Leadership is about Influence, Not Authority

Authority is the moral or legal right of control, specific to a domain.  Influence is the power to have an effect on people.  They are not the same.  It is conceivable, indeed common, that a person would have authority by virtue of an appointment to a position, bit have no influence to effect any agenda.  Authority without influence is impotent leadership. 

The modern work place is not a command-type environment where influence is directly commensurate with authority.  That is how the military is run.  The corporate environment is a collaborative one, with flat management structures, and a multitude of stakeholders, the internal and external clients.  In such an environment, the ability to influence carries further than any perceived authority. 

Whilst people do recognise that, it does not mean they understand how to acquire that influence, and may, in their efforts, diminish their personal branding, and damage their credibility.  Influence is not gained by engaging in petty politics, creating personality cults, or engaging in strictly transactional relationships.  Influence is built by building a fortress of certainty in a landscape of uncertainty.  People are better able to relate to known quantities. 

This begins with having the correct values, and exhibiting those values.  Popularity is not a value, and not necessarily commensurate with influence.  A person could be well-liked, but discounted on account of many factors.  A person of influence is able to appeal to the other, and bring them to their side of the table, he is people-centric in his discussions with an emphasis on the other.  People open up when they feel others are genuinely interested in them.  This means influence starts at the door of service. 

Influence is built on direct personal relationships that are not transactional in nature.  This allows us to create rapport, and connect with people at a deeper level.  It is based on credibility, integrity, and mutual respect.  This carries over regardless of the power dynamic of the relationship, since people want to be validated.  When people are validated, they have a stake in the maintenance of the relationship, and this is what interpersonal influence is built on. 

These relationships can be leveraged upon, and that is how influence is exercised.  We give favours so they can be called in.  This trading of favours has no exact value to be pinned down, since the value of a favour varies according to need and consequence upon the individual.  To maintain, and grow, that relationship, it is important hat effort and help is recognised, people are appropriately thanked, and the integrity of the arrangement made sacred.  This is a demonstration of personal integrity and values, which enhance credibility.  This functions as an influence multiplier overtime through the creation of goodwill. 

These favours and acts of collaboration are built on specific commitments, with clear objectives, so that success or failure is clear, preferably measureable and quantifiable.  This is especially pertinent when working in a hybrid environment.  This requires communications which are of high structure, and high substance.  High structure communications are communications which are scheduled, have a specific agenda, and have measureable and quantifiable outcomes.  We know when to meet, virtually or physically; we know what needs to be addressed; we know by when it needs to addressed; we know the preferred outcomes; and we know who is going to do what.  A high substance communication is one that is relevant, has content, and focused, with all the necessary information required to get the job done. 

The nature of such communications is not to speak or correspond a lot, but to do so effectively, which means being direct, but respectful.  This requires establishing a clear timeline and roadmap, with explicit ownership of each part of the project, and a concrete deliverable.  There are definite lines of communication, and clear checkpoints where the team checks back on each other, both top down, and across teams, so that the process can be evaluated, and issues addressed, and a change of direction effected as necessary. 

Effective management requires an ability to explain and persuade, not command.  Hierarchical relationships work when there is a clear hierarchy of responsibility, but does not translate well when working with talent.  Talent requires nurturing and convincing.  This necessitates a balance between an appeal to emotion, and an appeal to logic.  One cannot predominate the other.  People need to feel invested in the team and the project, which is the appeal to emotion.  People need to see clear outcomes, and project the rewards of success, which is the appeal to self-interest through logic.  This requires a lot of due diligence and fact find on the part of the team leader. 

Finally, our success in growing and exercising influence works when we support people, and facilitate their success.  People must feel that they have achieved something, and that they earned their success.  If we were to make it overt that we facilitated it, we breed resentment and dissension.  At the very worst, it would be seen as stealing another person’s glory.  This has to be sincere.  When we add value to people, they instinctively know, and most people are inclined to give something back.  And those who are ungrateful should be proscribed, and set aside.  This is how we grow influence, and exercise authority, regardless of titles and position.