CHAPTER 15

Influence across Multiple Organizations

It is difficult enough to influence one powerful person, but trying to impact a high-powered group is even more complicated. The true challenge is in having to sway members of many different organizations—often with very different agendas—in a similar direction. Everything we have discussed about using a partnership mind-set, diagnosing highly varied and sometimes imperceptible currencies, finding something useful to offer in exchange for what is needed, comes into play.

To help you see how this can all come together, we introduce you to Barbara Spangler, who took on a monumental and demanding project in her community with multiple stakeholders. She succeeded by using a combination of already developed skills, learning along the way, and summoning the courage to do what was needed even when it was personally uncomfortable for her.

After she retired from GE Healthcare, where she had served as a bridge builder between university researchers and corporate engineering designers in interventional cardiology, Barbara wanted to do something useful with her new freedom. While she was exploring ideas, she found herself in the middle of an opportunity to practice making something complex and valuable happen. In fact, the project ended up becoming so complex that Barbara decided to add to her skills and knowledge by entering a master’s of business administration (MBA) program. Massachusetts-based Babson College had launched a hybrid MBA in nearby San Francisco with an entrepreneurial focus that was part face to face and part online. That’s how we met her.

She was living in Oakmont Village within Santa Rosa, California, serving as president of the Oakmont Golf Club. Her role there led her to become aware of a threat by the city of Santa Rosa to shut down the wastewater treatment plant that had been built by the golf club almost 50 years ago. It had been deeded along with a major portion of property taxes to Santa Rosa in return for permanent maintenance, free water supply, and normal city services. The city had recently built a modern, high-capacity wastewater treatment plant roughly 20 miles away. However, the city was strapped for budget funds and was planning to break its agreement, close the Oakmont wastewater plant, and stop delivering free water for irrigation of the golf course.

This would have cost golf club members heavily, and it wasn’t clear whether or not it would even be legal. Board and club members who heard the rumors were ready to hire lawyers and do battle with the city; however, Barbara argued for a different approach. Barbara had come across Robert Axelrod’s The Evolution of Collaboration early in her career, a book that used game theory to show how tit-for-tat strategy usually prompted one’s opponent to collaborate. Personally sunny and optimistic, she was committed to using a more partnerlike approach in all of her dealings:

I approach people with the intent to cooperate. I assume the best of everyone, all the time, unless I’m proven otherwise. I’ve found that is the way to get the best out of everyone. I frame interactions by creating a supportive environment in which subordinates, colleagues, and superiors all give more.

After checking with a lawyer and learning that the golf club might well have a defensible contract, she persuaded her more feisty colleagues on the board that a potential standoff would cost a fortune in legal fees—not to mention the painful process they’d have to endure. She reminded them that the expense would affect them either way as city residents. When one antagonistic board member claimed that he didn’t have the time for this endeavor, Barbara explained that she did—and was willing to invest in the process. Barbara saw a great deal of obtainable help, because the community had some very smart members. They could have retired anywhere, but decided to be in Oakmont Village. The other members knew based on her history that Barbara could get things done—and so they all went along.

Key Players

It helps to have a scorecard to track the players in a complicated project like this one. In all, the project required agreement from more than 40 people. The five main groups involved were the Oakmont Golf Club, the Oakmont Village Association (OVA, governing body of Oakmont community), the Oakmont Property Development Committee (OPDC, a subcommittee of the OVA established to advise on matters pertaining to land development and potential government ordinances), and the Santa Rosa Board of Public Utilities (representing the city). A negotiating committee was also selected on behalf of the golf club, with joint membership from the golf club and the village; the city also appointed two active members, for a total of eight, and named the director and vice chair of public utilities as secondary members.

One source of tension early in the process was the somewhat strained historical relationship between the golf club and the village. It hadn’t always been exactly clear what the relationship was supposed to be like, because the golf club membership represented a large portion of the village population, but not all. Association members paid a monthly fee that did not include any maintenance for the golf courses, even though they were a large part of the attractive land of the village. Barbara immediately offered to appear before a village board meeting to brief all the property owners on the current state of the wastewater situation. This allowed the village association’s leadership to remain at arm’s length; additionally, Barbara’s thorough presentation allowed her to take some of the heat, answer all questions, and dispel rumors and fears. She acknowledged the lack of cooperation but said that because the wastewater issue was a joint problem, the two groups should approach the city together. This resulted in a tenuous agreement.

The golf club/village negotiating team appeared before the board of public utilities and said that as ratepayers they were very much in sympathy with the city’s budget problems. However, they could not support plant closure and had been advised by their attorney that the contract could not be vacated. Nevertheless, they were very interested in working together to solve the problem.

Although the city attorney was fairly adamant and negative at the beginning, he became convinced that they should at least try to find a solution together. After all, it would be better for everyone if they could resolve the water and budget problems without resorting to an expensive legal fight.

The groups held a series of biweekly meetings during which they attempted to find a mutually satisfying solution. They had to work through some extremely complex technical, economic, and political issues that raised difficult questions. For example: How could they guarantee a continuing supply of water? How could they reduce the amount of water required and maintain the beautiful vegetation and scenery? How could they minimize the solution’s cost? Who would be responsible for what costs? How could they obtain water during whatever building and transition phase was necessary? How could the various elected bodies keep from alienating significant blocs of voters?

As Barbara explained:

We had a kickoff meeting at the beginning of December with eight negotiation team members and the city attorney where I announced: “Everyone who lives in the community is a ratepayer of water, pays taxes, votes, so all have a stake . . . I prefer for the negotiating team to work in good faith, without any lawyers in the room. We want to work out a community level agreement which the attorneys can codify at the end. . . . That will save us all money.” The city official wanted to work only with the golf course manager; he explained that he thought it would be “efficient to work with someone who knows the most about technology.” I responded, “We all want efficiency, but we also need transparency; others might be happy to work that way, but I promise you that we will learn the technology if we need to and won’t slow it down.” And I insisted that we should all work together. He didn’t like it; but we couldn’t have subgroups. The club-village relationship was so fragile that any lack of trust would have made finding a solution impossible.

Gaining Credibility

The group began meetings by asking everyone to share what they wanted to know. They agreed that the group would build the needed data, run possible scenarios, and come up with a temporary agreement for the rest of the year, and a new agreement by July. Barbara described an early turning point in which she found a way to have even the sophisticated public utility commission members take her seriously:

We were asking how the city decided to create a master plan; the city responded that it was part of a huge master plan, with a sub-report about Oakmont. I said I wanted to read it. They responded, “No you don’t; it’s three inches thick.” I replied, “I am going on some long flights. I can do the homework.” I picked up the reports, and vowed to read them before the next scheduled meeting—the day after I finished a cruise.

I read and highlighted the reports during my trip, and indicated questions, and then took it in to our next negotiation meeting at 9 AM. The two city guys said, “We should probably look at the reports, so we can talk next time.” I said, “No, I looked at it already, and I have some questions. On page 4, there is a reference to nephelometric turbidity units (NTUs), and a set of requirements which were flunked. How? Why?” They didn’t know. Sometimes you have to deal with experts who want to act like the smartest people in the room. If you want to play, you have to do the hard work in service of the goal—not just to show off. These men were floored that anyone had bothered to read that entire thick report. My efforts showed we were serious about joint decision making and contributing, and would take the time necessary to do it. One part of the report cited seven scenarios which the city employees claimed we couldn’t analyze without a contract. I suggested we open all of the scenarios for now, along with any others, and urged, “Let’s build a bunch of scenarios, and act as if we are unstuck.” I think that helped them begin to loosen up and work together.

An Early Test

It wasn’t always so easy to keep building trust. As Barbara reported:

We had said that we wanted to work with transparency and be really open with our own constituencies. Since individual golf club members had started writing letters to the editors of the local papers—and not necessarily well-informed ones—we knew that we needed to respond. We told the guys from the city I was putting together PowerPoint presentations for everyone, and that the president of the village association had written to the editor to give perspective. We gave them a copy and said we would call them if the paper decided to publish it. The problem was that the paper never told us that they had done so—and we woke up on Saturday morning to see it in print. The guys from the city were furious and put us through the ringer at the next meeting. We had taken a tough stance because the city attorney had been so hard line about “closing the plant now.” We apologized, and promised to run all communications in both directions from that point on. We kept our promise, and gave them a chance to add whatever they wanted. That created a genuine sense of trust going forward.

Nearing Agreement, Internal Dissent from Unplanned-For Stakeholders

It took a great deal of work and increasing collaboration, but the groups kept their goals in mind. They were open about the cost differences in various schemes, agreed that they didn’t want to use potable water on the golf course, and discovered that efficiency was a mutual criterion that appealed to both sides. Finally, the negotiations group narrowed on a creative and mutually satisfactory plan. However, they soon faced some unanticipated opposition.

A few members of the Oakmont planning and development committee (OPDC) had been extremely powerful in land and planning issues; however, they’d always worked totally behind the scenes. Barbara knew they existed but either had not realized or didn’t want to face that they would be unhappy enough at being cut out of the process that they would try to undermine any agreement. At the last minute, two of them had gotten elected to the community board and insisted that they be put on the negotiations committee. Barbara feared that this would totally destroy the hard-won trust that they’d built. She consulted with other key golf club officers and the village association along with their lawyer. All agreed that they shouldn’t involve the disgruntled OPDC members in the negotiations.

Despite her open and collaborative style, or perhaps because of it, Barbara was extremely uncomfortable at the idea of confronting two unhappy people who were used to getting their way. She spent a great deal of time first trying to get past her irritation at their “old boy” ways. They seemed to consider themselves above others and all the rules, so it was hard not to stereotype them. She found her hands shaking when preparing a negative note to them about joining the negotiations. Then she realized what she had to do to make things easier for both parties: figure out what their currencies were. She had to hone in on what they really cared about and how they could come out reasonably satisfied, or at least less dissatisfied. She imagined how important they must have felt being able to control things behind the scenes and how satisfied they must have been to have others perceive them as experts on complex land and development issues. She also appreciated the unscheduled time they probably had on their hands as longtime retirees. She decided that she had to be prepared to face them down. As such, she met with each of them individually, listened a lot, and eventually made a decision together that the village association board would not add any new members to the negotiating team. This worked well enough to avoid all-out warfare, and the process went on uninterrupted.

Barbara also let them know that the community was very positive about the work done and solution proposed, and that she wanted to work together going forward—if they were cooperative. She also hinted that she would hate to have to publish in the golf club’s biweekly news column that all but a few self-interested factions were positive about the process. Fortunately, she didn’t have to.

In the meantime, Barbara submitted an application for an opening on the OPDC board. She thought that she could serve to build bridges between the golf course and an important committee of the village association. She got quite a bit of support from key officials.

Saving Face for Elected Officials

Barbara also spent a great deal of time in one-on-one conversations with golf club and village officers, finding out what they needed, and trying to set things up so they could be successful. She was determined to be looking after everyone’s benefit and not just golf club interests. She said repeatedly that the desired outcomes were a secure source of water on a continuing basis for the club, the sustained beautiful, open spaces with wildlife for the village, and reasonable water rates for the city.

Legal Hitches

A few new problems surfaced when it was time to turn the agreement over to the lawyers for official drafting. Because the city attorney didn’t have time to do the first draft, he gave it to the golf club’s attorney. But this version would have been very expensive for the city, so the city had a go. They drafted a version whose standard construction contract language called for an extremely expensive elaborate project management process. Both sides agreed that it was not what they wanted; but then they had to work out the question of liability for the construction and ultimate costs. Again, they worked collaboratively to determine how to reduce the risk on both sides, and were ultimately able to create a mutually satisfactory contract.

However, they still needed the interested parties’ approval. The city people worried about signing a contract only with the golf club, in case the village association later claimed that they did not have to honor a contract of which they weren’t part. Barbara and her colleagues then had to get the members of the Oakmont village association board to sign off. It became clear to Barbara that she’d need to hold individual meetings with each board member, and she proceeded to make the rounds. Having to sell a good solution one-on-one was new to her; she had been so focused on the complexities of inventing a satisfactory solution that she had not thought much about gaining ultimate approval. She started with the current president, but brought along the member of the negotiating team who was the former president to help. Although she eventually got everyone on board, she was amazed by the individual variations in what board members cared about. She had to listen carefully for each person’s currencies and frame the arguments accordingly. She also discovered that in some cases, it was important to identify members who influenced other members and get them to work on the recalcitrant ones. It was a process of influencing the influencers. The ultimate collaborative solution was finally passed by the City Council by a 7-0 vote.

The entire experience helped Barbara sort her priorities and identify her ultimate aspiration: to bring simplified versions of existing health care technology to underserved populations. She also learned a lot about what it might take to start such an organization. She got in touch with and practiced her ability to face up to negative responses, despite her preference to be positive all the time. Ultimately, she also learned a lot about owning her own behavior—what she came to call “leading from the front” instead of merely facilitating others’ initiatives.

Lessons for Influencing on a Grand Scale

Here are some of the takeaways from Barbara Spangler’s arduous efforts to induce many parties with diverse interests and high potential for battling rather than problem solving to collaborate. The lessons apply to similar multiparty situations you may face.

• Once you have a vision of your overall goal, stick with it. Barbara and her allies gained confidence that they would come to a mutually acceptable solution, even though they weren’t exactly sure how. However, they were committed to figuring out what the right thing to do was, and then getting the various constituencies to adopt it. It helps to be good at, or mobilize others to help create, feasible mutually satisfactory solutions. Don’t leap to the first possible solution; create multiple options for consideration and revision.
• Identify stakeholders early. When presented as part of a model, the need to identify relevant stakeholders seems self-evident; however, it can be hard to do this up front in complex situations. This instance showed how failure to do so can interject unexpected roadblocks at inconvenient times. Fortunately, Barbara was able to work her way around each of these roadblocks.
• Do your homework. Good intentions don’t go far if you are not credible with powerful knowledgeable people.
  Even in the unlikeliest of circumstances, start with a partnership mind-set, and don’t give up too fast when others do not readily welcome it. There were plenty of people on all sides of the wastewater plant issues who assumed that other parties would be intransigent and that they needed to be belligerent from the beginning. This kind of preemptive attack is so common that many people simply assume there is no other way to function. There are plenty of instances when even the best-intentioned partnerlike approaches do not work; however, there’s no chance they’ll work if you don’t give them a try! It’s better to point out the negative consequences at the first resistance and try again than to just give up.
• Once engaged with the key players, work to get the team committed to each other and to the outcome. Although it sounds individually driven, Barbara points out that she definitely didn’t accomplish this without drawing on the entire negotiating group’s skills, talents, and insights.
• Keep in mind that a wide range of responses is likely with multiple players. This may seem obvious. However, it can be hard to remember when you’re trying to make something happen that others may see things very differently—and value different aspects of the situation. Even individuals on the same side of an issue can agree on overall goals but have very different ideas about how to achieve them. Some currencies will apply to a group; others will be individual.
• Keep thinking win-win, but be ready for some asymmetry. It isn’t always possible for everyone to get everything they are interested in, though it is a useful starting point. Don’t let idealism and perfection be the enemy of the satisfactory.
• Demonstrate a constant willingness to listen—even when you and others don’t agree. Opponents often have enough reason to disagree, but it isn’t a good idea to add to their irritation. This can be difficult when you have very strong feelings about the outcomes, but you must practice self-discipline. Besides, sometimes you learn important things when you listen—contingencies you hadn’t realized, or even that you are (gulp!) wrong.
• You can’t be afraid of negative reactions—or, for that matter, of being warm and supportive. Expand your own range of emotions and tolerance for diverse reactions. Consider whether you have an unlimited need to be liked; it usually means that you are ceding control of your behavior to others and their reactions.

We have said from the outset that influencing powerful people requires finding out what they care about and finding ways to give some of it in return for what you need. Putting that into practice requires a considerable amount of hard-nosed analysis, sometimes up close and sometimes at a great distance—and if you gain access, both. But it almost always comes down to you and your values, goals, and emotions, which are inevitably part of the process. Not only is some intuition usually required to tune in, but so is a large helping of courage to allow you to act on what you come to see as necessary for impact. This isn’t easy when the much higher-powered person or group can respond in negative ways, such as with anger, indifference, or retaliation. Yet powerful people do get influenced, helping not only the influencers but also themselves. We hope you find the courage to use what you have learned to make the difference you desire.