leadership : Can You Take Your Strengths Too Far? - Jack Zenger and Joseph Folkman

For the past decade, leaders have been encouraged to focus on developing their strengths rather than always gravitating to working on a weakness. But is this too much of a good thing? Lately, a number of business thinkers have suggested so.

It's tempting for those of us strongly committed to developing leadership strengths to ignore such dissent on the grounds that any new practice will attract critics. But the debate has practical significance to leaders. How should a hard-driving executive respond when given high scores for his ability to drive for results but low scores on building strong relationships with peers and subordinates? Is this evidence that he's taken his strength too far?

We don't think so. We would absolutely advise this person to keep driving for results; we suspect that his intense drive is what got him this far in the organization. But we don't see this as a zero sum game — we don't think he needs to stop doing one thing to start doing something else. So we'd also recommend he develop additional strengths in relating to people.

Like many of those who are raising doubts about the limits of developing leadership strengths — as Robert E. Kaplan and Robert Kaiser have done in the pages of HBR, and more recently Tony Schwartz has done on this site, we believe that a single strength by itself doesn't serve anyone well. A leader needs several strengths to succeed. And balance is required. Strengths in combination are far more powerful than any one alone, our research has confirmed. Our data show, in fact, that possessing five strengths is a surefooted way to become an exceptional leader. One-trick ponies don't last long in the center ring.

We also strongly agree with them that serious weaknesses should not be ignored. We've called these "fatal flaws," and we certainly advise people to fix them first. That's critical for the roughly one-quarter of leaders our data tell us appear to have such serious defects. We submit, however, that the rest should be working on their strengths.

People can and do behave inappropriately — and they do things to excess. In his blog, Schwartz describes how he learned that his own unbridled candor was hurtful and unproductive. Kaplan and Kaiser similarly described how either "forceful" or "enabling" behaviors could be taken too far and have negative consequences. They observed that if a leader overuses the "forceful" strength by being exceedingly directive — always taking charge, making every decision, and constantly pushing people — the leader's effectiveness diminishes. That's a conclusion that we suspect most would accept. And so do we. They also observed that a leader who is too cautious, gentle, understanding, mild-mannered, and almost exclusively focused on others will also be less effective. We completely concur.

Where we part company is in labeling any those behaviors as a strength.

We find it constructive to use a definition of "a strength" based on the work of psychologist Martin Seligman, among others. By his definition, a strength is a behavior that is:

• Executed effectively
• Broadly used in a variety of situations or settings
• Lasting in its effects over time
• Consistent in producing positive outcomes
• Valued for its intrinsic worth, as well as its positive outcomes
• Not specific to one culture
• Harmonious with, rather than opposed to, other strengths

By these measures, "being forceful," or "exhibiting righteous honesty unmediated by empathy," are not strengths.

Our analysis of behavior that does fit our definition of strengths comes from data generated in the 360-degree evaluations of 30,000 managers by 300,000 of their colleagues. From examining 12 years of such data, we've identified 16 competencies that describe the most effective leaders and distinguish them from average and poor leaders. When done extremely well, these behaviors become leadership strengths. They included qualities like displaying integrity, exhibiting superior problem-solving skills, being highly technically competent, being innovative, taking initiative, inspiring and motivating others to high performance — and, yes, driving for results.

We've found no evidence that extremely high scores on any of these competencies has negative consequences. That is, we haven't found anyone who scored at the 90th percentile for any one of these behaviors who was perceived by their bosses, colleagues, and direct reports as less effective than someone who scored in the 60th or 70th percentiles. We haven't found the business results of any high scorer to be inferior to the people who received lower scores. Nor have we found subordinates and peers writing more negative comments about a higher scorer than about any individual with a more moderate score.

Instead, we find the data tell a consistent story. Those with the lowest scores on a competency receive many negative written comments, and their objective results are inferior. Those with the highest scores produce the best outcomes on everything we've been able to measure. If this is overusing statistics, then so be it. Our profession needs more leadership analytics, not less, in our opinion.

Some might think strengths-based development was discovered by a social scientist or consulting company, but the real credit should go to Peter Drucker, who in his classic 1967 book The Effective Executive made the compelling case for focusing on strengths. In fact, he argued, it is the role of the organization to leverage people's strengths and to make their weaknesses irrelevant.

via blogs.hbr.org