SAVE | EMAIL | PRINT | MOST POPULAR |  RSS | | REPRINT
|
The Influencers: Exponentially Increase Your Chances of Success
October 20, 2008
By Ron McMillan and Joseph Grenny
Novice investors frequently make the mistake of betting on a single stock rather than creating a diversified portfolio of investments. Leaders make similar miscalculations in trying to influence change. Too often they bet on a single source of influence rather than tap into a diverse arsenal of strategies. Our latest research shows that the main variable in success or failure is not which sources of influence leaders choose. By far, the more important factor is how many.
Influencers succeed where others fail because they "over-determine" success. They know persistent problems are rarely fed by a single cause but rather a conspiracy of causes. Instead of looking for the minimum it will take to accomplish change, influencers combine a critical mass of different kinds of influence strategies.
We have documented the success of this multi-pronged influence approach across organizational levels (from C-level managers to first-line supervisors) and across different problem domains (from entrenched cultural issues to leader-led change initiatives to stubborn personal challenges). And while the results are impressive, they do not rely on an obscure calculus—if anything, they are built on simple arithmetic.
Effective influencers drive change by relying on several different sources of influence strategies at the same time. Those who succeed predictably and repeatedly don't differ from others by degrees—they differ exponentially. Savvy influencers are up to 10 times more successful than the average leader.
A Majority of One
To arrive at this conclusion, we studied nagging organizational problems, such as bureaucratic infighting, lack of collaboration and low compliance with quality or safety standards. Although more than 90% of the executives we interviewed described their problems as powerfully "destructive," even "cancerous," few had done much to confront them.
We got similar results when we surveyed executives and senior managers. About 40% of these executives had made some attempt to influence change in these destructive behaviors. In doing so, however, the vast majority had employed only one influence strategy—for example, they offered training, redesigned the organization or held a high-visibility retreat. A handful—fewer than five percent—had used four or more sources of influence in combination. However, the differences in outcomes were astounding. Those who used four or more sources of influence in combination were 10 times more likely to succeed than those who relied on a single source of influence.
These same types of results translate from organizational to personal challenges. We randomly surveyed more than 1,000 individuals and asked them to describe the strategies they had tried to rid themselves of personal problems. Many had attempted to alter their behavior with a single approach (for example, join a gym, follow prescriptions in a book or attend AA meetings), and nearly all of them failed. Only14% tackled their problem using four or more strategies; for them, the success rate was four times higher, bringing their success rate from 10 to 40%.
The evidence is clear. By using four or more influence strategies in combination you exponentially increase your chances of success. But what are those sources and how do you actually target them?
The Six Sources of Influence
Our model organizes influence strategies into six sources. Motivation and ability make up the backbone of this model, which is then subdivided by three domains: personal, social, and structural. The first two domains, Personal Motivation and Ability, relate to sources of influence within an individual (motives and abilities) that determine their behavioral choices. The next two, Social Motivation and Ability, relate to how other people affect an individual’s choices. And the final two, Structural Motivation and Ability, encompass the role of nonhuman factors, such as compensation systems, physical space, and technology.
Using this model, here is how successful leaders employed strategies in each source to exponentially improve their chances of success:
Source 1—Personal Motivation:
• Asked the following questions: Would others want to engage in the new behavior? Do they hate it or enjoy it? Do they find meaning in it?
• Identified unpleasant, noxious, or disagreeable aspects of the change and found ways to either eliminate them or make them more pleasant.
• Found ways to connect the need for change with people’s core values—for example, had people meet with the individuals who would benefit from the change.
• Motivated people by creating a mission and purpose about the need for change.
• Took great pains to get people’s personal buy-in rather than issue mandates.
Source 2—Personal Ability
• Asked the following questions: Do others have the knowledge, skills, and strength to be able to do the right thing? Can they handle the toughest challenges they will face?
• Gave people guided practice and immediate feedback until they were sure they could engage in the new behaviors in the toughest of circumstances.
• Designed learning experiences to help people successfully manage any communication, emotional, and interpersonal hurdles they’d face in changing their behavior.
• Had people participate in real-time drills or simulations that tested whether they could perform as required under challenging circumstances.
Source 3—Social Motivation:
• Asked the following questions: Are others around them encouraging or discouraging the right behavior? Are respected leaders modeling the right behaviors at the right time? Do people have good relationships with those who are trying to influence them positively?
• Enlisted the support of organizational opinion leaders to serve as role models, teachers, and supporters of change.
• Had all members of management teach, model, and coach people toward new behavior.
• Identified people who would be most concerned about change, and involved them early.
— Source 4—Social Ability:
• Asked the following question: Do others provide the help, information, and resources required—particularly at critical times?
• Identified the toughest obstacles to change and made sure people had others to support them whenever they faced these obstacles.
• Used mentors or coaches to provide just-in-time assistance to overcome these obstacles.
• Created "safe" ways for people to get help without feeling embarrassed.
• Provided everyone with the authority, information and resources needed to step up to new behaviors as easily as possible.
Source 5—Structural Motivation:
• Asked the following question: Are there rewards—pay, promotions, performance reviews, or perks? Are there costs? Do rewards encourage the right behaviors and costs discourage the wrong ones?
• Adjusted formal rewards to ensure people had incentives to adopt the new behaviors.
• Made sure people had "skin in the game" by tracking their use of the new behaviors and linking it to rewards and punishments they cared about.
• Used a "carrot and stick" approach to make sure people knew the organization was serious about demanding change.
• Made sure everyone understood that even the most senior managers would be held accountable if they failed to support these changes—there were no exceptions.
Source 6—Structural Ability:
• Asked the following questions: Does the environment (tools, facilities, information, reports, proximity to others, policies, work processes, etc.) enable good behavior or bad? Are there enough cues and reminders to help people stay on course?
• Reorganized workplaces to remove obstacles and make the change convenient and easy.
• Provided new software, hardware, or other resources to make the change simple and automatic.
• Used cues, regular communications, and metrics to keep the need for change "top of mind" for everyone in the organization.
• Created potent ways to give all levels of management feedback about how successfully or unsuccessfully they were leading change.
The root cause of disappointment and underperformance is not a failure of ideas; it's a failure of influence. The most important capacity we possess is our ability to influence behavior—that of ourselves or others. By using four or more influence sources in combination, any leader can exponentially improve their chances of influencing real, substantial, and permanent change.
Ron McMillan and Joseph Grenny are the coauthors of the New York Times bestsellers Influencer, Crucial Conversations, and Crucial Confrontations. They are also sought-after speakers and consultants and cofounders of VitalSmarts, an innovator in corporate training and organizational performance (www.vitalsmarts.com).
|
SAVE | EMAIL | PRINT | MOST POPULAR | RSS |
|
|
| Back to Marketing Index |
|
|
