Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Influencing for Leaders
Paul Hughes, Head of the Praxis Centre for Personal
Leadership Development
2
© Cranfield University 2016 All rights reserved
A little about us….
The Praxis Centre for Personal Leadership Development
A little about us….
The Praxis Centre for Personal Leadership Development
Located within Strategy, People and Leadership Community
Focus on an individual's (or groups of individual’s) personal
development Typically personal insight ahead of knowledge transfer
Themes and programmes: Leadership of Self and Others
Managing Personal Presence and Networks
History and heritage at Cranfield Longest running programme - 35 years
3
© Cranfield University 2016 All rights reserved
© Cranfield University 4
Cranfield School of Management
1st in the World for Global DeliveryTop 10 in the World for Company Programmes
Why do we need to influence?
© Cranfield University 6
© Cranfield University 7
© Cranfield University 8
Experience
Biases
Power
Groups
Assumptions
Values
Education
Perspectives
Frames
Alliances
Interests
Alliances
Personality
Beliefs
Expertise
© Cranfield University 9
We often don’t all have a ‘shared logic’ and this makes it hard
to work together effectively.
This creates space for irrationality and disagreement.
Logic alone is rarely enough to motivate or inspire.
Influencing your Team
Influence within your Team
10
© Cranfield University 2016 All rights reserved
Influencing your Team
11© Alexander Mackenzie
Influencing your Team
12© Alexander Mackenzie
Logos relies on — as the word implies — logic. It is the part of any
presentation or communication that uses fact, rational argument and
intellectual intelligence to persuade and influence conceptually. It is
most effective when delivered with clear articulated language.
Pathos connects to the heart qualities of what is being said. It relies on emotional
intelligence and is central to the skill of persuasion. Storytelling, sharing personal
anecdotes and metaphors are used to reinforce the logical argument.
Ethos. Before you can convince an audience to accept anything you say, they have to
accept you as believable. This relies on a visceral intelligence that shows itself in the quality
of presence and personal conviction that is demonstrated by the communicator. Ethos is
your level of authenticity as perceived by your audience.
Influencing your Team
13© Alexander Mackenzie
https://youtu.be/592qeCgxCko
Influencing your Team
14© Alexander Mackenzie
Logos relies on — as the word implies — logic. It is the part of any
presentation or communication that uses fact, rational argument and
intellectual intelligence to persuade and influence conceptually. It is
most effective when delivered with clear articulated language.
Pathos connects to the heart qualities of what is being said. It relies on emotional
intelligence and is central to the skill of persuasion. Storytelling, sharing personal
anecdotes and metaphors are used to reinforce the logical argument.
Ethos. Before you can convince an audience to accept anything you say, they have to
accept you as believable. This relies on a visceral intelligence that shows itself in the quality
of presence and personal conviction that is demonstrated by the communicator. Ethos is
your level of authenticity as perceived by your audience.
Influencing your Team
15© Alexander Mackenzie
Logos — the rational argument was............?
Pathos connects to the heart qualities of what is being said. The
appeal to the heart was......................?
Ethos. What made this believable and credible...............?
Influencing your Team
Influence within your Team
16
© Cranfield University 2016 All rights reserved
‘Losada’ Team Research – Style of Influence Affects Team Performance
Analysis of successful / non successful teams in laboratory / real life situations
30% teams rated high (flourishing)
50% teams were rated medium (coping)
20% teams rated low (languishing)
Uncovered 3 x dimensions of 6 x team behaviours that explained the difference in performance:
‘Demonstrations of interest in One’s Self v. Interest in Others’
‘Utterances of Inquiry v. Advocacy’
‘Positive Expressions v. Negative Expressions’
Influencing within your
Team
Self:Other
Positivity:Negativity
Inquiry:Advocacy
Influencing within a Team
Inquiry ?
Advocacy
0.052:1
Interest in Self
Interest in Others
0.034:1
Behaviour Ratio
Positive Expressions
Negative Expressions
+ + + +
0.363:1- - - - - - - - - - -
Spotting “Languishing” Low
Performing Teams
Behaviour Ratio
Interest in Self
Interest in Others
0.622:1
Positive Expressions
Negative Expressions
1.852:1
+ + + + ++ + ++
+ + + + ++ + ++
- - - - - - - - - -
Inquiry
Advocacy
0.667:1
? ? ? ?
Spotting “Coping” Medium
Performing Teams
Interest in Self
Interest in Others
Inquiry
Advocacy
1.143:1
0.935:1
Behaviour Ratio
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
Positive Expressions
Negative Expressions
5.614:1
+ + + + ++ + ++ ++
- - - - - -
+ + + + ++ + ++ ++
+ + + + ++ + ++ ++
Spotting “Flourishing” High
Performing Teams
Intervening to make a team
more successful
Inquiry Vs Advocacy Interest in Self Vs Interest in Others
Positive Expressions Vs Negative Expressions
Languishing 0.052:1 0.034:1 0.363:1
Coping 0.667:1 0.622:1 1.852:1
Flourishing 1.143:1 0.935:1 5.614:1
A
Languishing
Team
A Coping
Team
A
Flourishing
Team
Influencing your Team
Influence within your Team
23
© Cranfield University 2016 All rights reserved
24© Cranfield University 2016 All rights reserved
Thank you!
*
* Hint – Clap Now!
The Science & Art of Influence