|
|
influencing with |
|
|
|
This personalised report has been prepared for you from the responses you gave to the IPQPro questionnaire recently. Please read your report keeping an open mind. There is likely to be much here that you should be able to identify with immediately, however your report will also bring to the surface aspects of your influencing style which you either have low, or perhaps no, self awareness of. These “blind spots” are where some of the most powerful learning can be as they might contain either strengths within your style which you could use and develop further, or it might be an aspect which is limiting your current effectiveness and which you might consider changing. This report describes the natural style and approach you take when attempting to influence. It describes your default or preferred style, typically your first response in political situations. It also describes the style which is individual to you and which takes little conscious effort or energy to activate. It is you at your natural, influential best – and worst. |
IPQPro links:-
|
This report will enable you to capitalise and exploit the inherent strengths in your influencing style as well as beginning the process of mitigating against any limitations you might have.
Introduction
This section focuses on the strengths of your current style. It identifies and describes you, as you go about the process of influencing events in your normal day to day work interactions with others.
It will not necessarily capture everything that you do when influencing, but it will identify the main strengths evident in your profile so that you can more readily capitalise and build on them. Whilst this section of the report will later identify some limitations evident in your profile, the key to being more influential is to build on these clear strengths firstly, as they are the cornerstone of your effectiveness.
Although some of the text refers to your political style, these will be the more positive political aspects, looking at this from a perspective of what is useful and appropriate.
When discussing this report with your coach/ facilitator it will be important to keep and open mind and look for evidence – specific examples – of when these strengths have been used. This validation of your strengths will ensure that you keep these positive aspects of your style firmly in focus as you go about influencing.
Strengths:
High Quality Relationships, Trust and Integrity: The cornerstone of Fred’s influencing style is a natural talent for building relationships and working collaboratively with others. His profile has strong evidence which points towards a highly considerate and empathic style which draws people in, with the net result being that people trust him and disclose information to him that they would not trust to others. This people focused approach to influence, in which rapport and deep listening sit at the heart will enable Fred to pick up high quality political intelligence that others will either not have access to, or miss altogether. Interestingly this highly considerate and people focused influencing style is finely balanced by a strong assertive nature suggesting that he will challenge quickly and skilfully when something needs to be said. People will know where they stand with Fred as he can be both approachable and appropriately tough suggesting that when he talks, others will trust what he says. This balance of assertion and consideration is a powerful combination for influence and navigating politics, for unlike other considerate influencing types, Fred will not be so easily manipulated.
Independence and Integrity: Fred’s influencing style has strong evidence of an independent nature. His influencing style will be to know his own outlook and position, and articulate it, and there is also strong evidence to suggest that he will not be easily swayed from his independent judgement. This in turn suggests that Fred will generate a reputation of both independence and integrity as he is unlikely to be swayed by the political environment, if he has agreed to support a particular course then he will see it through, maintaining his position. Fred will be influential because people will know where they stand with him and will trust him and if he is your ally then you will be pleased to have his unwavering support.
Seeing and Advocating the Bigger Picture: When persuading others, Fred is most likely to be at his influential best when he uses his talent for spotting the strategic consequences and advocating the bigger picture, indeed, his profile suggests an influencing style which naturally focuses on the longer term aims and impact and he is likely to win through by shifting the focus away from the immediate conflicts, and getting people focused on the longer term, bigger benefit. At his best he will be an excellent mediator and moderator, getting people who have reached loggerheads to begin the process of reconciliation and to see new ways forward.
Creative Problem Solving: Fred is a creative and innovative thinker and he is most likely to use this ability to think and see things differently from others to mark himself out as influential. He is likely to be able to resolve political problems by having a wide range of innovative solutions and experience to draw on and his will have a talent for encouraging others to take a more creative approach to politics and influence. He will excel in situations where in order to be influential; the requirement will be to work collaboratively, taking time to explore all the possibilities and consequences before selecting the best creative option to pursue. This bodes well for dealing with the complexities of internal politics where this mixture of talents will ensure not only political survival, but enable Fred to thrive. Another useful consequence of this style will be his ability to sidestep political attacks by always having new options and ways forward to offer (or work around) anyone who would be trying to undermine or block him.
Political Radar and Intuition: Fred has a quite well developed (internal) political radar to guide his influencing style and approach. This is predominantly driven by strong internal intuition – he will work without evidence and with conflicting information – being guided by what he knows and what he feels is the right thing to do. This is a useful talent because so much of internal politics and influence is working at the fringes and with indirect communication and hidden agenda’s and those who seek to work only with solid data in this arena struggle. Fred’s political antennae guide him through the complexities of communication, being able to understand what people are really saying and what they really want, despite their contradictory behaviour or communication style.
Power and Empowerment of Others: There is strong evidence to suggest that Fred is not interested in the acquisition of power or control over others; indeed he may well have very strong views about people taking personal responsibility and power sharing. This in turn suggests that Fred will not be influencing for the acquisition of power and status but more because of his personal values. This indicates that other more self interested parties will not consider Fred to be an adversary – unless he directly comes up against them - and are less likely to spend time trying to undermine him politically as he probably does not register as a threat to them. Politically this could be very good news as Fred is therefore likely to rove around the organisation, making far more allies then opponents and get along with the beneficial work of quietly influencing behind the scenes.
There was mixed evidence for this final item and it will require exploring with a coach.
Grace Under Pressure: There is also some evidence to suggest that Fred is a cool customer under pressure. The profile indicates an (externally) calm influencing style which – whilst is does not always project passion and excitement – nevertheless does reassure others of his gravitas, sincerity and thoughtfulness. The political benefit of this is that Fred has the ability to keep his emotional intelligence switched on when others are “losing it”. He will then be able to harness the other more dominant aspects of his style identified in this report to get people to calm down and get back on track. There is some evidence which could be interpreted as Fred having built a reputation for being a “wise elder” in that he is approachable, calm, strategic, assertive, independent and possessing of gravitas.
Limitations
Introduction
This section focuses on the limitations of your current style. Very few of us like to have our limitations pointed out to us, so whilst reading this section it will be especially important to keep an open mind. As before when working with your coach/ facilitator, it will be important to look for evidence – specific examples – of when these limitations have been evident. This is important because your profile identifies your preferred influencing style and this is not the same as what you will actually do in an influencing situation.
The limitations described here are the aspects of influence which, when you are called upon to use them, will take energy and concentration, are likely to feel “alien” and as a result you are less likely to be at your best when influencing like this. They nevertheless provide opportunities for increased awareness, learning and development.
Limitations:
Networking and Sociability: There is strong evidence to suggest that Fred does not pay sufficient attention to networking and the more social/ informal aspects of the world of work. For all of his wisdom and approachability he is likely to feel somewhat awkward at networking events (which he probably avoids) and in social situations where he is one of many, as he excels when he is one on one. This suggests that he can easily fall out of the loop politically as he is less likely than his more extrovert colleagues to have ready access to all the informal political intelligence that they gather and exchange so easily. Depending on the behaviours that Fred exhibits in these social situations it is possible that people experience him as being anxious or even a bit of a loner, all of which detracts from his ability to influence in a corporate environment.
Influencing through Facts and Logical Reasoning: Fred will be at his least effective in environments where the logical, factual argument is the key to influence. It is very likely that Fred over relies on his intuition and creativity, and therefore when the need is to analyse lots of data and use this to create a persuasive case - he will be able to do this - but it will feel like hard work and will not come naturally to him. This suggests that he will find it harder to influence those thinkers for whom only rational, logical choices are acceptable, and for all his talent with people, he will need to suspend his gut feel and do the work of hard analysis, if he is to influence them.
Lack of Pragmatism: This is further complicated by his creativity and ability to think strategically as this will lead him into some situations where his ideas about strategy and vision appear to be idealistic and values based and he is less likely to have the evidence to back up his contentions. Logical, pragmatic and analytical thinkers will be unlikely to be impressed, experiencing Fred as too conceptual, impractical, and lacking in short term focus as well as having insufficient evidence to back up his ideas. People who are influenced by the practical and pragmatic and who are distrustful of innovation will need to be handled very carefully by Fred who will then be required to summon extra effort in order to influence them as this does not match his natural influencing style.
Independence/ Belligerence?: Whilst Fred undoubtedly draws personal power and influence from his strong independent style, the extreme nature of this score nevertheless raises the question about how this manifests itself when Fred is influencing. On a bad influencing day it is possible that Fred is regarded as impossible to influence, not open to persuasion and perhaps even being stubborn and belligerent. Again, at his worst he may be perceived by more senior people as being dogmatic difficult to manage, even rejecting their established structures and protocols, bending rules and using his creativity in a subversive manner. Where he makes opponents and adversaries in an organisation, this is quite likely to be a trigger.
Lack of Structure: Fred is likely to have to work harder at being influential in highly structured and regulated environments where there are entrenched ways of doing things. He will find that his strategic visions and creativity are not the factors which are the most persuasive and in order for these strengths to stand a chance of being influential he will need to work hard at being orderly, systematic and structured in his approach. Whilst the profile suggests he may be able to do this, it nevertheless indicates that this will not be his natural style and it will feel like hard work. He will not be at his influential best in these scenarios.
Introduction
This shorter section of the report identifies how your style is most likely to be influenced by group dynamics, like working in teams or groups. Whilst the core of your style is likely to be fairly consistent with what you learned in the previous sections, this short section identifies the – sometimes subtle – changes that you undergo when working closely in groups.
Strengths:
When we observe Fred in meetings and working in groups we will still experience someone with a high degree of original thinking and creativity. He will be at his most influential when the requirement is to facilitate, and at the same time generate new ideas, yet also ensuring the involvement and cooperation of others. He is likely to have a style which is involving, sharing power and decision making around the group and gently challenge and inspire new thinking. He will instinctively know where the energy and flow of the group is at any one time and his profile shows sufficient flexibility in order to be able to influence most team types. A slight bias towards a preference for innovator types suggests that his style will be best suited to other creative types, however his strong facilitation score balances this out, ensuring that he will be inclusive and keep everyone involved.
Limitations:
The significant blind spot for influence would again appear to be with logical analysis. When dealing with logical and analytical thinkers, Fred will have to work much harder to make connections and be influential. He will need to remind himself of the need to highlight, within every new idea put forward, the logical basis for it and to acknowledge when appropriate, that this might need to be backed up with more research before the decision can be made. His discomfort with this style also indicates that he might not always value as highly the role that analytical thinkers contribute to his team, and he perhaps views them as being coldly dispassionate, perhaps resistant to change or even lacking in creativity, when in reality all they are often doing is sounding an appropriate need for caution and stopping the team from getting too disconnected from reality. There is also some (mixed) evidence to suggest that Fred sometimes works to slow down group decision making processes and this might bring him into conflict with the more dynamic, gung ho, drivers in the group. This is most likely because Fred wants to ensure that all ideas are heard and that everyone has had their say before the call to action is sounded.
This section takes into consideration all style aspects identified in previous sections of this report. It acts as a summary and also points the way towards the best opportunities for further development. This is followed by a short analysis of learning style and attitude to change to enable the best style by which to plan and execute the development plan.
Development Style Considerations
Fred’s development style is biased in favour of learning and growing through reflection and thinking. In order for him to get going with the ideas presented in this report he will firstly need a little time for personal, solo reflection and no attempt to influence his thinking should be attempted until he has achieved this. Once satisfied that there is indeed an opportunity for personal development here, then the next phase will be to look for solutions in the form of sound ideas, concepts and theories that will stimulate his thinking further. He will need to feel that the opportunity is creative, conceptually sound and will work for him over the longer term before he will commit to any sort of action or activity. In addition the coach will need to advocate evolutionary change as Fred is very clear on what works for him and will be resistant to too radical a change.
His coach will need to work hard to pick a way through all the options and ideas flying around and use great tenacity in order to pull Fred back to a sound action plan. Although he is likely to rail against it, the best opportunity for the coach will be to help Fred with putting into place an appropriate structure and time line for the action steps as Fred is less well equipped to achieve this for himself, and indeed, given the opportunity will probably look to avoid this part of the process! Again Fred is unlikely to take kindly to follow up so the coach should take the opportunity to pin Fred down to the specifics of what and when, agreeing follow up windows now.
Copyright © 2003-08 Colin Gautrey and Mike Phipps. All Rights Reserved
  |
||||||||||||||
|
|
