| You have heard it said that leadership is influence. Therefore, it stands to reason that when leaders lead, it is an influence attempt. Gary Yukl defines an influence attempt as the process by which a leader influences attitudes, perceptions, behaviors, or some combination of these. He further suggests that there are three qualitative outcomes of an influence attempt: commitment, compliance, and resistance.
But before we investigate the differing responses to an influence attempt, let’s talk about being “under the influence.” That is to say -- you have to first be convinced before you will be convincing. I use the term convinced because I believe that term to be the essence of our ability to influence. Many strategic initiatives (empowerment on the frontline, diversity in the corporate boardroom, abolition of sexual harassment around the water cooler) have had minimal or no impact. If the leader is not convinced of something, he or she will be ineffective in influencing their target group. Leaders who try to convince others to embrace an idea of which they themselves are not convinced will lose credibility. Being incredulous renders a leader unbelievable, thus jeopardizing future influence attempts. Bert Decker in his book, You've Got To Be Believed To Be Heard asserts, "If you don't believe in someone on an emotional level, little if any of what they have to say will get through." I agree with Mr. Decker, but interestingly enough it is the emotional aspect of an influence opportunity that also makes the leader vulnerable to reactivity or defensiveness.
It is obvious that the desired outcome to an influence attempt is commitment. Commitment engenders devotion and dedication that is self-sustained. It’s not about the leader-keeping people fired-up, but about people keeping themselves fired-up. Norman Shawchuck, a mentoring professor of mine, drilled into me the notion – “People tend to support what they help to create.” In essence, your followers are influenced by both your thinking and their own. Commitment takes time. That is why leaders need to be committed to their people before their people are committed to them or to their ideas.
I often ask my clients or students to rank desirable outcomes to their influence attempts. The responses usually rank:
- commitment
- compliance
- resistance
Unfortunately, it is far too common for leaders to settle for compliance. Compliance is characterized by a passivity that lends no energy to a change initiative or vision, and leads to organizational paralysis. Celebrated organizational psychologist Edgar Shein contends that eighty percent of people negotiate change passively--they just go with the flow. I recently had the privilege of working with a group of government employees who were not politically appointed. I asked, “How do you negotiate the change of leadership every four years?” I was intrigued by their responses.
- "Never talk about what worked before."
- "Don't offer your opinion about what you think."
- "Smile a lot, and just keep doing what you have always done."
- "I don't do anything. I know I'll be here longer than them."
- "Tell the new leader you like her or him better than her or his predecessor."
While passivity may allow one to survive leadership change infinitum, it does not create energy or creative tension. It certainly does not lend itself to collaboration or constructive conflict. Compliance is the last thing you want as a leader unless it is more important to get your way than it is to succeed.
For the true influencer, resistance is far more desirable than compliance. A good percentage of my work involves helping leaders not just to embrace resistance, but to welcome it. In most cases, the mindset behind commitment is similar to the mindset behind resistance--it reflects an attitude of doing something about the position in which one finds oneself. However, unlike compliance, resistance is the precursor to breakthrough.
Breakthroughs bring a fresh perspective. Personal breakthrough is a pattern we see repeated over and over in life (resistance leads to breakthrough, and breakthrough leads to acceptance). Think about dear friends in your life that were once adversaries. Do you ever catch yourself repeating something to your child that is reminiscent of what your parents said to you?
Among my favorite transformational stories is that of Saul, one of the major resistors of the early Christian movement. Saul the persecutor becomes Paul, arguably the most influential voice in the early church.
The point is that resistance is a natural phenomenon. As Abraham Maslow observed, the human condition does not improve through contentment – it only improves through discontentment. Consequently, great leadership is not characterized by compliance or the absence of resistance, but rather by the ability to embrace resistance. Resistance is necessary to clarify and refine plans and ideas. In some cases, resistance is necessary to get true commitment or breakthrough.
Ironically, the passion of conviction that makes us believable can also make us unapproachable or rigid. We become so passionate about our ideas or vision that there is no room for collaboration or disagreement. Resistance can seem like a distraction or the muse of malcontents. But it can also make you a better leader.
How do you respond to resistance?
- Do you ignore it?
- Do you marginalize the resistor?
- Do you predominately surround yourself with compliant people?
- Or do you embrace resistance?
Resistance is a great discussion for you to embrace at your next staff meeting.
Influence on!
 Click to download a PDF version
|
