The Influence of Influence Training

Introducing Ruud van Ommeren and Sherri Malouf.

Ruud van Ommeren has been active as a consultant and trainer since 1970. He has been a director of Bureau Zuidema for over 25 years and is currently a member of the Supervisory Board of Bureau Zuidema.

Sherri Malouf is the CEO of Situation Management Systems in the United States. She has also been active in the field of HRD for over 25 years. Both Ruud and Sherri are driving forces behind the “Positive Power and Influence” training program.

1. The influence program has weathered the stormy procession of hypes in the HRD/HRM field, both in Europe and in the United States. What were these hypes?

Ruud: Let us have a look at all these hypes. After the Second World War something new came onto the market every two years or so. After a while this process began to accelerate, and now several theories come into fashion at the same time almost every year. I will give you an overview of these theories. (PPTs 1 and 2)

Slide 1.

Slide 2.

2. Why has the influence program managed to survive the emergence and decline of all these hypes? Can you both explain this?

Ruud: The reasons why the Positive Power and Influence program has resisted the flow of all these hypes are, first of all, that it is not a management approach or management theory as such with an immediately apparent profit motive.
Secondly, the program does not depend on economic turbulence. Influence skills can be used in favorable economic times as well as in times of recession. Thirdly, the program is based on scientific research and practical evidence. Fourthly, the influence model supports many of the management approaches I have already shown you. This means that you need influence skills to establish more efficient production processes and better quality and to support more flexible and innovative strategies. Effective influence styles will even support the introduction of more sustainable enterprise.

Sherri: I invited Roger Harrison several years ago to speak with a group of trainers I was working with and he spoke at length about the development of the PPI Program. One thing that stands out in my mind is how he talked about people who attended T-Groups. He said they were softer people, people who already wanted intimacy. So he and David Berlew wanted to develop a program for the hard people – the tough people. Roger said that PPI was designed to help the soft people toughen up and the tough people to soften up and both types of people could work simultaneously in the program. This design has made the program invaluable to organizations over the years. In addition, PPI complimented other types of training being conducted. It supported and helped people implement other Leadership, Team or Management Programs. Plus, the design of PPI is such that people could make immediate changes, have greater success, take more risk and be better prepared. PPI worked then and it works now for a broad range of people.

3. Ruud, you mention scientific underpinning as one of the reasons why the program has survived the fads. Can you explain this?

Ruud: I can give you some examples of scientific research in this field. The influence model itself was developed in a long-term research project by two American psychologists, Roger Harrison and David Berlew. In this study, they discovered the difference between effective leadership behavior and non-effective leadership behavior. At Zuidema some years ago, we conducted a statistical research project on the validity and reliability of the questionnaires that participants in the influence program use to detect their dominant influence behavior. This research project was conducted in cooperation with the universities of Amsterdam and Nijmegen. Some minor changes had to be made to make this inventory perfectly reliable and valid. (PPTs 3,4,5 and 6).

Slide 3.

Slide 4.

Slide 5.

Slide 6.

Sherri: In 1990, Sheri Feinzig in the Psychology Department at SUNY also researched the reliability and found even stronger results than the BZ study as the changes had been implemented. This research was conducted on the use of the influence model in negotiation. It was also very interesting to learn how different cultures use the influence skills within their own culture. It proved that all influence styles are needed in order to achieve win-win results in any situation and in any culture.

4. Sherri, I would like to ask you a question relating to the cultural aspect. I understand that the program has been introduced in more than 25 countries around the world, and therefore in different cultures, and is even available in Japanese, Chinese, Korean and Russian. Is that not rather unusual for a program of American origin? In other words, how universal is the program?

Sherri: Indeed, as you can see, the influence program has been introduced in most parts of the world, covering all major languages and all continents. (PPT 7). Of course, we still conduct research on the usefulness of the model in different cultures, and where necessary, we introduce some minor modifications. For example, in French to literally translate “I want“ would be considered rude, so language changes need to be made. Interestingly, many people in the world struggle with being Assertive. People are good at being either aggressive or submissive but the Assertive Style tends to be challenging for many.

Slide 7.

5. Sherri, besides the cultural differences, there seem to be even greater differences between the generations. Younger generations sometimes appear to speak an entirely different language. Can the influence program bridge the generation gap too?

Sherri: That is a very interesting question, which Ruud and I discussed. The focus of the influence model is on how to get things done, of course. But it also relies on building solid working and personal relationships. While many things may change, we still need each other no matter what generation we belong to. If you look at (PPT 8), for example, how the different generations view the Builders believe in honor and respect, Boomers challenge authority, Gen X ignores authority and Gen Y believes that leaders should respect you and you choose your boss. Understanding these differences improves an individual’s ability to influence cross-generationally. Another example is the different messages that motivate the generations. For example,(PPT 9) the Builders want to know their experience is respected and valued, the Boomers want to know they are worthy, Gen X want to hear that there are not a lot of rules, and Gen Y want to know they can be heroes. Again, understanding what motivates people improves your ability to influence that person. Influence is not about you, it is about what you know about the other person, how genuine you are and the quality of the relationships you build across all types of barriers, not just generational differences. And the cause that many are behind today is sustainability – looking for a greater purpose than making money.

Slide 8.

Slide 9.

6. Will the influence program continue to be effective in the future?

Ruud: Even in this digital world, we need influence skills in real-life, person-to-person contacts, which are becoming scarcer. As long as interpersonal communication is not replaced by non-emotional robots, we need the music of influencing people and being influenced by others. This is not just a cheap trick to teach people how to manipulate others. The use of appropriate influence styles fundamentally improves communication between people. If we look at the rivalry between the candidates for the American presidency, we see that influence styles are sometimes more important than content. People love that music!

Sherri: Today, people are continually asked to do more with less. Achieve greater goals, but with fewer people, lower budgets, and less support. The ability to influence others and build solid working relationships has become even more critical. It is tough to get things done alone.

7. Sherri and Ruud, many years ago sensitivity was the order of the day, after which the emphasis was placed on assertiveness. Where does the emphasis now lie in your opinion, and what does this mean with regard to influence behavior?

Sherri: In the United States, Emotional Intelligence has gained a foothold. The ability to handle your own reactions and the strong emotions of others is seen as a necessity. Many studies have been conducted demonstrating the comparative success of people with a high EQ. Here (PPT 10) are a few examples of these studies. So you can see that people’s ability to handle their own and other people’s strong emotions is seen as a strength from a leadership standpoint. Just a quick question for the audience: How many of you do an absolutely fantastic job of influencing when you are incredibly angry? No one? Of course not! Our ability to influence effectively is impacted by our emotional strength and stability.

Slide 10.

Ruud: If we go back to the early days of personal development in corporate education, there was a considerable discrepancy between personal goals and organizational goals. Other disciplines were also involved. The personal part was the field of the psychologists, and the business development was improved by other disciplines. That was why sensitivity training and Tavistock and T-group training were introduced. Of course, some people benefited from these approaches, but sometimes these training models damaged people and there was a huge gap between what people learned and the reality of business life. Now, we just try to align organizational and personal goals better than in the past. In the influence training, for example, we have exercises that help people to bridge the gap between personal goals and organizational goals.

Slide 16.

8. Ruud, about the development in the business world over the years that you mentioned earlier, from efficiency via quality, to flexibility and innovation, and to sustainable enterprise: does this development also call for a change in management behavior?

Ruud: Yes, in the growth process of organizations we see a development in effective management behavior, and there is even a connection between macroeconomic developments and individual management behavior. It takes a long time to explain this theory, but I know that Marcia Biesheuvel has developed a very elegant model on a situational leadership framework that gives a very clear and comprehensible insight into the relation between macroeconomic developments and individual management behavior. I am very eager to see an article on this subject from her hand.

9. A question for both of you. Within the HRM/HRD field nowadays, people sometimes opt for a psychoanalytical or even spiritually based approach. What do you think about this?

Ruud: Sometimes, it is very frustrating to hear that organizations work with theories and models for which there is no scientific or practical evidence or that are based on outdated, hundred-year-old theories such as the Myers-Briggs type indicator based on Jung, when there are equivalents that are scientifically proven and more effective and efficient in their application. Can you imagine an organization still using logistic and financial systems that date back a hundred years? In my opinion, the main reason is that many HRD professionals have been educated in a learning climate inspired by psychological unproven theories, and spiritual and holistic approaches and the books of very popular writers such as Tolle, Lipton, Wilber, Chopra Almaas and other spiritual gurus. Since the increase of popularity of Bhagwan’s theories amongst trainers, I have been allergic to this form of modern priesthood, but I know that Sherri may have a different opinion on this subject.

Sherri: In the US, people in their personal lives have always searched for the next guru, the next answer, the next phenomena – the US was created for religious freedom! What seems to be gaining momentum organizationally is the idea of sustainability and a reward that is beyond a financial gain. David Burnham of Burnham Rosen Associates has been continuing with McClelland’s research and has a great deal of data that supports the shift from Stage 3 power to Stage 4 power motivation. Looking at( PPT 11), here’s what the different Stages of power motivation look like by Abigail Stewart. The grid is set up based on the source of power and the target of power. So, if the source of power is others and target of power is self, then that is Stage 1 or dependent power. If the source and target of power is self, then that is Stage 2 or independent power. If the source of power is self and the target of power is others, then that is Stage 3 or imperial or assertive power, which is split between personal and institutional. And finally, if the source and target of power is others, then that is Stage 4 or interactive power. For many years, the typical profile of a manager was Stage 3 institutional power. There has been a shift to Stage 4 and again, the issue of sustainability comes up. Looking in detail at the BRA study (PPTs 12, 13 and 14) you can see the basis of the study, 180 leaders, 4 different methods of research, 8 countries and industries, and eighteen companies. When analyzing performance and Stage of Power, over 65% of the leaders who had superior performance were Stage 4 power motivation or interactive power, 70% of average performers were Stage 3 institutional power. If you then look at the impact on the culture of the organization (PPT 15) and tie motives in with employee morale, defined as responsibility, team spirit, organizational clarity and rewards (non-financial), where there was a Power Stage 4 leader, responsibility, team spirit, and rewards were significantly higher while, interestingly, organizational clarity is the same. So the message is that when leaders are driven by something beyond their own personal gain, the positive impact can be seen in performance and in the organization’s culture.

Slide 11.

Slide 12.

Slide 13.

Slide 14.

Slide 15.

10. Last question. At the moment we see a strong interest in the relationship between brain research and learning. Do you think this has any relevance to influence behavior?

Ruud: Brain research is experiencing an explosive development and is very promising in relation to new ideas about how people learn. However, in my opinion, it is too early to say anything significant regarding influence behavior. We have to be careful that brain-based learning does not become the latest hype. At Zuidema, we are very interested in the developments in brain research, especially in the theory that gives evidence to the influence of the neurotransmitter system on the differences in personal preference for certain behavioral styles, this with regard to the use of the well-known Structogram theory.

Sherri: The more we understand about ourselves and others, the better we are able to manage ourselves and influence others. What tools like the brain model do for people is to increase understanding about why someone is thinking or feeling in a different or unexpected way. The more we can build tolerance for each other’s quirks, accept our differences as strengths, take the time to actually listen carefully to each other, the stronger we can build our relationships, and then it becomes easier to influence each other. People quite naturally like to work with and do things for people they like, which is why I flew across the ocean to be here today! 

To find out more about how you can increase your Positive Power and Influence skills read about the Positive Power and Influence Program.

© 2008, Situation Management Systems, Inc.