CHAPTER 13

Clinching the Deal

“Exchanging” to Build Trust with the Powerful

You found a way to get to the table. And although you might have reduced the power gap between you and the other party, it still exists. What are you going to do to gain at least some of what you want while building a more trusting relationship at the same time?

You don’t want to be forceful or dominating, or to bluff. It can be difficult to balance your role as a potential junior partner without seeming presumptuous or arrogant; presumptions of superiority won’t work when power differences are obvious.

There may even be times when you have such little power that all you can do is throw yourself at the mercy of the powerful party’s good will and essentially pay back in gratitude. However, this approach leaves you dependent and powerless—a situation with poor long-term prospects. It is in your own and the organization’s interest to build the exchange process toward mutuality, making maximum contributions and solving problems creatively. The illustration in Figure 13.1 and the following discussion describe how you can conduct yourself in a way that will prompt others to take you seriously and hear you out—even if you have to come back another time to do it.

FIGURE 13.1 Range of Influence Exchanges

Exchanges can happen anywhere; you rarely even notice you’re making them with close and relatively equal colleagues. If you need something, you ask, and vice versa, and each helps the other out. Payback is frequently taken for granted during the course of most daily work. But as power distance increases, you must look at these conversations as negotiations with the person you want to influence, because you cannot assume that the other side is willing to cooperate. It’s also fair to assume that it’s up to you to prove that you can deliver valued currencies (such as return on investment [ROI], enhanced organizational reputation, greater market share, or whatever is valued by the decision makers) in return for what you’re asking. Quid pro quo is likely to be the starting place.

It’s also a good idea to determine your fallback position, the minimum influence and/or the maximum “price” you can accept before walking away. This is called BATNA in negotiations—the “best alternative to a negotiated agreement.” Although your interaction may not be this formal, it helps to know what you’ll accept.

Dual Focus: Determining What You Want and Constantly Improving the Relationship

There are always two things at play during an exchange: the specific contents that are at stake and the nature of the relationship as the exchange unfolds. In general, it is better for your potential outcome to enhance trust and openness during any discussion, because this also increases the long-term benefits to you and the organization.

If you are bringing a proposal from below in the organization, you will almost inevitably have to work your way up through the formal hurdles and gating process, and informal barriers from individuals or units. There will inevitably be some in the organization who want to stop or dramatically change what you want; maybe they don’t understand it, or believe—accurately or not—that implementation would make their lives more difficult somehow.

Therefore, we advocate for a few ironclad laws of organizational influence:

• Listen to everyone, including the most ardent opponents. Even if you do not change your approach, showing them that you’ll listen seriously might prompt them to be less opposed—and might even yield good ideas for modification that can gain support.
• Don’t leave a discussion unless the other party thinks better of you personally. You want to demonstrate not only competence, but also genuine respectfulness of differing views. That enhances your reputation and will help you as you move up the hierarchy. If managers along the way speak well of you, the most powerful are more likely to want to hear from you.
• Do not ignore your original supporters; reinforce your relationships so that you don’t lose them. It’s natural to take for granted those who are automatic beneficiaries of what you propose, and those who think first about organizational benefits rather than personal ones. Keep them informed and encouraged.

Except for when you are dealing exclusively with your natural allies, you will face considerable challenges when seeking influence; the challenges are due to what we have come to call the “negotiating influencer’s paradox.” There is considerable research evidence to suggest that the best deals are created—those with value for both sides—when all interests and goals are on the table. The more open both people are, the easier it is to creatively satisfy their interests. Zero sum win-lose is seldom the case in organizational issues. Even in situations where two people are competing for something, it is a good idea to think about preserving relationships because of the potential for future interactions.

The paradox, however, is if trust does not already exist, it would be naïve to put all your cards on the table immediately. That leaves you too vulnerable to an opponent who wants to take advantage of you. Of course, the other party doesn’t want to go first either—which makes it difficult to start with complete openness.

The goal is to initiate the relationship in a way that builds trust and openness. The starting point is to be certain that you are speaking to the other party’s interests, and especially for senior people, organizational benefits. Although there is often an overlap, the organizational benefits may not be identical to the powerful person’s individual best interest, and you need to be alert to those personal interests as they emerge in discussion, and eventually address them. Nevertheless, not only is the benefit to the organization likely to be an important currency, but it raises the level of the discussion. Without this other-centered guiding focus, not much else matters.

Don’t forget to take into account the way in which people prefer to be related to. In general, powerful people prefer concise and direct presentations that begin with the conclusions and an overall sense of the benefits proposed. A technical consultant to entrepreneurial engineers told us recently about how frustrating it was to help them prepare for pitches to potential funding sources. He would constantly emphasize the need to just present the benefits, and would then watch in horror as one after another immediately launched into deep dives about the science behind their product—causing eyes to glaze over within minutes.

A good proposal concisely describes the problem that needs to be solved, how the proposed product or service solves it, how the plan will make or save money compared to the costs of implementation, the key assumptions behind the plan, and the downside risks with fallback plans, leaving everything else to be answered only if there are questions. (See the later section “Even in Japan, It Is Possible to Influence Powerful People” for an illustration of this phenomenon.)

Addressing the Power Gap

By now, you have done your homework and are presenting your topic with appropriate expertise. You must be—and appear—confident, and not get written off before you even get started. This is a complex challenge, one that Michael May, former global managing partner of the strategy service line at Accenture, conceptualizes as having to come across as a peer, but not appear arrogant. According to May, “You need to have these personal influence resources to be seen as a peer, with ‘nonarrogant peerism.’” That is, you need to relate as equals no matter the level of the other person. According to May, the “personal influence resources” are:

May goes on to elaborate on these dimensions:

• Self-worth
  I had a project with Northwestern Mutual early in my career where I had to deal with a manager from hell; he cut everyone off before they spoke, always knew the answer. We had a project review; after scanning a page or two, he literally ripped my report in half: “You call yourself a consultant, go make it better!” The next time after two weeks more work, he did it again. He was screaming at me; I snapped. “Don’t you scream at me that way, I deserve more respect than that.” He smiled and said, “I was waiting for that. I have a conference room set aside for us, let’s go talk.” I believed in my worth enough to stand up to him when I thought we had done our work well.
  You have to reflect on what is called for while staying true to yourself. And you have to be at or above the energy level of the other.
• Interpersonal skill for nonarrogant peerism
  You have to understand the individual you are trying to influence to the greatest degree you can. If it is someone who started in the mailroom and worked his or her way up, or was brought in from outside over others, what do they deal with every day? Suppose it is a 30-year veteran, an experiential-base manager; what sort of individual would you bring with you to the meeting? Whatever the individual’s situation or experience, you have to change what you do each time according to this, and relate uniquely to their experience.
  People who fail to act as peers ask no questions about the business, or use “Mr.” with a CEO (although this is cultural; in some countries you have to, but in the U.S. it puts him above you). Saying, “I know you are extremely busy,” lowers you. Don’t lead with your business card; if the person doesn’t know who you are by the end of the meeting, it won’t matter whether you’ve given it to them or not. And always, always make eye contact.
• Critical thinking
  Make sure you identify the other person’s playing field, and how important the topic is to them. Try to figure out their top concerns in that territory, then construct a situation or example so real that they deal with it all the time. Can you capture their frustrations? What are the reasons they get pushback? You might not have a solution, but you demonstrate familiarity with the issue.
  However, let’s suppose you read it wrong or didn’t figure out the biggest challenges for that person during your preparation. One-to-one discussion works best if you already have a relationship, because it usually prompts the other person to be open more quickly. Bring someone else along whose style differs from yours if you do not know the person; this allows two people to serve as a sounding board.
  For example, I had a sales meeting with the Merrill Lynch CEO Dave Komansky, a long-term McKinsey client. I began by trying to relate to him like a McKinsey partner, which didn’t reflect who he was. As it turned out, he is more of a family guy and is very indirect. I saw my assumption was wrong, stopped, and quickly shifted gears by saying, “You might prefer me to get down to more specifics.” He smiled, and then we talked. You have to be willing to let go of your own agenda.
  First you have to recognize you took the wrong direction, then get them talking so you can learn.
• Visible thought process
  I happen to like the issue-based problem-solving method, a cascading decision tree that starts by asking: What questions have to be answered to address a major problem? This allows the other to see your process. “The major problem is X.” . . . Next, “The four to five major causes are A, B, C, D . . . Finally, “The data which lets us conclude that is . . .” Being clear about how you will tackle the problem helps build credibility.
• Optimized communication
  Some people wonder whether they should be direct or indirect in addressing the issue at hand. Start with irrefutable facts if you don’t expect your target to be receptive, and then move to a conclusion. If they are receptive, explain the opportunity, and then only go as deep as you need to. The simpler someone speaks, the more impact they have.
  I always make sure that I know the top five issues this person is facing. I want a conversation, not an interview; that means possibly fewer topics, but more back and forth, even with a bit of disagreement. You want fewer questions, and deeper content. Top people see too many “yes men”; few challenge them, or push outside the conventional boundaries. You earn respect as a peer by having an informed view on the critical issues. Be sure to disagree without attacking. Tie what you say to the large problems with which they’re concerned.
  I have no problem saying “I don’t understand this area. Let me get someone who does.”

Other Strategies for Increasing Your Power with Senior Management in Your Own Organization

We have already emphasized linking to organizational goals, and using every discussion as an opportunity to learn more about how to shape your proposal. As careful as you’ve diagnosed this person’s world—pressures, needs, currencies—that is still a working hypothesis that you might have to instantly change. You have the opportunity to continuously test, during interactions, whether your understanding of their world and their concerns is accurate. However, make sure you test in a way in which you are not making a CLM (career-limiting move) or creating a negative self-fulfilling prophecy.

For example, keep tying your points to the problems that will be solved, and check whether this connection is clear. You are essentially saying, “This recommendation is intended to (prevent suffering, avoid loss of customers, reduce wasteful expenditures, etc.); are the connections clear or do you need to hear more evidence?” This leaves room to gracefully retreat, and is likely to be a lot less threatening than a statement that implies the target of your influence pitch is an idiot for propagating existing practices.

Remember too that executives have both common and differing concerns. Though they have the organization’s overall benefit as a priority, they’re each in charge of a distinct area with differing subgoals, measures, and preoccupations. This is why it’s best to meet or at least gather data from each; this will allow you to address those concerns or do so before presenting. It’s also helpful to discern whether the group really makes joint decisions, or defers on all important matters to the top person. The more you know about these dynamics, the less chance that your lack of knowledge will cause the other person to have an exaggerated view of your lower-power status.

Another related point is that you should never assume bad intentions of anyone in the organization, whether explicitly or implicitly. Assume everyone wants to do the best, and cares about overall results for customers, the public, and external stakeholders (including stockholders or other financing groups). But they may not have seen the unintended consequences of the existing practice or process. This is a variation of not falling in love with your approach (or technology) for its own sake, but of connecting your proposal to desirable and identifiable outcomes.

Try to see objections or tough questions as useful statements of others’ currencies. Then find a way to speak to these—accepting their right to have different currencies and paying them in those—rather than trying to talk them out of it. You are more of a peer if you are working from these premises, believing that other smart people can value quite different things, yet be open to cooperating with something that will do ultimate good.

Just as in other negotiations, always be prepared if necessary to settle for intermediate outcomes that will provide movement toward your ultimate goal. When Peter Dames was trying to create a completely new and unheard of electronic environment for Toyota cars (as described in Chapter 12), he knew that a first step would be to create a way for executives to become familiar with what might be possible. So he worked at getting a demonstration lab where they could see simple applications and play with the technology. He realized he couldn’t get all the way to his ultimate goal directly. You’ll often take two steps forward and one back in a large, complex organization—and you need to persist while adapting along the way.

Connecting to Frequently Important Personal Currencies

Given the obligations and pressures under which senior executives work—coupled with the fact that they might be the only person focused on those concerns—many tend to feel separate or misunderstood by those below. If you can use your diagnosis of their world to connect with them, you’ll increase your apparent “peerness” and credibility. It can be something as simple as making a comment tied to a current news event about which they’re concerned. You don’t have to be the expert or agree with the executive; you just have to show that you are aware of the forces acting on them, think about such issues, and can converse about them like a peer.

Another domain in which you may have important knowledge or “expertise” is your awareness of the way this powerful person’s behavior impacts those below. How do employees perceive his or her decisions? Did the memo about the new strategy make a dent in the organization, or would more follow-up be useful? Did the declaration about the need for more innovation inspire or bewilder the troops? The valuable knowledge you have adds to your power.

Because you don’t want it to seem like you’re criticizing, be very careful about how you introduce this valuable (but potentially explosive) information. Always assume the best of intentions, and link your comment with the powerful person’s goals (it is the means that you are raising the questions about). Connect your input to the need to solve the core problem being addressed, and suggest extra effort to be sure it is achieved. This approach conveys that you both care about the results and want to achieve them better, faster, or more completely. Not only does this approach allow you to reduce the power gap, but it also helps cure low-power laryngitis, because it provides a way to speak up without attacking or implying incompetence.

Because confirmation of their power is a very common currency of the powerful, never be afraid to let the powerful person teach you, and feel important as a result. It takes strength and confidence to let someone share their expertise with you without having to prove yourself smart and knowledgeable—or playing dumb. Showing off your smarts isn’t the same as letting it come through in your attentiveness, ability to listen, learn, admire expertise, and appreciate the willingness of the other to share knowledge.

If the powerful person is teaching something that you already know—either in an attempt to make you feel or look small, or simply because he or she doesn’t know that you’re already familiar with this—resist the need to retaliate or show off. You can mention after listening that you have some knowledge in this area; ask some questions, or cover another topic where the person can show off. Besides, listening carefully will teach you important lessons about the person’s currencies, and probably compel him or her to listen to you sooner or later.

As in any negotiation, don’t try to win every point. Consider everything the other person has said before settling any issues; the more issues that are in play, the greater the chance to come up with creative solutions. This also allows you more latitude to give on things that don’t matter as much to you in order to preserve what matters most. That’s why it isn’t terrible to have a powerful person raise many objections to your proposal or request; it lets you understand the territory and achieve good trade-offs. Besides, listening carefully to concerns and objections is a kind of payment of respect in its own right, and can create a bit of reciprocal willingness to hear you out.

Finally, meet the other where he or she is in terms of preferred style. If they like to be tough, hang in and be a worthy adversary. Allow them to feel big and important if they like that; don’t focus on proving how worthy you are. Peers don’t worry about proving themselves; they just work from where the partner is and let the proof be in the give and take.

Where You Have Little Relationship and Trust Is Low

In situations where you have little connection and trust—for example, you’re dealing with a poor track record or new people—one good strategy is to offer to deliver a lot before expecting any return. This makes you more vulnerable and might require using “sweat equity,” where you put in extra hours or divert regular resources to demonstrate that you’re willing to take risks without asking for much in return. Just be clear about what you are doing, so that the other person sees it as positive.

It might be possible to make guarantees, or agree on penalties if you don’t deliver. You’ll also want to agree on how to monitor progress, decide on checkpoints, and figure out relevant measures. Powerful people have been known to grant a shot to a person or team that shows real persistence and imagination in risking themselves, and who are willing to be closely monitored. Remember the informal product development team in Chapter 1 that overspent $6 million without permission, and went to a senior manager with all the financials and their rationale for predicting a valuable business opportunity, and offered to let him monitor everything they spent going forward? That they had a compelling story helped, but so did their willingness to informally report to the senior executive, have him track their progress, and stop their work at any time.

The process of trying to influence the most powerful person or group is a high-stakes proposition; however, there’s more involved than just gaining that person’s cooperation. Getting turned down may or may not be the true end; chances are that your experience has taught you how to make necessary modifications for another round. It’s also likely to have enhanced your reputation for whatever influence attempts you make in the future. As hard as you try to get short-term positive results, remember that we are all almost always playing for the long term.

Yamamoto used his understanding of what senior people cared about and how they preferred information to get to the bottom line quickly, and rapidly gained influence. He has used his ability to tune in to the currencies of others to create a highly successful marketing/consulting business at a younger age than is customary in Japan.

We have now covered the core of what you need to influence very powerful people. In the last two chapters, we provide rich illustrations of how a doctor and a retired woman each used all the influence elements to tackle complex, multi-stakeholder situations against overwhelming odds and managed to achieve their goals.