Leadership often involves influence. Leaders communicate ideas, advocate for changes, negotiate agreements, ask people to take action, explain decisions, resolve disagreements, and help groups understand complicated issues.
Influence should not be understood simply as getting other people to think or act the way you want.
Influence is the ability to affect understanding, decisions, or action through communication, relationships, expertise, authority, example, negotiation, or participation.
Ethical influence respects other people's ability to evaluate information and make decisions. It does not depend on deception, hidden pressure, manufactured social proof, strategic flattery, or repeatedly pushing after someone has clearly declined.
Influence is only one part of leadership. Leaders also listen, coordinate, facilitate, make decisions within their authority, support other people's leadership, and create conditions in which people can participate effectively.
This section focuses on how leaders can communicate and advocate effectively while respecting autonomy, evidence, legitimate disagreement, and the responsibilities that come with power.
What are the elements of influence?
Influence generally involves several interacting elements:
- Participants. The people or organizations involved in the communication or decision.
- Purpose. What issue, decision, request, or change is being discussed.
- Information. The evidence, experience, values, interests, constraints, and uncertainty relevant to the issue.
- Interaction. How people communicate, ask questions, listen, negotiate, disagree, and respond.
- Decision or action. What happens after the interaction and who has authority to decide.
Unlike a one-way communicator-message-audience model, this framework recognizes that information can move in both directions.
A leader may begin a conversation intending to influence someone else and discover that the other person's information changes the leader's own understanding.
That is not a failure of influence. It is one of the reasons dialogue can produce better decisions.
How might you influence people ethically and effectively?
People may agree with you, disagree with you, request changes to your proposal, or decide not to act.
Effective communication improves the chance that people understand your position. It does not guarantee agreement.
Several practices can help establish the conditions for ethical influence.
Build relationships for the work itself
Community work depends on relationships.
Relationships can make it easier to:
- Exchange information
- Understand community history
- Coordinate action
- Resolve problems
- Identify expertise and resources
- Communicate when disagreement occurs
Build relationships because they have value in themselves and because the work requires them, not simply so you will have influence to use later.
Avoid exploiting friendship, professional relationships, or previous assistance to create a sense that someone owes you agreement.
Be credible and trustworthy
Credibility grows when people have reason to believe that you are competent, accurate, reliable, and honest about your interests.
Helpful practices include:
- Know the issue you are discussing
- Distinguish what you know from what you are uncertain about
- Use reliable evidence
- Correct mistakes
- Follow through on commitments
- Disclose relevant interests or conflicts
- Seek expertise when the issue is outside your knowledge
Position, professional title, education, popularity, or community status may affect how people perceive a speaker, but none of them guarantees that the person is correct.
Don't substitute authority or reputation for evidence.
Listen with the possibility that you may change your mind
Listening is not simply a method for discovering which argument will persuade someone.
Ask questions because the other person may know something you do not.
Try to understand:
- Their view of the problem
- What matters to them
- What information they are relying on
- What risks they see
- What responsibilities or constraints affect them
- What parts of your proposal concern them
Listening may strengthen your original position, identify a possible compromise, or show that your proposal should change.
Create more than one way for people to contribute
Influence in group settings does not belong only to the person who talks most.
Useful contributions may include:
- Speaking in discussion
- Providing written comments
- Sharing technical expertise
- Asking questions
- Facilitating
- Organizing information
- Raising a concern
- Following up after the meeting
If the same people consistently dominate meetings, improve the process rather than simply telling quieter participants to speak more.
Seek perspectives beyond the people already closest to you
People naturally hear more often from colleagues, partners, friends, and community members already connected with their work.
When an issue affects people outside those networks, seek them out intentionally.
Ask:
- Who is affected by this decision?
- Who has relevant expertise?
- Whose perspective is missing?
- Who may disagree with our assumptions?
- What barriers make it difficult for those people to participate?
The purpose is not merely to gain another opportunity to persuade them. Their knowledge may change what you decide to advocate for.
Give important change enough time
Trust, relationships, organizational change, public understanding, and individual behavior may develop gradually.
Don't assume that one presentation or conversation will settle an issue.
At the same time, patience does not mean endlessly repeating the same message until people agree.
Monitor what is happening, respond to questions, provide new information where appropriate, and determine whether your strategy or assumptions need to change.
Practices for ethical influence
Some traditional persuasion techniques attempt to exploit predictable psychological reactions. Community leaders should instead use practices that help people understand the issue and make informed decisions.
Make the purpose clear
State what you are asking for.
Explain:
- What decision or action you are requesting
- Why you think it matters
- What information supports your position
- What commitment would be involved
- What alternatives exist
- Whether participation is voluntary
Don't hide a major request behind a sequence of smaller questions designed to make refusal psychologically harder.
Use accurate information
Present evidence honestly.
Avoid:
- Exaggerating benefits
- Hiding important costs
- Presenting uncertain claims as established facts
- Misrepresenting how many people support your position
- Selectively presenting evidence in a way that creates a false impression
When evidence is mixed or uncertain, say so.
Explain significant alternatives and counterarguments fairly
People are better able to make informed decisions when they understand meaningful alternatives.
If credible arguments exist against your position:
- Describe them accurately
- Explain the evidence relevant to them
- Identify where you agree
- Explain why you reach a different conclusion where you disagree
Do not caricature an opposing position merely to make your preferred argument appear stronger.
Identify genuine common interests
People who disagree may still share important objectives.
For example, two organizations may disagree about a program while both wanting residents to have reliable access to services.
Identifying that shared objective can help them examine alternatives without pretending that all of their interests are the same.
Don't use easy points of agreement simply to put someone into a psychological pattern of saying yes.
Explain relevant benefits, costs, and consequences
People need to understand what a proposed decision may mean for them and for others.
Discuss:
- Potential benefits
- Costs
- Time or workload
- Risks
- Effects on other people
- What may happen if no action is taken
Avoid assuming that people are motivated only by personal gain. They may also care about community benefit, fairness, professional responsibility, values, or obligations to others.
Use stories responsibly
Human experience can make complex information easier to understand.
Stories should illustrate the issue rather than substitute for evidence.
When telling another person's story, consider:
- Consent
- Privacy
- Dignity
- Whether sensitive or traumatic experiences are being used primarily to provoke an emotional response
Communicate consistently without trying to manufacture belief through repetition
Important information may need to be communicated more than once and through several channels.
Repetition can improve access and recall, particularly when people enter an organization at different times or do not see every communication.
But repeating a claim does not make it true.
Use repeated communication to improve understanding, not to make people believe something merely because they have heard it many times.
Make complicated information understandable without minimizing it
Clear communication is valuable.
Break complicated actions into manageable steps when that helps people understand what is required.
At the same time, don't describe a demanding, risky, costly, or long-term commitment as easy simply to make it more attractive.
Respect refusal
A person may understand your position and still say no.
A clear refusal should generally be respected unless:
- The person asks to continue the discussion
- Important new information becomes available
- Circumstances materially change
- The matter involves a formal organizational decision process in which further discussion is required
Do not repeatedly return to the same request merely to wear someone down.
Pay attention to power
Not every influence attempt occurs between people with equal power.
A supervisor, funder, teacher, clinician, public official, service provider, or organizational leader may have influence because they control resources, opportunities, information, evaluations, or decisions.
Ask:
- Can this person realistically say no?
- Could refusal affect employment, services, grades, funding, benefits, or opportunities?
- Am I using authority that belongs to my role, or applying unnecessary personal pressure?
- Does the person understand what is voluntary and what is required?
Greater power creates greater responsibility to communicate clearly and avoid coercion.
Support autonomy when behavior change is voluntary
When the goal is to support a person's voluntary behavior change, begin with their own goals and reasons.
Useful practices can include:
- Asking what matters to the person
- Listening for their reasons for or against change
- Asking permission before offering extensive advice where appropriate
- Providing accurate options and information
- Acknowledging ambivalence
- Supporting the person's confidence in making their own plan
This is especially important in health, counseling, education, and other settings where a professional may hold substantially more authority or expertise than the person they are advising.
Admit mistakes and revise your position
If someone gives you accurate information that changes the issue, acknowledge it.
You might say:
I hadn't considered that information. It changes part of how I see the problem, so I want to reconsider the proposal.
Correcting yourself can strengthen credibility because it shows that the goal is a sound decision rather than simply winning the argument.
Thank people for their time and participation
Whether or not agreement occurs, acknowledge the time and effort people contributed to the discussion.
Appreciation should be genuine rather than a strategy for making someone easier to influence later.
Influencing someone or a group: A general approach
Clarify your objective
Before the conversation, ask:
- What outcome am I seeking?
- Why does it matter?
- What is negotiable?
- What is not negotiable because of law, ethics, safety, professional responsibility, or organizational authority?
- What information do I still need?
- What would a reasonable alternative look like?
Identify the people who should be involved
Consider who:
- Has decision authority
- Will be affected
- Has relevant expertise
- Will implement the decision
- Holds important community or lived knowledge
Don't route communication through another person simply because that person might exert greater social pressure.
Involving another person is useful when their expertise, responsibility, relationship, or facilitation role genuinely helps the process.
Understand the context before making your case
Learn enough to understand the situation you are entering.
Depending on the issue, this may include:
- Previous decisions
- Community history
- Relevant law or policy
- Available data
- Previous attempts to solve the problem
- The responsibilities of the other participants
- Existing conflict or mistrust
Research should prepare you to understand other perspectives, not simply help you identify how to persuade them more effectively.
Begin respectfully and state the purpose
Explain why you asked for the conversation.
A straightforward opening might be:
I'd like to talk about the proposed schedule change. I think it could solve some of our coverage problems, but I know it could affect staff in several ways. I'd like to explain what we're seeing and hear your concerns before we decide what to recommend.
Genuine respect is more useful than strategic flattery.
Ask questions and listen
Before assuming you understand the disagreement, ask.
Questions might include:
- How do you see the problem?
- What is most important to you in this decision?
- What concerns you about this proposal?
- What information do you think we are missing?
- What alternatives should we consider?
Present your position and evidence
Explain:
- What you recommend
- Why
- What evidence supports it
- What uncertainty remains
- What tradeoffs you see
Avoid overwhelming people with information simply to make your position appear stronger.
Identify agreement and disagreement accurately
Summarize where people agree and where they do not.
For example:
We agree that weekend coverage is inadequate. We disagree about whether changing the existing schedule is the best way to fix it.
This is more useful than pretending the parties are closer to agreement than they actually are.
Explore options
Consider alternatives and compromises when appropriate.
Ask:
- Is there another way to meet the underlying need?
- Can the proposal be changed?
- Could a pilot provide useful information?
- What would each side need in order to accept an agreement?
Some issues cannot appropriately be compromised, particularly where safety, rights, legal requirements, professional standards, or serious misconduct are involved.
Clarify the decision
Before ending the discussion, make clear:
- What was decided
- Who has authority to make the final decision
- What remains unresolved
- Who is responsible for next steps
- When follow-up will occur
In difficult situations
Influence becomes more difficult when stakes are high, trust is low, relationships have been damaged, parties have competing interests, or significant power differences exist.
The goal in those situations should not automatically be to become more persuasive.
First determine what kind of problem you are facing.
Keep the larger purpose in view
During a difficult negotiation or disagreement, ask:
- What actually matters most here?
- Which issues are essential?
- Which are preferences?
- Is the cost of continuing the dispute proportionate to what is at stake?
Regulate your behavior
Strong emotion can signal that the issue matters.
You do not have to pretend not to feel frustrated, angry, disappointed, or concerned.
You do need to manage your behavior so that emotion does not lead to threats, personal attacks, impulsive decisions, or statements you cannot responsibly support.
If necessary:
- Request a short break
- Summarize what has been resolved and what remains disputed
- Obtain information that is missing
- Consult an appropriate colleague, supervisor, or adviser
- Resume the discussion at an agreed time
Focus criticism on the issue, decision, or conduct
Avoid personal attacks.
Instead of:
You don't care about this community.
say something more specific:
I disagree with the decision because the available data indicate that it would reduce access for residents who do not have another nearby option.
Specific claims can be examined. Attacks on character usually make useful discussion more difficult.
Understand interests and constraints
Behavior that seems unreasonable from one position may make more sense when you understand the person's responsibilities, incentives, risks, previous experiences, or available information.
Understanding those factors does not require agreeing with them.
It helps determine whether:
- Better information could resolve the problem
- A different proposal is possible
- Interests are genuinely incompatible
- A formal decision is required
Change your communication approach when necessary
If people are not understanding the information, consider another format.
You might use:
- A written summary
- A diagram
- Data
- A concrete example
- A demonstration
- A qualified subject-matter expert
Change the method because it improves understanding, not because you are searching for a more emotionally powerful way to obtain compliance.
Take a break when useful
Some discussions become less productive after people are tired or emotions have escalated.
A planned break or adjournment can provide time to review information, consult others, and reconsider options.
Establish when and how the conversation will resume if further discussion is needed.
Do not repeatedly reopen a clear refusal merely to wear someone down
If a person or organization has clearly rejected a voluntary request, respect that decision.
Reconsider the issue when there is a legitimate reason, such as new evidence, a materially changed proposal, or a formal process requiring additional discussion.
Persistence should not become pressure.
Involve another person when their role adds legitimate value
Another person may help because they:
- Have relevant expertise
- Hold appropriate decision authority
- Understand community history
- Have responsibility for implementation
- Can facilitate a difficult discussion
Do not recruit additional people simply to increase social pressure on someone who has disagreed with you.
Consider mediation when appropriate
A trained mediator can sometimes help parties work through a dispute when direct discussion has stalled.
Mediation generally involves a neutral third party helping participants:
- Clarify the issues
- Identify underlying interests
- Improve communication
- Examine relevant information and standards
- Generate possible agreements
- Negotiate voluntarily
The mediator generally does not impose the outcome.
Participants should understand the mediator's role, how confidentiality will be handled, and what authority they retain over the final agreement.
Mediation is not appropriate for every dispute. Matters involving serious safety concerns, violence, harassment, discrimination, safeguarding, criminal conduct, or situations requiring a formal investigation or authoritative decision may require another process.
Know when to stop
Not every disagreement will end in agreement.
Consider ending or pausing an influence effort when:
- The person has clearly declined a voluntary request
- Further pressure would damage an important relationship without changing the underlying issue
- The cost in time or resources has become disproportionate
- A formal decision has been made
- The issue should move to another process
- New information is needed before discussion can continue productively
Respecting legitimate disagreement is part of ethical leadership.
In Summary
Influence is an important part of leadership, but it should not be defined simply as making other people think or act the way a leader wants.
Ethical influence depends on credibility, trustworthiness, listening, accurate information, clear requests, appropriate use of authority, respect for autonomy, and willingness to reconsider your own position.
Leaders should avoid tactics designed mainly to bypass independent judgment, such as strategic flattery, manufactured social pressure, creating a sense of obligation through gifts, getting people into a pattern of saying yes, misleading emotional appeals, or repeatedly pressing after a clear refusal.
Effective influence also requires attention to power. Someone may appear to agree voluntarily when the person asking controls employment, funding, services, grades, professional opportunities, or other important resources. Greater authority creates a greater responsibility to distinguish requirements from requests and to avoid coercion.
When disagreement occurs, listen for interests and constraints, examine evidence, clarify decision authority, consider alternatives, and use mediation or another appropriate process when useful.
Finally, influence is not measured only by whether another person agrees with you. Sometimes the best result of a conversation is a better proposal, a clearer disagreement, a responsible compromise, a decision to seek more evidence, or recognition that the parties will not agree.
Good leadership uses influence to improve understanding and coordinated action while preserving people's ability to question, disagree, and make informed choices.