Influence Without Authority. Cohen Allan R.

times a poor relationship makes it almost impossible to get others to make task exchanges, even ones in their best interest. Then you must spend time rebuilding the relationship before doing any task work. To prevent this, find a way to make relationships before they are needed. Suppose you want a special analysis from a colleague to proceed with new product planning. If the relationship is strained, you may first need to relieve the strain and reestablish the relationship. This will ease the conversation about the information you need and aid in finding a basis for getting the help you want.

      Finally, a discussion of what you want and the quality of the relationship is always concurrent. Pay attention to the process of discussion about exchange. Focusing only on the task outcome – getting your way – may not only harm future dealings but make you lose the deal.

      When you make many relationships and create a positive reputation, your credit will be good, and you will have longer to pay back the help received. A good reputation is a form of saving for a rainy day, like making a goodwill deposit in a bank, so you can draw on it later. Try not to mortgage the future; you never know when you will need to call in your chips.

Exchanges Can Be Positive or Negative

      As mentioned earlier, exchanges can be positive or negative. Positive ones take the form, “I do something beneficial for you and in turn you do something valuable for me.” But you can also exchange negatives for negatives: “I have little inclination to go out of my way for your requests since you won't do that for mine.” Negatives can be about impact on the organization, consequences for the other party, or something unfair.

      Note two forms of negative exchange: (1) implicit or explicit threats of what you might do or what might happen because of the other person's responses, and (2) negative retaliation, in which both sides lose. Negative payback can feel unpleasant for both the sender and the receiver but can sometimes be necessary (as we will explore below) for positive exchanges to eventually occur. Lose-lose retaliatory exchanges are the least desirable, to be used only as a last resort.

You May Occasionally Need to Use Negative Exchanges

      Even offers of positive exchange, however, implicitly contain a message about negative consequences if they are not accepted. If compliance will result in mutual benefit, there is always the underlying possibility that not complying will lead to negative results for both parties. You can make the consequences clear or leave them unsaid. “If you can loan me that chemical engineer, I can complete this essential project,” implies that failure to comply will stop the project and something valuable will be lost. Finally, you can use negative exchanges to gradually up the ante, making it increasingly undesirable not to cooperate.

      Being overt about possible negative exchanges can be useful in moving things along, putting teeth into the request. It shows seriousness and can be a powerful way to impact others – if the threat is a real one the other person cares about.

      While the threat of negative consequences is a less friendly way to make exchanges, it may be necessary in difficult situations. The mule may need a whack with a two-by-four to get its attention when no amount of coaxing will move it. When mentioning negative consequences, it is usually helpful to also hold out a carrot: “I don't want to have to resort to this; I would much prefer X, but if that can't occur, I will be forced to…” We say more about this in Chapter 7 on making exchanges.

      A problem arises, however, when frustration with lack of cooperation – now or in the past – causes you to open with threats of negative exchanges from aggravation instead of careful diagnosis. People who feel stymied can move rapidly to negative ways of operating, relying on threats as a first resort rather than a distant last one. That may cause a negative reaction in itself, hindering any possible deal.

Have a Bias toward Positive Exchanges

      Although negative exchanges can be powerful influencers, we encourage beginning with positive ones. Some people find it more difficult to get tough when necessary later, but we believe that a positive emphasis will expand the influence repertoires of most people.

      As we have suggested, a negative approach may create its own form of reciprocity, with the other person feeling compelled to oppose you. You create a self-fulfilling prophecy. Threatened people often automatically start to fight fire with fire, increasing their resistance. The person becomes more difficult, reinforcing your negative opinion, which induces you to be tougher. The negativism escalates until each of you is irritated and unbending. Even worse, if you gain a reputation for the negative, some potential allies will be negative toward you before you do anything to them. The potential threat of your setting fires causes them to burn you first.

      Another reason for accentuating the positive is that peers and superiors may be stronger, with at least as many resources for retaliation as you have, which heightens the potential dangers of a spitting contest. They may salivate at the chance to show who is tougher. Positive expectations, on the other hand, create an atmosphere making win-win outcomes more likely. Much of what transpires after you make a request depends on not only how well you speak to the person's needs but also how much the person trusts you – a product of your past actions and the extent to which the person views you as a good corporate citizen.

      And don't forget the future. Since people often come back in other roles, assume the possibility of finding mutual objectives. Should the assumption later prove to be untrue, you can fall back on other strategies and assumptions.

      Self-Created Barriers to Influencing

We have described a straightforward model for diagnosing what to do and executing it to achieve influence. Over the years, we have taught many people to use this model successfully. But we have also observed many failed efforts at each stage of the model, whether or not the person was aware of using it. Either the person desiring influence manages to make things worse, gives up prematurely, or doesn't even try out of frustration from anticipated failure. Before subsequent chapters explain how to use the important parts of the model, here are the most common ways that people block their own effectiveness at each stage. Table 2.3 can serve as warnings to monitor yourself when trying to make things happen.

Table 2.3 Common Self-Created Barriers to Influencing

Barrier: Not Assuming the Other Person Is at Least a Potential Ally

      Failure to think positively about people who are difficult to influence is perhaps the deadliest self-created trap. It usually starts when a request is turned down. You want something clearly important to you that the other person can deliver. Sometimes you follow this with a second request and, if you are really determined, a third. Few people can be turned down two to three times without becoming convinced that something is fundamentally wrong with the other person. (Psychologists call this attribution.)8 The person has a defect of character, motives, or intelligence, or is a “perfect representative of that miserable group of incompetents from (the offending group).” Even when the negative attribution isn't spoken out loud (“Just another empty suit from marketing.” “Another engineering nerd.” “A numbers-obsessed shark from finance.” “A soft-headed bleeding heart from HR.” “A green eyeshade accountant who doesn't have the personality to be an actuary.”), it gets communicated.