Leaders, decision makers, operators make things happen. However, remarkably few outcomes or successes are under their control. A major factor is the art of influencing. But in many cases, complexity, multiple stakeholders and histories of personal sensitivities have spawned cumbersome practices that replace effective influencing with passionless and ineffective procedures. Ann Gammie looks at the situation in the public sector and suggests that relearning the art of influencing could open things out considerably.

At a dinner ER Consultants recently held, what struck me forcibly was the speaker’s description of life as a leader in the public sector. He described a level of complexity that relatively few leaders face so starkly: where the roles required are many and often contradictory; where finding the right answer is a judgement made from a myriad of conflicting pressures; and to cap it all, decisions are taken and behaviour is judged in the hawk-like gaze engendered by the requirements of the public purse.

This greater complexity in the public sector arises from the constant up-dating of legislation, from the PPF and PFI, from government policy, and from an increasingly vocal and diverse public/market. This requires holistic leadership. However, across the public sector today, we find a dramatic breadth in how the various agencies and departments are run. Some are succeeding in breaking the ties that bind as they face up to the challenges of their complex domains. They are developing sophisticated approaches to leading and managing their businesses. Others are still locked in a spiral of Taylorist reductionism which, whilst it may provide some seemingly solid boundaries, loses sight of the whole.

To meet this dizzying maze of interactions, I would suggest those in the public sector might relearn the art of influencing. In order to rediscover the art of influencing, some departments and agencies will need to investigate the nature of their ‘evolved’ practices. Perhaps largely as a result of the rapidly changing legislative environment, and as a response to the ever-changing nature of the stakeholder group in the public sector, there has grown up a dead weight of inappropriate practices that have gained a degree of legitimacy over time. Such practices are not unique to the public sector: they tend to be a feature of fragmentation in any major and complex organisation.

Importantly however, in the public sector, with more and more levels of accountability and the establishment of some degree of competition, such practices are being shown to be less than effective and less than efficient. Let’s highlight two such practices, and think about how more influence may be gained through alternative responses.

Paper responses

In response to ambitious goals or major problems, individuals or small teams are set up to produce a paper on the subject. Authority for making the decisions does not belong to them, and they are largely left unsupported by those that hold it. Days, weeks, months of time may be given to writing papers that draw on and feedback to a catchment of internal people. This develops a way of working that bypasses any real dialogue and with it the opportunity to influence and develop greater collective understanding leading to genuine ownership. Written papers rely heavily on a particular style of influencing – the use of logical argument. How readily can you convey with passion a new vision for how things might be done and achieved? How can you invoke the senses, make people smile, energise through the dry voice of logic?

Let us now examine the second part of this practice, the nature of the meetings where these papers are discussed.

Meetings to pass the time

How well used is meeting time? The papers are often presented to large groups that meet infrequently. The members are often too busy to read the papers beforehand, and seek as few added tasks as possible. The tasks may well be left to more junior people to work through and write their recommendations for the group to consider – at the next group meeting! The outcome is that ownership of the issues and solutions is fragmented and not necessarily vested with the most appropriate people. We end up with the art of not being influenced, of not being engaged, committed, or enthusiastic. Outcomes are sub-optimal if realised at all. Individuals cannot be chided for poor performance, but when we look at the collective outcome and consider the invested resource, we are nevertheless left with a nagging sense of failure, of disappointment.

The vicious spiral

In some cases, people turn to ever-tighter work methods and procedures for improving outputs. As time goes by, the need to work across the organisation can fade into a nicety, as procedures and ‘justifiable’ activity take over. Look at the huge investment in programme management which has for many replaced the need to work informally and intuitively with their stakeholders. This is not the fault of the programme managers or the methods, but if these tools are not applied correctly, then the result is avoidance of genuine ownership and face-to-face interaction. What is needed is lots more dialogue, and genuine effort to gain buy-in on the part of those who own the project. I am not talking here about ‘soft’ and longwinded ways of achieving consensus. No. This is probably hard-nosed debate. This may be conflictual, wrestling with the vying needs of disparate stakeholders to come up with the ‘highest common factor’ rather than the lowest common denominator.

Creating a will to influence

Where influencing has been replaced by protocol, procedures and processes we have lost the very essence of organisational life – that is working together for a common purpose to which we want to bring the wealth of diversity of perspectives and views . We cannot reconcile those differences to achieve robust results if we have no mechanisms, opportunities or will to influence.

What does influence look like in the public sector?

Power and influence go together – so where and how is power held in public sector organisations? In some cases we see strong leaders with clear vision and the ability to take their followers with them to meet new challenges and succeed. But they do not do it alone. They have devolved power too so that there is a leadership cadre to shape and focus effort and outcomes. But we also know that power is held outside the organisation – the power of private contractors, partners, politicians, the public! It takes strong and cohesive leadership to steer a course under such pressure. It is understandable that people can be so weighed down by the daily, often frantic, power wielded by outside stakeholders that they lose sight of the power they do hold. Time and again, we see that these obstacles are based on sets of assumptions about a perceived lack of power, or habitual ways of doing things. If we work from a sense of greater corporate good, this will provide us with the highest common factor to guide our judgement and provide the agenda for influencing others. The range of methods available to influence others is vast, covering informal and formal means as well as interactive behaviours. Here are just a few that I would like to see lots more of:

• Don’t write a paper, bring together your key stakeholders and stimulate a challenging debate. Be clear about the conclusions, unresolved questions and what happens next.
• Take your ideas to those who will be affected by them and test them out: what if we did this? What if we did that?
• Network seriously to get behind the needs expressed or indeed the lack of interest expressed: why is that important here, what will you do as a result, how will that work?
• Learn about the rest of the organisation and how the bits relate: what happens if you change something here, who and what is affected? Influence up and down as well as across the organisation. Increase your ability to influence by understanding more.
• Vary the range of means by which you exert influence: assertiveness is only one; try describing the ultimate outcome or vision with passion and enthusiasm; try the application of incentives – sticks and carrots; try involving key people in joint development of ideas and solutions; start from where other people are.
• Develop tactical approaches for reaching an end-game – we don’t always get there in one step.

Who gains from learning how to influence?

A greater ability to influence frees up thinkers to stretch their ideas and challenge others. It forces better understanding and focuses people’s effort on relationships not only on their own tasks. It challenges the weightier procedures that make progress difficult and helps re-calibrate what is needed. It creates a wider sense of the corporate good. However, it can also mean heated debates and sometimes hurt, it can mean showdowns and backing off. So, it demands maturity and skill to keep focused on the issues and retain the end-game in the collective sights.

I hope this article has raised some questions about current practice. Further, I hope this has raised questions in your mind about how well the leadership cadre of any public sector organisation (and indeed private sector organisation) can perform without an understanding of the acute importance of relationships and the ability to influence.

For further information, please contact Ann Gammie:
T 44(0) 1223 31594
E ann.gammie@erconsultants.co.uk