10 Ways to Climb the Power Ladder

An article in the ET of Mumbai (24 April 2015) succinctly summarized a book by Stanford Business Professor, Jeffrey Pfeffer, “Power: Why Some People Have It – And Others Don’t.” The precept is that when considering ‘what does it take to get ahead’ the answer is not technical skills but ‘political prowess.’ Something which might be apt in large private organizations or the public sector, the author ‘breaks down common misconceptions about power and success and outlines strategies for achieving it.’

Here are the 10 ‘best takeaways’ from the book, along with further considerations (‘et alors’):

10 Ways to Climb the Power Ladder

Per the ET (abridged verbatim), the ‘best takeaways’ are 10 points, viz:

1.       Don’t believe the myth that some people are born to lead and others aren’t

Good performance neither acquires you power nor enables you to overcome organizational difficulties. If you leave too much to chance, people fail to manage their careers.

2.       Get over the idea that everyone needs to like you

Sometimes a reputation such as being ‘outspoken’ or ‘insensitive’ might not hurt you; it might actually help you!

3.       Recognize that performance is not everything

Your relationship with your boss matters more. Further, instead of a meritocracy, many organizations are actually gerontocracies – age and tenure matter more.

4.       Help powerful people feel good about themselves

‘CEOs like to put loyalists in senior positions.’ Enough said?

5.       Build an effective power network

‘Many studies show that networking is positively related to obtaining good performance evaluations and objective measures of career success.’

6.       Break the rules, especially early in your career

‘In every war in the last 200 years conducted between unequally matched opponents, the stronger party won about 72% of the time. However when the underdogs understood their weaknesses and used a different strategy to minimize its effects, they won some 64% of the time.’

7.       Get access to key resources

There is a reason why powerful and influential people are surrounded by followers – you need to get access to power to build your own power.

8.       Do an honest self-assessment

Contrary to ordinarily overestimating our own abilities, ‘when people focus on what they need to get to the next stage of their careers, they are less defensive.’

9.       Be fine with showing conflict and anger

‘Research shows that people who express anger are seen as “dominant, strong, competent and smart”.’ Further, followers anticipate that ‘high status’ people would feel angrier in a negative situation than ‘low status’ people – in other words it is, to some extent, expected.

10.   Carefully consider and construct your image

Don’t underestimate the power of your personal brand. Build an identity that will be useful for you: don’t expect to be asked to ‘step up’; instead position yourself as ‘next job’ ready.

Et alors

If these are the ‘best’ takeaways, I would hate to think what might have been the ‘worst’ takeaways! These ‘tips’ appear to be venal, base and principally self-serving at the expense of the organization and fellow colleagues. If you work in an individualistic environment and you want to climb the greasy pole sparing no casualties and standing on other people’s heads, then I can recommend you adopt some of Pfeffer’s tips; if however you consider that team work is more important than yourself and want to be a leader who gets followers to positively follow you for the greater good of the company, then don’t!

A ‘toned down’ version of the above might get closer to ‘good’ leadership rather than grabbing power individually so that you can eventually ‘instruct’ others what to do. I agree with the point that leaders are not born – leadership can be developed, but this is not just about managing your career! Similarly, not everyone will like you all of the time, especially if you have to dispense your duties as a manager; however leadership is about engaging people. Certainly, performance is not everything – working well in your own corner of the world is not going to get you anywhere: visibility, exposure, networking all help; but to what end – your own good or that of the organization? 

“Helping powerful people feel good about themselves” just sounds like completely deferring truth to power – something that if not balanced can lead to downfall (as any Greek drama will illustrate). “Building an effective power network” could be toned down to “building an effectivenetwork”– you need to build and maintain an ‘ecosytem;’ not just hitch your star to particular wagons… Break the rules – perhaps and within reason, but not everything is a war to be won or lost! Getting access to key resources is very useful, but again, to what end – yours or the organization?

So yes, do an honest self-assessment – everyone should and it is not easy, but a real self-assessment might go beyond a self-centered reflection of your own career ‘battle plan’! Showing conflict and anger is only going to lead to a toxic work environment unless you know how to carefully manage the rare times when it might actually be appropriate. Finally, “carefully considering and constructing your own image” might be somewhat reasonable advice, but to be sustainably successful it has to be authentic and that will go beyond just deliberating how to ‘climb the power ladder’! With apologies to the author, my criticism relates to the article in the ETwhich may not fully reflect the nuances of the book; however I leave it to others to read the book and make that judgement…

Mid-level Leadership

Being a mid-level leader is “important but difficult!” This is according to a leadership research report recently publicized (March 2014) by PDI Ninth House “Mid-Level Leaders Are Key to Strategy Execution.” The report defines mid-level leaders as those who “manage other managers or a business function, and are accountable for growing revenue or managing costs” and goes on to say “they must influence both upward and downward... Although they often are invisible within the organization, their efforts have a direct impact on an organization’s results.” So given this difficult job, how can mid-level leaders succeed in their role? The report clarifies some key points.

Here are the key success factors for effective mid-level leadership along with further considerations “et alors”.

Mid-level Leadership

The success of mid-level leaders mainly depends on being able to lead through others. Whilst most mid-level leaders show above-average intelligence, that in itself is not a leadership differentiator; rather it is their ability to learn which distinguishes them. In the context of learning and self-awareness, the three key factors to success have been identified as follows:

1.       Factors common at all levels of leadership

Three competencies are critically important for all leaders: Drive for Results (i.e. relating the business to the strategy and wanting to deliver); Execution (actually getting the job done, not just starting it); and Analysis/Judgment (in other words, making good decisions).

2.       Factors particular to mid-level Leadership

The key is: “people skills.” Skills such as Influence, Engagement/Inspiration, Talent Management, and Relationship Management are all critical at this level. This builds on and assumes that Execution is achieved but in a way, Execution is becoming more dependent on people skills.

At a lower level, Execution might have been achieved through technical skills but with little regard to people; now it is all about people: influencing inside and outside the organization without recourse to direct authority; and actually motivating people – something that managers often overlook.

3.       Customer Focus

Whilst communication skills are most important for “first-level” leaders and it is assumed that mid-level Leaders will have this skill; the research of approx. 5000 leaders found that “customer focus skills” is the most important differentiator for mid-level leaders.

The rationale is that “customer focus skills” emerge as essential for mid-level leaders because they are “vital to driving execution by aligning diverse teams around the common ground of customer needs.”

Et alors

It could be argued that anyone who has a boss and a subordinate is a mid-level manager; and that what distinguishes a mid-level manager from a mid-level leader is not the “Execution” part, but the “people skills” part. Engaging, motivating, developing are all aspects of leadership. So one thing is the “level” of leadership, but the other is the leadership per se. Similarly with “customer focus”, the executive who is going to succeed in the organization is the one who starts to look outside the organization and not just inside. Knowing your customer can change your whole perspective on what you do and how you deliver – something not to be overlooked!

The report also looks at the “other” side of leadership – what characteristics are most commonly found in mid-level leaders which might derail their progress, all of which are worth noting here as something to avoid: “1/ Excessive attention to detail, which hinders the big-picture view and leads to spending too much time on one task before moving on; 2/ Avoidance/passive-aggressive behavior, which interferes with resolving problems and conflicts; and 3/ Micromanaging, which not only interferes with delegating, but once work is delegated, may be very demotivating because people redo the work.” It is important to not only focus on the success factors, but also focus on how to avoid these “failure” factors…

Leadership Numbers

“Happy New Year!” A message that you might have sent to tens, hundreds or even thousands of colleagues or associates! What about followers? As a leader, how many followers did you reach out to personally (not just a broadcast mailshot)? On reflection, you might be wondering how many people you can lead and if the number you are targeting is large, what is the most effective way to organise for effective leadership? The answer might be found in “Dunbar’s number and other evolutionary quirks” (R. Dunbar, 2010, Faber). This evolutionary anthropologist asserts that there a maximum number of followers that you can “conceivably juggle”.

Here are the numbers relating to leadership along with further considerations (“et alors”):

Leadership Numbers

Drawing on the work of Dunbar and others, here are the key numbers:

One

You can’t lead anyone if you can’t lead yourself! If you do not know yourself, then you cannot expect that others will know you; and if they are confused, doubtful or distrusting, then they are not going to follow you. Potentially the most important number in leadership: 1!

Six

Your immediate “group” is what might be known as a team. Various definitions of “effective” teams put the number of participants between 4 and 12 persons; however many researchers assert that the optimal number is six. 6 should be your immediate group of followers.

Thirty

Dunbar cites military platoons of around thirty persons being similar to the size of an “extended family” and accordingly members of this group (if united by a leader) are “prepared to sacrifice themselves in defence of the group.” 30 should be your next circle of followers.

One-hundred-and-fifty

Dunbar’s research into friendship (those to whom you would lend a small amount of money and whom you contact at least once a year) highlights that if the group is cohesive and less than 150 persons, then everyone will be prepared to fight for everyone else. 150 is your “direct” limit.

Et alors?

After 150, leadership becomes “indirect”. This is important to know in organisations as you will no longer have the direct impact on all the individuals and the group itself will be a “group of groups” with each subgroup subject to other forces or influences. So how can big organisations “unite” behind the one leader at the top? Can a New Year’s corporate broadcast really be effective when the numbers are greater than 150? Potentially not – more effort has to be made if the leader wants to unite the whole organisation. What is needed is essentially an engaging hierarchy (not just a bureaucratic hierarchy): the leader will have to inspire, motivate and engage the 6, the 30 and the 150 to such an extent that not only are they engaged themselves, but they can then further lead others. Senior leaders really have to be the “leader of leaders”!

Leading by Persuading

“People don’t just ask ‘What should I do?’ but ‘Why should I do it?’” So says J. Conger in his landmark HBR article from 1998, “The Necessary Art of Persuasion.” The main point is that with increased cross-functionality and more project-based work along with the demise of the “command and control” structures, the chances are that leaders will have to persuade rather than instruct followers. Talking about achieving “shared” solutions, persuasion is billed as the opposite of deception and has a scope beyond simply sales. Effective persuasion is both a negotiation and a learning process which improves “business leadership.”

Here’s how followed by further considerations (“et alors”):

Leading by Persuading

Conger talks about four distinct steps to effective persuasion: gaining credibility; identifying common ground; reinforcing positions using “compelling” evidence; and connecting emotionally with the audience. To complement this theory he highlights the practical side of “four ways NOT to persuade”.

Here’s what to NOT do when trying to lead by persuasion:

1.       Hard Sell

An “upfront” strong statement of a position with powerful logic to back up that position is actually counter-productive as it facilitates resistance.

Effective persuaders do not give their opponents a “clear target” at the outset; rather they take time to build a credible case.

2.       Resist Compromise

Seeing compromise as “surrender” is not a way forward; rather it should be seen as essential. Others will normally want to see some flexibility and have their point of view taken into account.

Effective persuaders identify common ground in order to build better, more sustainable shared solutions.

3.       Use Strong Arguments

“Great” arguments matter, but it is not the full story. Arguments that are too strong fall back in the “hard sell” category and can dissuade rather than persuade.

Effective persuaders use arguments that are compelling which are framed in a mutually-beneficial way and connect on the “right emotional” level.

4.       One-shot Focus

Seeing persuasion as an event rather than a process will reduce effectiveness. Rarely is a shared solution achieved on the “first try.”

Effective persuaders invest time to connect on an emotional level. It is a slow and difficult process, but the results are worth the effort.

Et alors

Whilst, at first glance, it might seem “sales focused”, if you put the above points in the context of people needing to know why they should do something (rather than just what they should do), it becomes apparent that leaders really do need to spend time persuading! Persuasion is an act of leadership by which the leader engages followers to pursue a “shared solution”. In a way it could be one of the defining differences between leadership and management: leaders invest time and effort to persuade people to follow them; managers do otherwise. Not to devalue management – good organizations need both good managers and good leaders – but the “necessary art of persuasion” is one way to improve leadership.

Leading with Trust

On a management course last week I was reminded of Lencioni’s “Five Dysfunctions of a Team” where the foundation upon which all teamwork is built is trust. But, as a leader, how do you build trust; and how do others judge you trustworthy (or not)? Here I came across a wonderful “trust equation” proposed by David Maister et al., in “The Trusted Advisor”, 2000, Free Press. The book is written for professional consultants (or advisors) who need to establish immediate trust with their clients; however the advice works equally well for leaders and their followers.

Here’s the trust equation along with further considerations (et alors).

Leading with Trust

Trust = ( Credibility + Reliability + Intimacy ) / Self-Orientation.

Here’s each variable in turn:

Credibility

Relating to words, trustworthiness increases when your words and credentials are perceived as credible (including your “honesty”).

To increase credibility don’t try too hard, but evidently never exaggerate or lie: when you don’t know, say so! Be fully transparent.

Reliability

Relating to actions, trustworthiness increases when others perceive the “consistency of your actions, and your actions’ connection with your words” (otherwise known as integrity).

To increase reliability show commitments but don’t “over-promise and under-deliver”! Consider the relationship from a medium- to long-term perspective.

Intimacy

Relating to emotions, trustworthiness increases when others feel safe and secure sharing with you difficult items (e.g. that you won’t break a confidence or embarrass them).

To increase intimacy, engage people on a “human” scale and “never fall for the ‘business is business’ mantra.”

Self-Orientation

Relating to perspective, trustworthiness decreases when others feel you are only focused on them as a means to your own ends.

To decrease self-orientation, avoid the temptation to always appear to be right and/or win the argument; instead anticipate the other’s needs and consider things from their perspective.

Et alors

Trust can be challenging enough when it involves two people in one culture: imagine the challenge when as a leader, you try to establish trust across cultures! Generally, the more ethnocentric one of the cultures, the more difficult it is going to be for those persons to trust persons from another culture since they are going to assume that all their own references and behaviors are superior to other cultures and therefore the other person will lose out on most, if not all, the trust factors. Credibility might be influenced by the expert-general dichotomy: someone from an “expert” culture might find it difficult to find credible someone from a more “generalist” culture. There may also be implicit references to credibility according to culturally-specific academic achievements along with the weight any particular culture might place on those.

As for reliability, some cultures might “freely” articulate their thoughts, feelings and beliefs rather than expressing only what they can deliver in reality. Talking about what they would like to do rather than what they can do might make them appear less reliable to other more “rational” cultures. Intimacy might be influenced by “agreeableness” – a personality trait that has been correlated with cultures. The more agreeable (i.e. open, affable, approachable) a person (or collection of persons), the more that trust might be increased. The self-orientation might be heavily influenced by the individual-collective cultural dichotomy with persons from the former possibly believing that people will only ever be motivated by “what’s in it for them”; whereas persons from the latter being more “receptive” to the idea of both giving and receiving focus on others.

Finally, a big inter-cultural difference with trust which is not addressed in this equation is that some cultures start with full trust which is something to be lost whereas other cultures start with no trust which is something to be gained. Take two persons from the first culture: when they meet for the first time they will implicitly trust each other and will continue to do so until one of them does something to negate that trust; then the other culture: when persons meet for the first time they will implicitly not trust each other and will demand of each other that trust is earned. As with many cultural behaviors, there is no right or wrong, but what happens when you are trying to lead across cultures with these differences? The impact will be “felt” beyond just trust into areas such as autonomy, delegation, reporting. Leaders need to be the first recognize and then adapt to cultural differences!

Leading with Shared Vision

Having a vision of the future and communicating that vision so that followers are inspired and engaged to act on your proposed changes is a good definition of leadership. Research by Kouzes and Posner, published in “To Lead, Create a Shared Vision”, HBR, 2009 confirmed this with nearly one million responses to their “Leadership Practices Inventory” where 72% of employees stated that the key attribute they were looking for from a leader was to be “forward looking”; however their research also reviewed leadership effectiveness and found some interesting results which differentiate those who simply lead with vision and those who lead with shared vision.

Here’s a difference of the two and how to “share” along with further considerations (“et alors”).

Leading with Shared Vision

Vision

The “classic” case according to the authors involves leaders “posing as emissaries from the future, delivering the news of how their markets and organizations will be transformed.” The trouble is that this vision might not inspire or engage followers because it does not “draw others in”.

Shared Vision

The “best way to lead people into the future is to connect with them deeply in the present.” Followers want visions of the future that link with their own aspirations – they want the leader’s vision to tie in with their hopes for the future. They are then much more engaged.

Et alors

Creating a shared vision is like leading by diversity as the leader has to often connect individually on a one-to-one basis with many different constituents rather than just always broadcasting in a one-to-many fashion. In a way, this is like leading with influence rather than leading (or managing) with authority: this leadership can happen at any place in the hierarchy and it applies to all leaders at all levels. From another perspective, it is like leading with emotional intelligence rather than with logic and analysis since the connection is on a human level. All these things “play” to the idea of creating a shared vision.

There are however many organizational cultures which might inhibit such a style of leadership. When the organization is conservative and not naturally inclined to change or if the culture itself is very strong and not adaptive, then leading with a shared vision might be more challenging (yet ironically more necessary)! In strong hierarchies, power might gravitate to the desk rather than the person and management might become more prevalent than leadership. Good management is very important, but for organizations looking to do more: to change, to adapt, to grow, then the organization needs leaders who can lead with shared vision!

Making a Pitch

As Mark Twain said, “I didn’t have time to write you a short letter, so I wrote you a long one instead.” Communicating succinctly is always a challenge, both written and verbal. If you are leading, you need to permanently communicate your mission and goals and this can be done at any opportune moment – but usually the moment is short, so you need to be succinct! Being in the USA this week I was reminded of the “elevator pitch” concept and sought out guidance on how to do it well. The article “How to Make Your Case in 30 Seconds or Less” by Wreden, 2002, Harvard Management Communication Letter does just that. Whilst American in nature (with implicit references to and a focus on making a sale), the advice is nevertheless pertinent for any leader needing to influence others.

Here’s how to make a very brief case along with further considerations (et alors).

Making a Pitch

The goal of an elevator pitch is not to get funding, a job or a project sign-off; rather it is to get approval to proceed to the “next step” whether that’s a referral, an invitation for a further conversation or a request to correspond. The secret of a strong pitch is to “grab” the attention of the listener, define mutual benefits and set the stage for a follow-up. Here’s how:

Grabbing Attention

Provocative, contrarian or counterintuitive statements work well to grab attention but the assertions need to be justifiable. Clarity is more effective than jargon.

Mutual Benefits

SWIIFT – so what’s in it for them? Without this in mind, the pitch becomes less effective. The pitcher needs to know the subject and know the audience so as to always relate the offer to them.

Setting the Stage

The pitch needs to be well organized to lead the audience from the introduction, through the challenge (with solutions for the listener) to conclude with setting the stage for the follow-up.

Finally, the author also emphasizes the importance of presentation. With only 30 seconds it’s tempting to talk as fast as you can; however this is counterproductive. Slowing down, changing tempo and even adding a small pause can all help effective delivery.

Et alors

Perhaps it was because I have been staying in a hotel with only three floors, but I was originally skeptical of the whole “elevator pitch” concept! (As a matter of fact, the author retorts that to improve the effectiveness of the pitch, it should be delivered in 15 seconds.) However as chance would have it, I had an opportunity to try a pitch recently and this simple formula seemed to work – I set the stage and secured a follow-up. Focusing your goal on achieving a follow-up changes the whole idea of getting you point across and should work beyond American culture – for it is when you do the follow-up that you can adapt culturally either going again for a slightly more elaborate pitch or getting into the details (or something in between)… Focusing on the audience is also very good advice for leaders anywhere – don’t just broadcast a standard one-size-fits-all message, adapt the message to each audience!

Leading by listening

“It’s no wonder that ‘employee engagement’ is a serious issue in most organisations today. Everybody is talking; nobody is listening!” This comment from Kimsey-House et al. in their 2011 book “Co-active coaching: Changing Business, Transforming Lives”, Nicholas Brealey. Evidently the focus is on coaching but on reading their chapter on listening I realized that the guidelines for coaches might be equally applicable for leaders. My premise is that to better lead, you need to better listen! Only by ‘properly’ listening can you fully engage with your followers; meanwhile listening can be superficial at the best of times particularly in a busy ‘solutions-focused’ business environment. To better listen the authors propose to move from ‘level 1’ listening to ‘level 3’ listening.

Here’s how to lead by listening along with further considerations (“et alors”)

Leading by listening

The authors assert that listening is not passive and describe three levels of listening, thus:

Level 1: Internal Listening

Here the listener is focused on “what does this mean to me?”

Only the words of the other person are listened to and these are filtered by thoughts, judgments and feelings. The listener might be thinking of a solution, their own similar situation or the next question without listening any ‘deeper’. Interruptions and misunderstandings are both common and frequent.

This is not a very effective way of ‘properly’ listening, either as a leader or a coach.

Level 2: Focused Listening

Here the listener is focused on “what does this mean to the other person?”

In addition to the words, the other person’s tone, pace, expressions and emotions are listened for: in other words, not only what is said, but how it is said. As the listener’s ‘internal chatter’ disappears, Level 2 listening becomes “empathy, clarification” and “collaboration.”

This is a much more effective way of ‘properly’ listening and can be achieved at any time.

Level 3: Global Listening

Here the listener is completely in the moment and focused purely on understanding.

Beyond words, listening is also through what you ‘receive’ via the whole environment: for example the energy levels, the ‘coolness’ or the distractions of the other person. Being very open to subtle clues, the listener notices the “action, the inaction and the interaction.”

Here, you will really hear, but to attain this level of listening will take practice!

Et alors

“Anyone who is successful at influencing people is skilled at listening at level 3. These people have the ability to read their impact and adjust their behavior accordingly.” Leaders should take note of this assertion by the authors: if you want to influence, listen ‘globally’! Some might say that they do not have time, but level 2 listening can be achieved at any time: it’s much better than level 1 so there really is no excuse. Level 3 listening is challenging and in practical terms it might not be achievable all the time; however with greater awareness (and practice), the leader can get to this level according to circumstance and when necessary. The investment in listening should pay good dividends in influence!

Leading with Influence

In an increasingly complex world the chances are that leaders will have to deal with stakeholders beyond their immediate “control”. Projects often involve more than one organization working together according to the requirements of the business. Inside organizations, whether a particular task is successful or not will depend to a large extent on how leaders can engage people beyond their team. No longer being able to simply command or instruct others, leaders have to be able to influence. So how can leaders influence? An answer can be found in Cialdini’s book “Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion” (2006) Collins Business Essentials.

Here’s how to influence along with further considerations (“et alors”)

Leading with Influence

Cialdini is a social psychologist whose extensive research into behavior amongst “compliance professionals” led to the conclusion that there are six key “principles” of influencing:

1. Reciprocity

People are uncomfortable with feeling indebted. There is therefore a feeling of obligation to offer concessions to others if concessions have already been received.

2. Commitment

People have a strong desire to be consistent. For this reason, once committed to something, people are then more inclined to go through with it as it has become “congruent with self-image”.

3. Social Proof

People assume that if other people are already doing something then it must be OK. Providing this so-called “social proof” can convince uncertain bystanders.

4. Liking

People are more likely to be influenced by those whom they like. Trust is a key factor of likeability, but people might like others simply because they have received compliments from them!

5. Authority

People will more likely accept the opinion of an expert. The authority referred to here can be likened to credibility – the more of which the person has, the more able they are to influence.

6. Scarcity

People are motivated by potential loss as well as potential gain. If something is limited in its availability and the “opportunity” might be lost, the perceived scarcity can increase demand.

Et alors

Leaders require a lot of energy to convince and persuade people that a particular project or task is the one that people should follow! Any help a leader can get in order to influence should be welcome; however using these principles can come across as somewhat disingenuous if they are not used with discretion. Focusing on a short-term “win” at the expense of a long-term relationship might not be a good idea: reputations take a life-time to build and only a moment to lose! These influencing “principles” should therefore be used with care. Further, if people are persuaded to do things that are bad for them, it can be considered as “manipulation” rather than “influence” (with the former being unethical). As Drucker said, “leaders do the right thing” and in this context, the “principles” of influence can certainly help a leader in the increasingly complex world!

Conflict Resolution

Part of being a leader is dealing with conflicts. The “intuitive” response to conflict is “fight of flight” – either there is going to be a “win-lose” battle or one of the parties pre-concedes the battle by taking “flight”. Thomas and Kilmann researched ways of dealing with conflict and concluded in their 1976 research that there were five approaches to conflict. This was further elaborated on by Thomas in the Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol 13 (1992) “Conflict and conflict management: Reflections and update”. The conflict management model now forms part of an “instrument” (“TKI®” by CPP) where the individual can assess conflict-handling behaviour according to this model.

The five conflict-handling modes are as follows, followed by further implications (“et alors”).

Conflict resolution

In “conflict situations” (where “the concerns of two people appear to be incompatible”) the person’s behavior can be defined along two basic dimensions: assertiveness, the extent to which the individual attempts to satisfy his own concerns; and cooperativeness, the extent to which the individual attempts to satisfy the other person’s concerns. These two basic dimensions of behavior thus define five specific conflict-handling modes.

Competing

Competing is assertive and uncooperative – an individual pursues his own concerns at the other person’s expense. This is the “power-oriented” mode, being out to “win”.

Accommodating

Accommodating is unassertive and cooperative – the opposite of competing. When accommodating, an individual neglects his own concerns to satisfy the concerns of the other person.

Avoiding

Avoiding is unassertive and uncooperative – the individual does not immediately pursue his own concerns or those of the other person. The conflict is not addressed.

Collaborating

Collaborating is both assertive and cooperative – the opposite of avoiding. Collaborating involves working with the other person to find a solution which fully satisfies the concerns of both persons.

Compromising

Compromising is intermediate in both assertiveness and cooperativeness. The objective is to find some expedient, mutually acceptable solution which partially satisfies both parties.

Et alors?

Many a junior manager may have been advised by a more “seasoned” colleague to not waste time “fighting the wrong battles”! Sometimes you just have to accommodate or avoid! As a solution, collaboration might sound ideal; however it’s not always going to be applicable in every situation and might not always be worth the effort: sometimes compromises or accommodation might be the preferred modes of action. At the other end of the scale, one might be tempted to dismiss “competing” as too assertive without regard for other’s perspective, but then when the “conflict” is corporate competition, there might not be enough space for more than one player in a particular market and the “win-lose battle” has to be fought. In all cases, it’s a consideration of the context and environment that can influence the appropriate choice of conflict-handling behaviour.

Thomas and Kilmann built their model with reference to the earlier management model of Blake and Mouton wherein instead of assertiveness and cooperation there is concern for “production” and “people” as the two axes. Rather than conflict, Blake and Mouton referred to different management styles such as “production” (cf. competition), “impoverished” (cf. avoiding), “country club” (cf. accommodating), “middle of the road” (cf. compromising) and “team” (cf. collaborating). The latter might be particularly interesting for leaders – within an organization, leaders can be neither too assertive (“process orientated”) nor too cooperative (“people orientated”): as usual, the ideal is getting the balance right, but not necessarily a compromise – the team comes together when concern for process and people are both high and there is collaboration!

Exercising Influence

All influential managers have power but not all powerful managers have influence! So says Hill in her HBR article “Exercising influence: Reconciling Myths and Realities – The Case of New Managers”, 1994, Reprint 9-494-080. The paradox of power is that sharing power actually increases a manager’s power (Conger, 1989) and Hill expands on this to suggest two key ways that power can be converted into influence: by agenda-setting and network-building. By moving from a concept of “authority” to inter-dependencies, the new manager empowers others and develops mutually beneficial relationships, thereby increasing influence.

Here are the principle steps to exercise influence followed by further considerations (“et alors?”)

Exercising Influence

In order to empower others and build mutually beneficial relationships, the leader must have a certain empathy with others. There is a sense of “stepping into the other’s shoes” to anticipate what are the other person’s motivations and drivers. Similarly, in accruing power through influence, the leader must “avoid the abuses” of powers. Accordingly:

Long-term relationships

Think not only about success in achieving your immediate objectives, but also about improving and maintaining the relationship.

Expertise

Avoid reliance on formal authority; instead wherever possible, rely on expertise as the source of power.

Sharing

Share power, do not hoard it. Realise that ends do not always justify the means. Think about building partnerships more than “doing deals”.

Interdependencies

Pursue objectives that are not entirely self-serving (recognize interdependencies and invest in others’ agendas).

Et alors?

In addressing the “myth” of authority and replacing it with the idea of interdependency, Hill talks about various “currencies” that can be exchanged in an organization to facilitate empowerment and networking. However, none of these currencies have any value unless the individual has created a foundation of trust. To create trust the individual has to set a clear agenda but demonstrate full integrity; and be open and transparent, but at the same time discrete and diplomatic. Whilst task specific skills (“expertise”) can build trust, these must be balanced with a clear demonstration of interpersonal skills, business sense and good judgment.

Having “desk-nominated” authority in an organization might give that individual a sense of power; however what is just as important in today’s fast-changing and increasingly complex world is the ability to influence. Power without influence might assist the achievement of short-term objectives but not necessarily those relating to the long-term. Today’s leaders have to be able to build trust, share their power and nurture interdependencies. The myth of authority is the anticipation of assuming “rights and privileges” as a leader; in reality it is better to regard formal authority as a duty and an obligation and therefore try to exercise influence rather than power…