Lift
上QQ阅读APP看书,第一时间看更新

A Different Kind of Power

When Ron was one of the most influential people in his company, his leadership did not depend on a position of authority. And when he "lost his power" his formal authority had not changed. Leadership may be exercised by a CEO who is trying to implement a strategic change in a multinational corporation, but it could also be exercised by a player on a soccer team who inspires his teammates to play less selfishly, a teacher who motivates the children in her class to exceed all standards of academic proficiency, a father who stirs a desire in his children to cooperate with each other, or an employee who convinces her boss to change a policy that impedes her colleagues from giving their best performance.

Many scholars agree that leadership does not depend on position. They define leadership as a process of social influence that involves determining collective goals, motivating goal pursuit, and developing or maintaining the group and culture.See G. Yukl, “Managerial Leadership: A Review of Theory and Research,” Journal of Management 15, no. 2 (1989): 251–89. We agree that leadership is a process of social influence and that it often involves setting goals and motivating people to pursue those goals. However, we also propose one implicit difference and one explicit difference from this definition. Implicitly, this definition of leadership suggests that leadership is intentional. In this book we show how leadership also involves motivating people without intending to, and sometimes even involves motivating them to do things that we never intended to motivate them to do. Sometimes our leadership is intentional, but it may not always be so. For example, Ron sometimes took action in which he intended to create productivity and harmony, but other times the people he inspired came up with ideas of their own that were much better than what Ron thought they would do.

We also propose an explicit difference from the standard definition of leadership. In particular, we propose that leadership occurs when people choose to follow someone who deviates from at least one accepted cultural norm or social convention. If a person complies with accepted norms, that person is not blazing a new trail but is simply following convention. And even if the person breaks cultural norms, if no one follows that person there is no leadership. Leadership challenges convention and inspires others to follow. The impact of such leadership is most positive and effective when cultural deviations inspire people to enhance their ethical contributions and the welfare of the people who hold a stake in the situation. We often saw this in Ron—before the grumpy staffing meeting—when he would take action that defied what people accepted as possible, appropriate, or real. Defying accepted conventions can offend or alienate others, but when people understood the intentions and effects of Ron's actions, they often contributed to his efforts, rather than feel offended or alienated.

Most of us, when we want to lead, use rational arguments, appeals to duty, rewards, punishments, or any number of other tactics to try to persuade others.Much of the scientific research on influence tends to focus on tactics such as these. Examples of research that examines influence tactics include D. Kipnis and S. M. Schmidt, “Upward-Influence Styles: Relationships with Performance Evaluations, Salary, and Stress,” Administrative Science Quarterly 33, no. 4 (1988): 528–43; D. Kipnis, S. M. Schmidt, and W. Ian, “Intraorganizational Influence Tactics: Explorations in Getting One's Way,” Journal of Applied Psychology 65, no. 4 (1988): 440–52; and G. Yukl and C. M. Falbe, “Influence Tactics and Objectives in Upward, Downward, and Lateral Influence Attempts,” Journal of Applied Psychology 75 (1990): 132–40. Popular books that summarize such tactics include R. B. Cialdini, Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion, rev. ed. (New York: Collins Business, 2006); and N. J. Goldstein, S. J. Martin, and R. B. Cialdini, Yes! 50 Scientifically Proven Ways to be Persuasive (New York: Free Press, 2009). Such literature seldom considers the ethics of influence tactics. If it mentions ethics at all, it usually tells readers only to use these principles ethically. Sometimes these approaches succeed, and if they succeed we often feel satisfied. But most of us have also experienced moments of exceptional leadership—moments such as Ron's—even if these moments were fleeting. And because of these experiences our intuition tells us that more is possible even if it feels elusive. This elusiveness is the feeling Ron experienced at the end of the staffing meeting.

Ron got what he wanted in the staffing meeting, but he did not feel satisfied. He struggled to explain his feelings. The tactics he used in the staffing meeting worked, but he also began to see that he had created "collateral damage." In contrast with his usual experience in the company, at the end of the staffing meeting people felt hurt and relationships had suffered. People felt weighed down rather than lifted up, and because they did not feel committed to the decisions made in the meeting, the same problems may reemerge. Although Ron had wielded influence successfully, he wanted to be a leader again. He wanted the kind of social influence that comes from challenging a cultural norm in a way that inspires others to want to participate in pursuing a meaningful, collective good. He could tell that he had "lost" the ability to do this because something had changed inside him, but he could not explain why. All he could think to say was that he "was in a different place."