By Sue Sampson (2013)

 

What makes one leader able to engage the loyalty and commitment of followers to achieve extraordinary outcomes while another’s efforts are received with apathy and disinterest, and sometimes outright hostility?  Endeavouring to understand this disparity, the leadership research field has generated an incredible array of theories attempting to define those key factors that create the difference between effective leadership outcomes and ineffective leadership outcomes.  This leadership theory has been excellent at providing advice about what to do, but it mostly stops short of offering practical guidance about how a leader might enact a particular theory.  For example, Warren Bennis (2006), in writing about his four competencies of new leadership, advocates that leaders keep reminding people of what’s important. But how does one do this in a way that is effective (let alone inspirational, transformational or authentic)?  In fact mightn’t some leaders, upon taking this advice to heart, just be downright annoying? 

This study posits that the difference between effective and ineffective leadership lies not in the macro – in the overall approach, in the big picture -  but rather in the micro – in the small conversations undertaken everyday; the tiny interactions  that make up the fabric of leadership. Therefore this study undertook to use qualitative research techniques to capture and analyse the detailed influence and communication processes of highly effective leaders. It sought to answer the question:  What influence methods might effective, contemporary leaders be using?  The concept was essentially: 

1. Locate some individuals displaying excellent leadership;
2. Explore in detail with them the kinds of conversations and influence processes that they use on an everyday basis;
3. Seek to categorise and describe the influence tactics used by these exemplar leaders so that others may benefit.  
4. Gather data from the leaders’ followers to substantiate (or otherwise) the leaders’ perceived influence processes.

Why more work on influence

Of course, this wasn’t the first study in the field of leadership influence.  Work has been undertaken in the field of influence tactics since the early 90s with a set of 11 distinct influence tactics identified: apprising, inspirational appeals, consultation, collaboration, ingratiation, personal appeals, exchange, coalition tactics, legitimating tactics, and pressure (Yukl et al., 2005; Yukl et al., 1991).  However, the primary work to identify influence tactics was undertaken in the 1980s and 90s and research exploring the suite of influence tactics appears to have been been static since the late 1990s.  In the meantime, considerable work has been undertaken in the leadership field, particularly in transformational leadership (Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978), and in authentic leadership (Gardner et al., 2011; Walumbwa, et al., 2008). Essentially, leadership theory has developed and moved on and, it is reasonable to suppose, that new, more effective influence tactics may have also emerged.  In summary, this study sought to contribute new knowledge to determine which influence tactics  are being used by contemporary, effective leaders. 

 

Results: eight new ways of creating influence with followers

The study identified a possible eight new tactics that contemporary, effective leaders are using to create influence with followers.  The newly identified influence processes are discrete and separate from Yukl et al.’s (1991) suite of 11 influence tactics, although there are some key linkages and interactions.  The eight newly identified influence tactics are described in detail in figure 1.

It should be noted that while some of these tactics, such as coaching, are already well identified in the literature; they have not previously been understood as an influencing process.  Data analysis also found that effective leaders leaned heavily on two key Yukl et al. (1991) tactics: rational persuasion and consultation.

Figure 1:  Newly identified influence tactics

Challenging assumptions or broadening perspective	Offering a statement or question designed to challenge a target’s underlying assumptions or broaden their perspective about a situation. Includes a subset, reality check.  Here the leader clarifies what is and is not negotiable, the reality of the situation, as a way of challenging the target’s mindset.
Coaching	Asking a set of questions in a supportive way, to prompt a target to think about a situation differently, and to come to their own conclusions.
Listening openly and eliciting and acknowledging views	Paying close attention to what the target is saying (both through verbal and non-verbal means); being careful not to argue or defend and instead to focus on understanding.  Includes a subset, dealing with objections.  Here, leaders focused on genuinely listening to objections (generally about a change or new initiative) and then working with the target to determine how the issue could be best dealt with.
Sharing responsibility (through participation and delegation)	The tactic of sharing or delegating responsibility and enabling high participation involves handing over responsibility for decision-making or initiative development to an accountable group in some way.
Constructive feedback with support	Giving clear feedback about behaviour in a supportive environment that includes assistance from the leader to identify and plan for future improvement.  A key aspect of this tactic is ensuring that the staff member receiving the feedback understands that the leader is giving the feedback with positive intent, in an effort to be helpful. Includes a subset, clarifying expectations.  Here, leaders consciously used conversation with their staff to clarify behaviour expectations
Modeling through behaviour	Influencing staff or peers through one’s personal model. This tactic is usually implemented through a series of conversations and interactions and it is usually dependent on contextual factors such as the leader subordinate relationship.  Modeling is most effectively used when leaders demonstrate self-reflection, and transparency about their behaviour, so that followers can observe critical aspects of their leader’s thinking process.
Inspirational vision	Describing an attractive future state and demonstrating personal conviction and motivation towards the vision, showing that the future state is both worthy and achievable. Includes a subset, current state to future state.  Here, leaders described the current state and the future state in such a way that the targets were motivated to begin to work on ways of moving from the current state to the future state.
Advocating or facilitating for	Providing active and transparent support to a staff member on an important issue.  By doing this, leaders are able to communicate both the importance of the task and his/her support for the person being asked to undertake it.

 

Dyadic survey findings

The dyadic survey was used to assess subordinate perspectives for seven of the eight newly identified tactics, and one of the Yukl et al. (1991) tactics, collecting both quantitative and qualitative data.The data indicated high levels of quantitative subordinate agreement with respect to the eight tactics assessed:  challenging assumptions or broadening perspective (two parts, one focusing on a subset category, using a reality check), coaching, constructive feedback, shared responsibility, listening openly (two parts, one focusing on a subset category, dealing with objections), inspirational vision, and rational persuasion. Qualitative responses were also analysed and found to support the leaders’ use of the tactics, with primarily positive responses. 

 

Critical Leader supporting behaviours

Data analysis also identified some key supporting behaviours used by the leaders to facilitate and support their influence processes These supporting behaviours were individualised attention, acknowledging achievements, building and utilising strong relationships, demonstrating positive intent and trust in target capability and encouraging growth and development.  These supporting behaviours are consistent with contemporary leadership theory.  Utilising findings from the study, the following model is offered.

Figure 4.  Model representing findings about effective leader’s influence processes

 

This is a brief summary article only.  For a more in-depth article or to understand how Sue can help you to use these new findings in your own leadership or workplace, please contact Sue on 0412 024561 or 07 3388 3642 or This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .