The Informal Influencers That Are Key To Making Change

Are you successful at persuading resisters to change?

If you are a leader with a vision, you aspire to make change happen. Yet leaders often misdirect their efforts communicating the change they envision because they don’t pay enough regard to resisters and the influencers who may be able to enrol them.

Years of mapping interactions among people in organizations tell us that people in informal networks have a bigger impact enabling or blocking change than those with formal authority.

So if that’s the case, how do we identify these influencers, if not by title? Here is a brief list of four types of influencers in your network who you need to know about.

The Experts: Among the most influential are these go-to people who are sought out by many for their expertise, information and advice.

The Energizers: They leave people feeling invigorated after interacting with them by making things happen and fostering an environment of possibility.

The Bridgers or Brokers: They span the gaps across groups.

The Liaisons: They span boundaries without any allegiances.

I’ve played many of these influencing roles in my career and learned how to deal with resisters by facing them. Take, for example, the time when I was working in a large financial services organization. I was asked to meet with several groups to solicit their recommendations for a list of resources that would be an integral part of a large change initiative. I was astonished by the strong resistance from these groups because I expected that they understood our appreciation for their expertise and input. Instead, I faced discord and misunderstandings that originated from years past. The groups had become isolated from one another with little or no contact, and they appeared to be resisting the planned change.

Then, something unexpected happened. I dropped my hard focus on the task and spent time with each of them. Gradually, I developed a connection between them. What I did worked. As an intermediary among the groups (bridging), I lessened the resistance and successfully influenced by inviting them to look at and begin shaping the future (energizing).

Researchers Julie Battilana and Tiziana Casciaro tracked years of change initiatives in Britain’s large National Health Service to find out where change agents should focus their energy in their study, “The Network Secrets of Great Change Agents.” They concluded that developing or deepening relationships with endorsers of the change isn’t necessary. These people are already committed based on the merit of the argument for change, so it doesn’t make a difference if leaders have a lot of interactions with them.

Nevertheless, as an executive coach, I frequently see many changemakers meeting with supporters far more than they need to, burning through the scarce resources of time and energy without a lot of return.

Fence-sitters are different. Innumerable political campaigns have taught us the importance of spending time building relationships with these individuals in our networks because they can tip the balance in favour of the change and in so doing, determine the outcome.

So what can you do with resisters? You could leave them alone, and some do, although it may not be wise because they can actively undermine your efforts.

Anyway, leaders have a responsibility to bring as many people along as possible. According to the above study, staying close to resisters could change their view so that they become endorsers when they understand the change as non-threatening. The probability is low if the change is seen as a threat. This means that gaining insight about the reasons for their resistance is key to taking the right action. That’s why it’s a very good idea right at the start to seek out their views so you can address their objections and be sure to frame the purpose of the change and its execution with them in mind.

Boosting the social interactions of change agents with influencers works with some groups, but not in all cases. Where it won’t make much difference is with the resisters who feel threatened. Focus instead on the fence-sitters, identify the boundary spanners and connect with experts and energizers proactively to seek their input and inform them about the change, persuading them of its urgency.

Formal and informal authority coexist at work, but when it comes to making a change, informal influence can matter more than rank.

A version of this post first appeared on Forbes.com.

Photo credit: Thank you to Pavan Trikutam

Networks: How to cross boundaries

It’s likely that you, just like pretty much all of us, have a story of working on a time intensive initiative only to learn that it was already done by another division or group long ago. That “D’oh” moment could have been avoided if someone from your group consulted with other people across divisions. There is no shortage of boundaries in organizational life. Think function, expertise, level, geography, demographics, and sectors. Conversations with others across one or more of those divides would likely have brought to light what the people in your silo didn’t know. What’s more, research tells us what my own experience working with leaders in multiple industries over the length of a career has borne out. That a great majority of leaders at every level recognize that it’s critical to manage across groups and teams, although very few view themselves as effective in this way. Managing across means generating commitment for direction and securing alignment across relevant boundaries. There are also other reasons to promote connectivity with individuals across in and outside of your organization. Insular networks can miss innovation opportunities. They lose out on fresh ideas and the detection of early signs of trends, and risk overextending into areas where they know little. Closed groups are also deaf to how they are perceived by others. So it begs the question – since we stand to gain when boundaries are crossed, what’s in the way of bridging across divisions?

On being closed.

First we need to recognize that there are, not surprisingly, reasons for closed groups. Individuals enjoy high trust where they converge about their interests and shared views. In the walled gardens I know, engagement among members is high and the safety among them enables people to speak plainly with one another and push to realize greater outcomes. Specialization too plays a role in keeping closed networks persistent. There are many sectors that have a history of isolated clusters shaped by professional specialization. Each area has its own jargon, customs and behaviours, developing under its own historic forces. Many individuals work very hard to overcome the challenges that surface in interprofessional work. And then there are the challenges that organizational structures present that keep closed groups intact, not least of which is the hierarchical design where the traditional focus is to manage up and down, with less attention from leaders to manage across.

So what can you do?

Here are a few strategies for you to consider to span boundaries that address a gap.

Face your own competency traps.

Herminia Ibarra, professor of Leadership and Learning at INSEAD, calls competency traps those things we enjoy doing because we are so good at them, but that keep us from learning new things because we perceive it as too costly. We have a choice of either resisting or selecting to move from the fast well-trodden lane of competence to the slower learning lane where we have more room to grow. Staying comfortable with the people we know and trust won’t bring us differentiated strategic solutions or the benefits of unity that coordination can bring, only moving between lanes will.

Examine your group from the inside and out.

As a group member, look at it from the outside in and ask if your group’s defined boundaries of work responsibilities are clear to others outside making it easy to be invited to be consulted or collaborate? Further, are there ways in which your group can make learning about other groups routine? Viewing your own groups in this way may reveal opportunities for greater group definition and differentiation that make connecting across divisions far more attractive and easy.

Look further beyond your operational network.            

Organizational players pay attention to getting the job done. Heads down and sleeves up, they are busy managing daily pressures. Without a mindset to carve out time to build relationships with others beyond the day to day operations, leaders miss out on peripheral informational flow and the insights of emerging trends that are available from a broader network. It’s not possible to create a viable strategic plan that looks out to the future without drawing information from social connections outside the organization.

Take action and find common ground.

If you are looking to cross any of the divisions of functional lines, expertise, level, geography or whatever the boundary, first identify the decision makers, key opinion leaders and those in the periphery that might have been hidden from your view. Get curious. Introduce yourself. Offer to meet. Forge a common ground by which to begin to build your relationship. Value from those with a different area of specialization or a different industry or sector can come fast or it may arrive more slowly needing your patience.

In either case, the role of the boundary spanner is critical and is valued by organizations. Linking across boundaries is the start of informative exchanges that will build trust and dividends over time. It’s useful too for your own learning, for decision-making, and for personal growth to get support from people not directly involved in your work. It’s a good idea to start by defining your network goals and setting a plan to broaden your social network before you think you need to because like many things in life, its value grows over time when you give it attention.

I’m Being Chased by Facebook

Facebook is in the news because it looked the other way for 2 years while others were harvesting the data of 50M of its users. Its daily active usership is down as I write this and the #deletefacebook trend is gaining momentum. Where this will end is anyone’s guess. Even before the privacy disaster, I did what until recently was unthinkable by some. I closed down my Instagram and Facebook apps on my device because the enjoyment I was getting wasn’t nearly as great as the anxiety I felt on the ‘look at me’ platforms. Now I have more reason to move on and Facebook isn’t happy about it. It’s been trying to get me to come back.

When I initially felt the twinges of anxiety about my Instagram activity, I justified my pastime by telling myself that I was nurturing my interests and staying in touch with friends. I enjoyed looking at images of far away countries, people I did and didn’t know, exploring the insides of unusual homes, and the occasional nonsense Insta stories. Then, when I had a few time-sensitive deadlines that began to loom larger when I hadn’t done much work, I began logging my time, curious to get a true picture of how I was spending it. As a leadership coach, I’ve asked my clients over the years to log where their time is spent for many reasons, for example when strategic thinking drops out of how they perform their job. I was astounded about how much time it was taking up in my day. There was also the opportunity cost, and I began ruminating about lost time and what I could have been doing. I had to make a choice and I did. I closed the 2 apps down.

If the tax on my own willpower wasn’t enough of a drain, Facebook, Instagram’s owner, began to coax me to return with messages sent directly to my inbox.

“Sheila, see what’s been happening…”
I resisted.
Instagram 0, Sheila 1.

When that didn’t bring me back, I received notifications when someone liked my photo. I didn’t budge then either. So they adjusted their strategy, this time waiting until a bunch of people liked my photos before they sent me a notification. Of course I could only learn more about which photos were being favoured by logging in. It was like missing the party held in my honour.

Nope. Not now. Not coming.
Instagram 0, Sheila 2.

As time passed, I started to ask questions about what people were looking to get from posting on FB and Instagram. I wanted to discover what may have been my own drivers. In tones that were part protest and part aspirational I was told “I’m living out loud”, “it’s my lifeline to the world” and “it’s how I stay in touch with friends and family”. Thinking back to my feeds, I know that there were many moments that inspired me and that were meaningful. But I wasn’t missing it.

Is it Live or Memorex?

Growing up, there was a tv commercial for audio cassette tape, called Memorex, with Ella Fitzgerald, an extraordinary jazz singer singing in the background. The idea was that you couldn’t tell if the singing was live or if it was a taped recording. “Is it live or it is Memorex?” it asked when a wine glass shattered from the sound. Despite the seductive immediacy of social media, I began to think of some relationships from my online network as fossilizing from the absence of in-person connection. Yeah, it was live but it also wasn’t. Somewhat like a phone conversation is live but sitting across from someone when you can is even better. I was tired of the perfect life narratives too.

This story ends well. So you know, I’ve replaced my FB and Instagram social media habit on overdrive with being more deliberate about how I spend my time and nurture my network, and I remain on LinkedIn and Twitter with a clearer focus and see no reason to leave. I’ve been lessening the breadth of artificial connection by pursuing the depth of meaningful conversations. Facebook was built on the promise of building community in a techno-utopia that was going to work for everyone and the recent revelations about breaches in digital privacy have shaken my confidence in just whose identity they are protecting. I know now it’s not ours.