“If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.”

John Quincy Adams

One of my favorite business related books is Robert B. Cialdini’s Influence:  Science and Practice. I regard it as a “must read” for people involved in sales, negotiation, and marketing. The book is well researched and includes results of scientific research as well as “real world” examples of factors that lead people to make decisions that they never would have if not persuaded by someone else. Although Cialdini is a psychologist by trade and training, his work has earned him acclaim in areas of business such as marketing and sales, and from business experts such as Tom Peters and Tom Hopkins.

Despite the book’s applications to business related activities and the fact that it revolves around persuasion, it is not a book about leadership. In fact, it will not appear in searches associated with that topic.  Cialdini himself would be the first to admit that it is not about that subject— negotiation, yes, sales, yes, persuasion, yes, but not leadership.

Tactics and tricks vs. genuine leadership

References to the all-important “L” word are conspicuous in their absence from this book, which raises some interesting questions. After all, isn’t leadership all about social influence, persuasion, and “selling” ideas? You’d better believe it is! But it’s about a lot more than that, and I think this author is quite responsible in excluding leadership from his discussion of his particular expertise regarding social influence. 

While Cialdini identifies various “tactics” of social influence and the psychological mechanisms that make them work, he never suggests that mastering these schemes would make a person an effective leader. In fact, the language he uses at times carries a warning tone, referring to various tactics as “weapons of influence” that we may want to be ready to resist as we attempt to make decisions that are in our own long-term best interests.

Leadership goes far beyond effective persuasion

While leadership may include persuasion, it is a qualitatively different domain, and so it shall ever be. Effective leaders do need to be persuasive, so that tactical approaches to social influence may be warranted at times. But genuine leadership, meaning the kind that leaves a legacy that will be respected down the road, is of a qualitatively different nature than an ability to influence what others think or do. Let’s talk about some aspects of leadership that really set it apart from the ability to persuade others to change their thinking and actions.

Difference # 1: The level at which the influence occurs

Behavioral scientists who study social influence frequently find it useful to distinguish between various “levels” at which influences occurs. Some influences occur at very superficial levels, leading to obedience or compliance without much effect at “deeper” levels, such as attitudes or values. All of us have experienced situations in which someone made it difficult for us to say “no,” but really didn’t win our respect or trust. They simply got us to comply with their demands.

Just about all of us know about bosses or supervisors who “throw their weight around,” deriving the bulk of their power from their ability to reward or punish others in some more or less material sense. Consider also those individuals whose nagging styles led you to give them what they wanted only because you were eager to get them to off your back. In such cases, it was the external pressure that produced the compliance, not any sense that they were competent or correct.

This kind of influence is problematical and inefficient, because it requires constant monitoring and maintenance— as has been so often said, “When the cat’s away the mice will play.” Authority figures who function in this manner illustrate the difference between leadership and bullying, and burden themselves by creating situations that require constant surveillance and active effort if their bidding is to be done. They also produce resistance, resentment, and other negative “fallout” effects. 

In sharp contrast to the above, we can all think of persons who influence others in ways that run deeper than a superficial form of compliance— they get people to “buy into” their vision and goals. This is very different. The influence is not just on behavior. It produces shifts in values and commitments. Those affected at this level do their work much more willingly and diligently, carrying out their duties without constant monitoring or continued pressure. 

In these cases, “when the cat’s away,” the mice don’t play— they work, executing their tasks as effectively as possible. Good leadership always gets more than slavish obedience— it generates enthusiasm, commitment, and creative problem solving, all of which translate into improved results.

Difference #2:  Subordinates are beneficiaries

While authoritarian styles of managing people abuse them in attempts to make them productive, more constructive approaches get better results by attempting to meet as many of their needs (besides those for money) as possible. Note that reports about companies identified as the “best workplaces” emphasize good human relations, and invariably include those that are also the most profitable. Meeting human needs may seem like a “soft” or “touchy-feely” concern, but in business it translates into tangible outcomes such as consistent quality and customer loyalty, factors crucial to cash flow.

Success in any business will always require sacrifice on the part of its key players, but the best sacrifices are those that are made willingly. This doesn’t happen when employees feel unappreciated or abused, situations which can be at least as costly as poor technical skills or antiquated hardware. The trick will always be coordinating the needs of employees with those of a larger organization, and there will never be a set formula for accomplishing this. It takes sensitivity, ongoing concern, and the willingness to make adjustments that encourage rather than coerce.

Difference #3:  Creating a culture of mutual support

Employees best serve the needs of others when their own needs are met, meaning that the ability of a business to attract and keep “external customers” (those that patronize it) requires a culture that emphasizes service among employees as “internal customers.”   This has to start at the top and be encouraged throughout, and not through directives, speeches, pep talks. Superficial forms of prodding will not be sufficient to establish and maintain it. It has to be demonstrated through example, and consistently so.

Many business owners could benefit by noting the strides made by the U.S. military in improving the performance and morale of its personnel in recent decades. The progress has not come because of increased coercion. Improved results have been obtained primarily by devoting greater attention to teamwork by fostering interpersonal trust and respect— improving the “human side” of its operations.

Again, this has to be exemplified by those in leadership positions. As expressed by Retired Army General Colin Powell: “The day soldiers stop bringing you their problems is the day you have stopped leading them. They have either lost confidence that you can help or concluded you do not care.” This kind of compassion expresses a spirit of self-sacrifice and makes it the norm for the organization involved. It is much easier to expect commitment to organizational goals from people whose needs are acknowledged and addressed.

Difference #4:  Effective leadership reflects wisdom

According to Stephen R. Covey, author of numerous books on success in business and life, “Management is efficiency in climbing the ladder of success; leadership determines whether the ladder is leaning against the right wall.” Persuasiveness per se is a tool that can be used to promote the common good or wreak havoc, depending upon the wisdom with which it is deployed. Knowing how to persuade others does not guarantee good judgment in other domains. History has shown that repeatedly.

Variations on a quote originating with Peter Drucker assert that “management is doing things right, leadership is doing the right things.” The best leadership is characterized by such qualities as “vision,” and acknowledging the “big picture.” The ability to factor in the past, present, and possible futures— that is, wisdom— when coming to decisions is perhaps one of the most essential qualities of leadership that distinguishes it from a mere mastery of rhetorical techniques.

This notion of “being right” reflects personal development in areas that are often neglected: Those areas where compassion, intuition, and logic work together in synergistic ways to allow us to make decisions that will ultimately be counted as wise. It is a lack of such wisdom that accounts for the high rates of failure in business that we see. Bad judgment about managing people can be as deadly to business as bad judgment about markets.

In a world in which many of us focus on tangibles, such as identifiable procedures, hardware, and bottom lines, it is too easy to neglect those things that count as much as all of the above. When all else is said and done, it is people who must be served and do the serving. Summarized simply, success in business is the result of serving the needs of all involved, and this includes employees as well as customers.