Influencing others is a key skill in business, and indeed in relationships with other people and communication in general. The term ‘influencing’ may conjure positive, benevolent, guiding associations. However, it can also have more sinister connotations regarding hidden influence, dishonesty, and at its most extreme, ‘brainwashing’. The exercise of influence by powerful individuals can, of course, work both ways.
The terms ‘power’ and ‘influence’ can be used interchangeably. The semantics of the words are a particularly academic area of study, and they have come to mean much the same thing in discussions of day to day business practices. As Mintzberg points out, in the English language, the word ‘power’ has no associated verb to describe its use.
Therefore, ‘influencing’ has come to mean the exercising of power. As a result, we will largely accept that the two words are synonymous for our purposes. To borrow Mintzberg’s definition of power:
'Power is simply the capacity to effect (or affect) organisational outcomes.'
The classic text on power, and the source of many of the negative associations of the ‘influencing’ concept, is The Prince, by Niccolo Machiavelli. Almost all modern commentators on power and influence mention Machiavelli, or use the term ‘machiavellian’. First published in 1532, it is a book that was conceived as an advisory text for princes and rulers, and was dedicated to Piero de Medici, the ruler of Florence, Italy at the time. This is the root of the term ‘machiavellian’, which has come to refer to the exercise of cunning manipulative influencing skills, and power-hungry behaviour.
Machiavelli advises princes on how to gain power, and how to maintain it, using the tools at their disposal, such as violence, respect, fear and reputation. Machiavelli offers a practical guide, which uses generalisations from history, and his own experience. He supplies justifications for political acts and, in effect, the end justifies the means to a large extent. He does not believe that political life should be governed by the same moral absolutes as everyday life.
In the political, consequences cannot be seen or controlled, and therefore the prince may be given allowance for otherwise reprehensible actions. He holds to the belief that once power and influence have been gained and stabilised, they can be used to improve the status quo, and therefore any means of seizing power are justified. The corresponding contemporary trend is perhaps that of ‘tough love’ leadership, where relatively harsh treatment is justified by ultimate productivity.
However, much of the most up-to-date thinking advocates a more holistic approach, gaining influence through legitimate methods, by no means at all costs, although modern thinkers agree with Machiavelli’s belief that influence should be used to improve the status quo.
Types of influence
There are a number of common types of influence that have been identified:
Reward Power: the ability to control rewards, but this only works as far as people desire the reward.
Coercive Power: dependent on fear, the ability to withdraw privileges, deny promotion, etc. This is the closest to Machiavellian power.
Referent Power: the ability to engender admiration and desire to imitate.
Legitimate Power: where subordinates believe in the manager’s right to exert power.
Expert Power: where the possession of information conveys influence. The fewer the sources of information, the greater the power
Influencing tactics
Research conducted by Robbins looked at the ways in which those in possession of influence use it. The conclusions showed that there were a number of common strategies:
reason – logical presentation of ideas;
friendliness – creation of goodwill;
coalition – getting the support of others to back up requests;
bargaining – negotiating;
assertiveness – a direct approach, ordering and demanding compliance;
higher authority – getting the support of individuals higher up in the organisational hierarchy; and
sanctions – use of rewards and punishments.
The research also found that when dealing with superiors, managers used (in descending order of frequency): reason, coalition, friendliness, bargaining, assertiveness and higher authority. When dealing with subordinates, unsurprisingly, the order changed: reason, assertiveness, friendliness, coalition, bargaining, higher authority and sanctions. It is important to note that all of these tactics revolve around communication.
Sources of influence
These sources of influence are both conventional and unconventional, and are dealt with at greater length in other articles. They include:
resource-based – control of resources;
decision-based – control of decision processes;
influence from resolving uncertainties;
technology based – influence rooted in technological dependence;
external – market forces, consumer groups, etc.
bureaucratic – authority structures leading to legitimised power;
information-based – control of information; and
network-based – influence rooted in a group of contacts and associates.
Limiters to influence
Of course, power and influence are not able to increase exponentially. There are various limiting factors, which serve to check and balance individual or group influence:
ethical factors: individuals will only go so far with their use of power. Ultimately they will deploy their power according to what they believe to be right or wrong.
pluralism: power can be blocked through the influence of others.
internal constraints: inbuilt organisational policies or rules may halt influence when it reaches a certain point.
external factors: influence may be constrained due to factors beyond the individual’s control.
Reference:
Henry Mintzberg, Power In and Around Organisations (Prentice-Hall, 1983).
Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince (Quality Paperback Book Club, 1992 Edition).
French & Raven, ‘The Bases of Social Power’, in Studies in Social Power (D Cartwright (ed) (1958).
S. Robbins, Organisational Behaviour (Prentice-Hall, 1989).
Comments