Yukl discusses three different outcomes created by an attempt of one person to influence another: Compliance, Resistance, or Commitment.
- Compliance - We all know this one. Lawmakers, bosses, parents, teachers... make rules that we "have" to follow... sometimes we don't want to, but the consequences are not nice, so we comply.
- Resistance - Someone wants you to do something, but you don't want to... so you don't. Too bad for them!!
- Commitment - Now this is what we all are aiming for. When you attempt to influence someone else, the best result is commitment from that person to do exactly what you wanted them to do.
I've heard over and over again of people pointing to how militaristic "leadership" styles can be highly effective. I would disagree. The military proper, forces strict compliance through a rigid system of rules and harsh punishments. However, the military doesn't aim for compliance. Instead they get commitment in one way by using Dale Carnegie's Golden Rule #19 "Appeal to the nobler motives", i.e., They reinforce the idea that soldiers fight to Defend Freedom or that they are true Patriots or Heroes by serving. Similarly, members of the military form extremely tight bonds of camaraderie.
The strong emotions tied to military services, which create the high levels of commitment, cannot be built overnight. Furthermore, most organizations simply not meant to have the dualism of coercive compliance coupled with emotional commitment. For this reason, I often think of leadership as having much more to do with empowering the followers, not to achieve YOUR goals, but rather to achieve OUR shared goals. It is much easier to get commitment from people when you keep their interests in mind. Think about this the next time you are trying to influence someone else. It might come in handy!
Until next time,
-Jason
No comments:
Post a Comment