Category: Influence

How Leaders Turn Thinking Into Action: Lessons From Five Years of Data

on By 1 Comment

Organizations develop unique patterns in how they navigate complexity and uncertainty. After five years of assessing how leaders approach challenging situations, we’ve discovered that different organizational cultures rely on markedly different information sources to make decisions – insights that challenge our traditional one-size-fits-all approach to leadership development.

I don’t think anyone would be surprised to learn that a group of leaders in a government auditing function would process information differently than a group of technology company sales leaders. Why then, do we offer both groups the same advice about aligning stakeholders, influencing senior leaders, and managing change?

The SCAN Framework

To help leaders identify hidden influences and unseen barriers in complex environments, we developed the SCAN framework. This tool assesses four critical data sources that inform leadership thinking: Structures (organizational systems and norms), Context (environmental factors), Assumptions (underlying beliefs), and Needs (stakeholder motivations and desires). SCAN scores allow us to visualize how different leaders prioritize these information sources when moving from thinking to action.

Our analysis reveals that functional groups and organizations develop distinct thinking-to-action cultures – consistent patterns in how they process information when setting direction, making decisions, or solving problems under uncertainty.

Three Distinct Thinking-to-Action Cultures

The bar graph compares three different groups of leaders from three different organizations and functions. Bar heights represent percentile scores for each dimension of the SCAN framework. The black dashed line represents the average score for each dimension based on total database responses from groups working in the same functions and organizations (n=1528).

Leading Change

Let’s consider what the SCAN profiles in the above graph suggest about how each group of leaders might design a large-scale change effort and the pitfalls they might encounter during implementation.

Government Audit Managers

These leaders demonstrate a strong focus on existing systems and norms, scoring notably higher than average in the Structures dimension. Their systematic approach brings stability and consistency, but also creates specific challenges in change management. They tend to overlook environmental factors outside their direct control (low Context) and rarely question established systems (low Assumptions).

When leading change initiatives, these leaders excel at working within established frameworks but need to strengthen their ability to:

  • Connect change efforts to broader strategic objectives
  • Respond to shifting external factors
  • Challenge procedures that no longer serve their purpose

Technology Company Sales Leaders

These leaders excel at reading market signals and external trends, with significantly higher Context scores than average. This market sensitivity creates agility but can lead to implementation challenges. Their attention to market dynamics often comes at the expense of understanding internal systems and processes (low Structures), while established organizational beliefs remain largely unexamined (low Assumptions).

Their change initiatives benefit from strong market alignment but require additional focus on:

  • Analyzing how new priorities interact with existing systems
  • Building sustainable processes amid market volatility
  • Balancing quick responses with structural considerations

Software Engineering Leaders

This group stands out for their strategic and innovative mindset, showing exceptionally high scores in both Context and Assumptions. They readily embrace new trends and willingly challenge status quo operations. However, their significantly lower Needs scores suggest that they do not seek inspiration for innovation by attending to the desires and motivations of people.

Their change leadership strengths lie in driving innovation, but success requires:

  • Balancing innovation with operational stability
  • Maintaining quality standards while pursuing new ideas
  • Increasing focus on stakeholder impact and adoption

Implications for influencing, aligning, and deciding

Identifying distinct thinking-to-action patterns help us support rather than overwhelm decision makers when they deal with multiple complex, uncertain, and high-stakes situations. We can start by supplying information that’s easy to digest given a leadership team’s SCAN preferences. Next, we can make information from overlooked sources easier to digest so that leaders don’t run the risk of missing something important.

Understanding your organization’s thinking-to-action culture provides a foundation for more effective leadership development and organizational change. It allows you to leverage your cultural strengths while systematically addressing potential blind spots.

Notice What You Want to be True

on By

My sister Judi and I often argue about the purpose of higher education. She believes that college is for developing marketable skills. I believe college is for developing thinking skills. She sees college as a path toward employment. I see college as a path toward human flourishing. Judi majored in journalism and ran her own communications and public relations firm. I majored in philosophy and went into the restaurant business.

In 2022, the MIT Open Learning Website posted a story about a recently published white paper called “The Workforce Relevance of a Liberal Arts Education.” Given my beliefs about higher education, I was primed to uncritically accept its findings. Based solely on the title, I sent a ‘told-you-so’ link to Judi before I’d even read it.

When I clicked through to the white paper, I noticed that a series of roundtable discussions with senior campus leaders informed the paper’s point of view. At the end of the paper, the authors listed the roundtable participants. Of the eleven institutions represented, nine of them identified as liberal arts colleges.

Granted, a white paper takes a position and advocates for it. The report did not claim to be a research paper. Still, I could easily see myself using the report as evidence for a belief I want to be true.

Judi and I would probably characterize our views on higher education as polarized. In truth, if we ever bothered to explore each other’s perspectives, I’m confident we’d discover broad areas of agreement. But what fun would that be? We get a strange satisfaction from adopting our roles as combatants. Our relationship is not at risk over the disagreement.

A more consequential polarization grips our society. We are all primed to uncritically accept our tribe’s claims. We’ll happily buy whatever our side is selling while simultaneously parsing every sneer and soundbite coming from the other side.

Signs point to a particularly nasty US presidential campaign between now and November. We’re about to be thrown into the deep end of a pool of lies and disinformation. To prevent yourself from drowning, notice what you want to be true.

Noticing what you want to be true requires humility and honesty. Do you care more about truth than you do about power, winning, and looking good? Perhaps you believe that your preferred ends justify dishonest means. You don’t need your claims to be true as long as they’re popular. Of course, one wonders what kind of future you have in mind if honesty can be so easily cast aside on the path to achieving it.

There don’t appear to be any consequences for public figures who tell lies. It’s all upside. It’s possible to gain an advantage over your opponents by lying about them, and no harm will come to your standing as an authority. And, since political campaigns are high-stakes competitions, we can expect to hear a lot of lies between now and November. Notice what you want to be true.

Influence Aikido

on By 1 Comment

Aikido is a Japanese martial art form with spiritual roots that can be traced back to Shintoism. Aikido emphasizes harmony and unity. Aikido practitioners learn to defend themselves while simultaneously protecting their attacker from injury.

Consider the difference between aikido and boxing. The purpose of Aikido is to reconcile disharmony. The purpose of boxing is to overpower your opponent. Which practice most closely matches your assumptions about influence?

In The West, we tend to think of influence as persuasion. When we equate influence with persuasion, we seek out techniques designed to make an impression and overcome objections. We develop our ability to verbally spar by learning how to jab and when to counterpunch. Advanced techniques include lowering your guard by pretending to listen when in fact you’re simply inviting your opponents to expose the weakness in their arguments.

In theory, we don’t have opponents at work; we have colleagues. In some cases, we want to influence our colleagues because we hold incompatible opinions about something. Most often, we want to influence our colleagues by being included in their thought processes. The lawyer wants to consult with decision makers before they sign a contract. The engineer wants their concerns about safety or quality to be taken seriously before promises are made to a customer. The HR business partner wants a leader to consider the implications of an organizational change on employee engagement, capability, and trust before setting the change in motion.

Setting aside structural or cultural explanations for why someone with authority might not seek out or even welcome input from an expert, what will it take for your input to become influential? If you frame your goal as persuasion, you’ll adopt techniques for packaging your point of view. If you frame your goal as reconciling disharmony, you’ll approach interactions with curiosity and empathy. I have written about “collaborative influence” in a white paper called, “How to Change a Mind; Yours and Others.” I have also proposed a thought framework that differentiates forms of influence in a blog post.

To get you started, here are three questions you can consider before attempting to influence someone at work:

  1. Under what conditions are you most open to changing your mind?
  2. Under what conditions are the people you hope to influence most open to changing their minds?
  3. How might you create the conditions everyone needs that makes mind changing easier?

The Four Influence Modes

on By 1 Comment

People have been interested in influencing one another long before modern organizational structures blurred lines of authority. Aristotle laid out his theory of persuasion in the 4th Century BC. One of the bestselling books of all times, Dale Carnegie’s How to Win Friends and Influence People was written in 1936 and is still readily available. Today, Dale Carnegie and Associates, Inc. will sell you targeted versions of the classic like, How to Win Friends and Influence People in the Digital Age or How to Win Friends and Influence People for Teen Girls. Suffice to say; those of us schooled in Western intellectual traditions have come to believe that influence is something we do to others and the more skilled we become, the more others will be attracted to us and to our ideas.

In our organizational lives, the desire to increase agility and decrease cost challenges us to collaborate in ever more ambiguous and complex working relationships. In an attempt to move faster, organizations have removed layers of authority hoping to empower those closest to the work to make daily operating decisions without seeking permission along a chain of command. As a consequence, it is not uncommon for authority over investments, processes and the allocation of resources to be shared or unassigned.

The volatility of today’s business environment demands quick action and adaptability, but when no one can answer the question, “How will this decision get made?” the desire for agility bumps up against our preference for clarity.

When your rank, role, or status does not dictate your decision-making authority, action results from some combination of influence and cooperation. When the responsible parties cannot influence each other, decisions either get escalated to over-burdened functional executives or they tumble through an endless consensus cycle that wrings out accountability and commitment.

I want to offer for your consideration a framework that examines four modes of influence. While each mode represents a legitimate approach to influence, the distinctions among the modes may reveal hidden obstacles to moving forward. Each mode assumes a particular mindset about influence and a particular skillset to employ the mode effectively. Distinguishing among the influence modes will also surface incompatible approaches.

 

Slide2Coercive

  • Catchphrase: Do as I say
  • Source: Power imbalance
  • Strategy: Find the fear; exploit weakness

Coercive influence has limited applicability in modern organizations. It might be useful in a police interrogation or among religious fundamentalists, but influencing someone by focusing on authority or a power imbalance violates the morality of human dignity. If people respect your rank, role or status, coercive influence becomes benign compliance. When you exploit your rank, role or status to get your way, people will submit in the short run, but in the long run, they will expend their discretionary energy seeking ways to undermine or work around your demands. Coercive influence works when people have something to fear. Bob Woodward and his publishers made a very deliberate decision to call his most recent book, Fear: Trump in the White House.

When reaching conclusions or moving to action under coercive influence, there is only one acceptable option. The rules defining right and wrong are prescribed or dictated.

Slide2Persuasive

  • Catchphrase: Lend me your ear
  • Source: Rhetorical excellence
  • Strategy: Draw on credibility, emotion and logic

Persuasion is a form of influence that derives from a mechanistic model of human interaction. Person A holds belief x and uses the tools of persuasion to get person B to adopt belief x and to be willing to act on belief x. We typically think of politicians and organizational leaders as people who rely on rhetorical excellence to influence others. Persuasive influence works best when one person communicates to many people. The exact same rhetorical skill used in a more intimate setting or during a one-on-one conversation suddenly feels manipulative. People in an audience don’t expect to be heard from. People in a meeting do.

When reaching conclusions or moving to action under persuasive influence, there are only as many options as there are participants in the discussion.

Slide2Collaborative

  • Catchphrase: Better together
  • Source: Trust
  • Strategy: Build on shared interests and share responsibility for success

When we move from persuasion to collaboration, influence gets reframed. In the collaborative influence mode, influence is no longer something one person does to others. The collaborative mode and the emergent mode regard influence as change caused through interaction. In collaborative influence both parties are open to a “third way.” Collaborative influence rejects the notion that I am only influential when I convince others to see it my way. In collaborative influence, both parties explore their needs and interests and success depends on finding a way forward that meets shared needs and interests.

Under collaborative influence, multiple options emerge from an exploration of mutual interest.

Slide2Emergent

  • Catchphrase: Be here now
  • Source: Care
  • Strategy: Co-create safety for change through dialogue and improvisation

When it comes to the language of influence, it’s hard to think about influence without imagining a protagonist. Like collaborative influence, emergent influence rejects the conception of influence as something that one person does to others. Entering into emergent influence assumes that all parties care about each other’s needs and interests. In emergent influence mode, the potency of my influence is directly proportional to my openness to being influenced by others.

Under emergent influence we are only constrained by the depth of our desire to serve others.