We live in a quick-fix world. We want one solution to get employees to work better and another to lose 30 pounds fast. Of course, most quick fixes don't work for the obvious reason: there's rarely a single cause to our problems. The fact is, if you want to solve a problem, you need to come at it using several tactics. Those who do this are the ones who wield influence—both at business and at home, they accomplish change.
Researchers Joseph Grenny, David Maxfield and Andrew Shimberg looked at organizational problems like bureaucratic infighting and low compliance with quality or safety standards, interviewing executives about these problems. And even though 90% of those interviewed described these issues as "destructive" or even cancerous, only 40% had attempted to confront them. Moreover, the vast majority of those who attempted to influence change only used one strategy. They would offer training, or hold a retreat. Fewer than 5% attempted to influence their organization in four or more different ways. There were outstanding differences in outcomes. Participants who combined four or more ways to influence were 10 times more likely to succeed than those who relied on a single source of influence.
In another study, the researchers shifted from organizational to personal challenges: How do people change habits such as overeating, smoking, overspending or drinking too much? They surveyed 1,000 individuals, asking them to describe their strategies. Many had attempted to alter their behavior through a single approach—joining a gym, or attending AA meetings, for instance. But nearly all those who did so failed: only 10% succeeded. A few— 14% —tried to tackle their problems using four or more strategies. Those who did succeeded 40% of the time.
Based upon their work, Grenny, Maxfield and Shimberg organized influence strategies into categories. Leaders interested in wielding greater influence should think about how to combine these strategies to best effect.
The first has to do with linking behavior to mission and values. Leaders often have a hard time getting people to adopt new behaviors. Asking employees to change—to improve—is also asking them to deal with an enormous amount of discomfort, conflict and uncertainty. People have to rethink processes, uncover problems and reapportion power—and even reasonable people resist this kind of stress, which is why leaders fail to get them to change.
But uncomfortable behaviors can be framed as meaningful; boring behaviors can become compelling. The key is helping people see the broad implications of their actions and choices. One way to do that is to help people connect change to their deeply held values. By establishing a moral framework, you shift people's experiences.
The trick, of course, is that while personal motivation is powerful, it's rarely enough on its own. A second strategy involves investing in skill building. Too many leaders equate influence with motivation: Leaders rally their troops and then send them off to conquer. It would be better to motivate and invest heavily in increasing personal ability. The right kind of training is crucial. Research shows that training is less effective when given in one large dose—people retain less than 10% of what they learn in concentrated classes. Learning scheduled over time is markedly more successful. The goal isn't to "finish" training but to keep people focused on it long enough to absorb it.
A third method involves harnessing peer pressure. No matter how motivated and able individuals are, they still encounter enormous social influences that can stymie their efforts to change. Whether we acknowledge it or not, we often do things to earn praise from our friends and coworkers. When a senior engineer tells a junior engineer that "production work is for dropouts," the junior engineer begins to form impressions about the choices that bring prestige. When a new hire challenges an idea in a meeting only to be ostracized by her colleagues, another message is delivered. Social influence is powerful. Lots of small interactions often are what shape and sustain an organization's behavioral norms. Thus, leaders must get social actions positively aligned.
The fourth method is an obvious one: People prioritize money—and they will make more effort, often, if more money is involved. The issue becomes rewarding correctly. If a leader talks about quality but rewards productivity, employees will notice. Leaders need to design incentives that reward the correct behaviors. In fact, creating incentives can sometimes be the only real way senior leaders can separate serious priorities from pipe dreams. Employees at all levels need to see these incentives, and—whether they take the form of opportunities, money or promotions—they must be real and valuable. As important as incentives are, they should not come before personal and social sources of motivation. Otherwise, you might undermine people's intrinsic motivations.