Download Principles of Persuasion: Building Coalitions and Influencing Key People and more Exams Communication in PDF only on Docsity!
Michael Watkins is an associate professor of management at the Harvard Business School, 285 Baker West, Soldiers Field, Boston, Mass. 02163. Among his publications is the recently published book (with Mickey Edwards and Usha Thakrar), Winning the Influence Game: What Every Business Leader Should Know About Government (New York: Wiley, 2001).
0748-4526/01/0400-0115$19.50/0 © 2001 Plenum Publishing Corporation Negotiation Journal April 2001 115
In Practice
Principles of Persuasion
Michael Watkins
Drawing on the literatures on negotiation, communication, and persua- sion as well as his research on organizational transformation, the author proposes a framework for understanding and enacting the persuasion process in organizations. He lays out key goals of persuasion and ways that skilled leaders can manage the process. The framework focuses atten- tion on the ways leaders shape perceptions of interests and alternatives, as well as how they persuade one-on-one and from a distance. He also high- lights the importance of gaining acceptance of tough, unpopular decisions, noting that the way leaders manage the process can have a major impact on outcomes in such situations.
In a world of flatter and more networked organizations, formal authority is
rarely sufficient to get things done. Leaders also need the power to per- suade. This is true whether you are leading a team, a business or a nation; whether or not you have a position with substantial authority; whether you are working inside your organization or dealing with influential outsiders. Effectiveness in persuasion is a core leadership skill, one that is frequently (if not always) directly related to negotiation. Successful persuasion is, in fact, a negotiation that results in concrete impacts on the behavior of other people or organizations. It may be suffi-
cient to gain others’ compliance or necessary to gain their active support and hence to change their attitudes. Regardless, leaders must be able to elicit desired changes through dialogue one-on-one and in small groups, as well as through speeches and memos directed at broader audiences. This essay out- lines a framework for undertaking five core persuasion tasks:
- mapping the influence landscape — identifying who needs to be per- suaded and how they can be influenced;
- shaping perceptions of interests — influencing others’ beliefs about what they want;
- shaping perceptions of alternatives — influencing others’ beliefs about the options open to them;
- gaining acceptance for tough decisions — designing consultation and decision-making processes that increase the likelihood that difficult choices will be accepted; and
- persuading at a distance —achieving a broader impact through mass persuasion.
The Challenge at White Goods Inc.
Each of these tasks will be examined in the context of a set of challenge that confronted Dana Monosoff, the newly hired chief operating officer of White Goods, Inc., an established manufacturer of high-end kitchen appli- ances. (“White Goods,” the scenario described here, and all persons mentioned are fictional, but are based on a compilation of data from several actual case histories.) Sales at White Goods had been flat for several years prior to Dana’s arrival. Nimbler and more aggressive competitors had begun to chip away at the firm’s traditional quality advantage by introducing new materials and pro- duction technologies. Even more ominously, the way products were sold and distributed was changing. While White Goods was continuing to rely on the network of independent dealers that sold and serviced its kitchen appli- ances, its most formidable competitors had begun to establish long-term ties with large retail stores. Some had even begun to manufacture private-label appliances for them. Dana expected these trends to accelerate. Dana was the first senior executive hired from outside the company in 15 years. Brought in by White Goods’ chief executive officer, Paul Schofield, to get growth back on track, she had been promised that if she did well she would succeed Paul as CEO within a few years. But Dana was convinced that producing moderately priced products for large stores was the way to go, and she knew that such a move would not be an easy sell. A decision to mar- ket through large outlets would anger the dealers and could erode White Goods’ tight control over sales and servicing channels. Moreover, producing lower-priced offerings was at odds with White Goods’ proud tradition of manufacturing premium products.
116 Michael Watkins Principles of Persuasion
- identity groups , bound together by shared occupation, age, gender, race, or social class, that protect the interests and promote the mutual solidar- ity of the people they represent; and
- power coalitions made up of people who have banded together oppor- tunistically to advance or protect a set of shared interests, but who may not otherwise identify with or socialize with each other.^1 The history of relationships within and among key groups, and analysis of their characteristic patterns of cooperation and conflict, can offer striking insights into how to deal with them. In analyzing patterns of cooperation, it is useful to keep in mind two primary bases for intergroup alliances: shared interests (things we both care about) and opportunistic trades (you support things I care about and I’ll support you).^2 Because groups may cooperate on some issues and not on others, coalitions may be somewhat fluid, with membership shifts depending on the particular decisions to be made.
Analyzing Influence Networks The next step is to analyze influence networks — established patterns that characterize who defers to whom on crucial issues.^3 This analysis can iden- tify opinion leaders who exert disproportionate influence on decision making.^4 Convincing these pivotal individuals of the need for change trans- lates into broad acceptance, and resistance on their part could galvanize broader opposition. Dana’s analysis of influence networks in top management at White Goods convinced her that Todd Simpson, the vice president of sales, was pivotal. A career employee strongly invested in the company’s traditions, Todd had risen through the sales ranks to become a trusted adviser to the CEO, Paul Schofield. Todd’s support was crucial for Dana’s proposed change initiatives. He would be influenced by his direct reports, the regional sales directors, who would in turn come under pressure from White Goods’ inde- pendent dealers. But Todd was also respected by both groups and capable of influencing them. Dana then analyzed what it would take to move down-market to lower- priced products, concluding that she would also need to win the support of Sarah Wolverton, vice president of manufacturing, and Nathan Simon, vice president of engineering. Both were influential with the CEO, though less so than Todd, and both deferred to Todd on matters pertaining to company cul- ture and traditions. Dana had begun to develop a relationship with Nathan, but had not worked much with Sarah. The resulting influence network is illustrated in Figure One, in which the strength of relationships is repre- sented by the thickness of the connecting arrows.
118 Michael Watkins Principles of Persuasion
Negotiation Journal April 2001 119
Figure One Influence Diagram
Identifying Supporters, Opponents, and “Persuadables” Some people will endorse the leader’s agenda early on because it advances their own interests. But identifying people as supporters doesn’t mean that you can take them for granted. It’s never enough to simply solidify support; you have to maintain it to ensure that support doesn’t slip away in the night, and to expand their own persuasive reach by helping allies become more persuasive, leaders must devote energy to buttressing and deepening the commitment of their supporters. In the words of Owen Harries (1984: 57):
Preaching to the converted, far from being a superfluous activity, is vital. Preachers do it every Sunday. The strengthening of the commitment, intel- lectual performance, and morale of those already on your side is an
Todd Paul
Dana
Nathan
Sarah
Negotiation Journal April 2001 121
status and might affect their compensation. Todd would also hear from deal- ers (many of whom had close relationships with the regional salespeople) who would view a decision to sell through large stores as a threat to their businesses. Clearly, she faced an uphill battle to gain Todd’s support for the initiative.
Assessing Driving and Restraining Forces People facing tough decisions experience psychological tension as opposing sets of forces push them in conflicting directions.^5 The source of tension might be internal conflicts (Do I want X more than Y? Should I do what I want to do or what I think I should do?) or external social pressures, such as competing prior commitments or concern about what respected people will think (see Bazerman et al. 1998). Ultimately, a person decides that the bene- fits of going in one direction outweigh the costs of not going in others. You can therefore deepen your analysis of interests by probing the dri- ving and restraining forces acting on prospective targets of your influence. Driving forces push targets in the direction you desire; restraining forces push them in other directions. The key is to find ways to strengthen the dri- ving forces, weaken the restraining forces, or both. Dana extended her analysis by assessing the driving and restraining forces acting on Todd, as illustrated in the force-field diagram in Figure Two. The driving forces that would lead Todd to support Dana’s initiative include the logic and data that support her case and, perhaps, reluctance to openly oppose her. The restraining forces include his desire to protect White Goods’ culture and the pressures exerted on him by sales directors and dealers. On the face of it, the driving forces look like thin reeds when arrayed against the powerful restraining forces.
Identifying Alternatives The next step is to identify and evaluate how key people perceive their alternatives to behaving in the desired manner. For Dana, this means pre- dicting the actions Todd and other potential opponents might take. There is, for example, the question of whether resistance to persuasion will be overt or covert. Todd could simply withhold support or, more subtly, raise ques- tions about the risks of Dana’s proposals. He could do this alone or in concert with others, such as the regional sales managers. A blocking coali- tion of Todd and the regional sales managers would seriously threaten Dana’s change agenda. While Todd’s influence with Paul, the CEO, is certainly sufficient to stall Dana’s efforts, not everyone with reason to resist change has the power to do so. Leaders should ask themselves: Is resistance by opposing coalitions likely to be active or passive? What forms might it take? More generally, how do key people perceive their specific alternatives and how might these per- ceptions be altered? A clear understanding of the latter can significantly strengthen your influence strategies.
Figure Two A Force-Field Analysis
Task Two: Shaping Perceptions of Interests
At this point, the leader is ready to devise strategies to shape others’ percep- tions of their interests — what they care about and the goals they want to achieve. The main approaches to transforming perceptions of interests are: altering incentives; framing decisions; drawing on the power of social influ- ence; and engaging in quid-pro-quo negotiation.
Altering Incentives Changing the incentive systems within which people operate — introducing rewards for desired behavior, imposing disincentives for undesired behavior, or both — can alter their perceptions of their interests. To the extent that people strive to get the rewards or avoid the disincentives, their behavior (but not necessarily their attitudes) will change. Measurement systems, compensation plans, mission statements, strate- gic plans, annual budgets, and the like are powerful levers for influencing behavior in organizations. They depend for their effectiveness on authority,
Todd
Concern about company image
Pressure from sales organization
Pressure from dealers
Logic and data
Not wanting to openly say “no”
Driving Forces Restraining Forces
122 Michael Watkins Principles of Persuasion
losses. Similarly widespread is the tendency to be risk-averse — to prefer guaranteed gains to risky choices, even if the latter are likely to yield much larger gains.^7 Here again, desired courses of action can be charac- terized as less risky, undesired choices as more risky. Dana could dwell on the negative consequences of not getting sales growth back on track, including vulnerability to takeover and loss of control over the organiza- tion’s destiny.
- Rejection and retreat. Another technique for shaping perceptions of interests is to ask for a lot initially, and then to settle for less. This works because people tend to “anchor” on the initial request and to view sub- sequent moves toward a more moderate request as concessions.^8 Dana could propose to sell exclusively through large stores, and then “retreat” to a plan to sell only mid-range lines through large stores, reserving the premium lines for the existing dealers. The risk is that an extreme initial request might trigger resistance and the coalescence of a blocking coalition.
- Narrowing or broadening the scope. Sometimes choices are best posed broadly, at other times narrowly. A choice that could be construed as set- ting an undesirable precedent might best be framed as a highly circumscribed, isolated situation independent of other decisions. Other choices might be better situated within the context of a higher-level set of issues. Dana could frame the distribution decision as a narrow initia- tive involving a few mid-range lines of appliances, or broaden the focus by emphasizing the strategic importance of countering competitors.
- Enlarging the pie. Choices perceived as win-lose propositions are partic- ularly difficult to sell. Broadening the range of issues under consideration can facilitate mutually beneficial trades that “enlarge the pie.”^9 Along with the proposal to sell through large stores, Dana might put on the table issues she knows to be important to Todd. Her earlier analyses might have revealed, for example, that Todd wants to adopt a state-of-the-art sales-tracking system.
- Neutralizing toxic issues. Progress can be stalled by the presence of “toxic” issues. Toxic issues can sometimes be neutralized by explicitly setting them aside for future consideration, or by making up-front com- mitments that allay anxieties. Dana could explicitly manifest her commitment to the dealer network by proposing a two-tier distribution system in which mid-to-low-range products would be sold in large stores and mid-to-high-range products through dealers.
- Inoculating against expected challenges. As far back as Aristotle, per- suaders have been advised to inoculate their audiences against the arguments they expect their opponents to make. Presenting and deci- sively refuting weak forms of expected counter-arguments immunizes audiences against the same arguments when they are advanced in more
124 Michael Watkins Principles of Persuasion
Negotiation Journal April 2001 125
potent forms. Dana should prepare responses to the objections she antic- ipates from the regional sales directors and dealers. She might say to Todd: “I know that your people are likely to be concerned about X, but the issue is really Y.”
- Providing a script for convincing others. Successful framing not only influences the immediate target, but also provides that person a persua- sive script for convincing others. As she frames her arguments, Dana should keep in mind that Todd will have to sell them to the regional sales directors and dealers. Her arguments should explicitly address their concerns.
Using Social Influence People rarely make important choices independently; most people are influ- enced by their networks of relationships and the opinions of key advisers. Understanding and influencing these relationship networks dramatically increases one’s ability to persuade key people to support a change initiative. The knowledge that a highly respected person already supports an initiative alters others’ assessments of its attractiveness, its likelihood of success, and the potential costs of not getting on board. Convincing opinion leaders to make commitments of support and mobilize their own networks can have a powerful leveraging effect. Likewise, a leader who has been successful in building political capital with key people can draw on reciprocity to gain a buy-in. Todd’s assessment of the costs and benefits of supporting or opposing Dana’s initiative will be strongly influenced by the opinions and expecta- tions of those in his network of relationships. It is thus important for Dana to understand the full range of pressures that could impinge on Todd. Research in social psychology has established that people prefer choices that enable them to:
- Remain consistent with strongly held values and beliefs , which tend to be shared with important reference groups. People asked to engage in behavior inconsistent with their values or beliefs experience internal psy- chological “dissonance,” external social sanction, or both.
- Remain consistent with their prior commitments , because failure to honor commitments tends to incur social sanctions. People prefer not to make choices that require them to reverse themselves or that overtly con- strain their future choices by setting undesirable precedents.
- Preserve their sense of control. Choices that threaten position in a social hierarchy and sense of control are likely to provoke anxiety.
- Repay obligations. Reciprocity is a strong social norm, and people are vulnerable to appeals for support that invoke past favors they have received.
Negotiation Journal April 2001 127
- Using behavior change to drive attitude change. It is well known that attitudinal changes can translate into significant behavioral changes, but often overlooked that the reverse can be true: changing someone’s behavior can change the person’s attitudes.^13 People have a strong need for consistency; induced to try something new, they are likely to adjust their attitudes to be consistent with the behavior. For example, Dana might try to involve Todd in a study of ways to make a two-tier distribu- tion system work. Having worked on the study and helped to shape its conclusions, Todd’s attitudes might shift to become consistent with his actions.
- Sequencing through relationship networks. Faced with difficult choices, people often look to respected others for clues about “right thinking.” Such opinion leaders might be sought out because of their expertise or experience, because they have access to key information, or simply because they have authoritative personalities. Whatever the source of their stature, it is important to understand how key people formulate opinions about important issues. As noted earlier, this is done by tracing patterns of who defers to whom on key issues.^14 If, for example, Todd defers to senior people in other functions on issues of company strategy, it is important to secure the support of these people first. Dana should draw up a sequencing plan to help her decide when and in what order to approach people in order to form a coalition and build momentum before she gets to Todd.^15 Leaders should also carefully plan the sequence of individual and group meetings. Dana could meet individually with those whom Todd trusts. Having won their support, she could raise the issue for discussion in a group meeting attended by Todd, and then fol- low up with a one-on-one meeting with Todd.
Engaging in Quid-Pro-Quo Negotiation Finally, if key people cannot otherwise be brought along, it may be neces- sary to engage them in a this-for-that negotiation, agreeing to support a project or initiative they care about in exchange for their support of yours. Success rests on understanding the full set of interests at stake — which may include reputation and prestige as well as tangible and more obvious needs — and on knowing how to craft a suitable trade. Support can often be bought. The question is: at what cost? Leaders who don’t know when to stop buying support can end up making compromises that dilute their efforts. Artful use of incentives, framing, social influence, and quid-pro-quo negotiation will strengthen the forces driving Todd in the direction Dana favors and weaken restraining forces, as illustrated in Figure Three. With careful, thorough, and sustained effort, Dana may be able to tip the scales and get Todd to support her initiatives.
Task Three: Shaping Perceptions of Alternatives
Shaping people’s perceptions of their own interests is only half the story. The other task is influencing people’s perceptions of their alternatives , the set of options from which they believe they must choose. This usually entails directing their attention toward alternatives you favor and eliminating less favorable choices from consideration.
Introducing New Options People are apt to perceive their alternatives too narrowly: they overlook potentially attractive alternatives, or construe them as nonviable, unduly risky, or undesirable. Often this phenomenon is a consequence of how deci- sions are framed. Because organizations tend to cast new choices in the same old ways, coalitions are likely to form along predictable lines.
Figure Three New Balance of Driving and Restraining Forces
Todd
Concern about company image
Pressure from sales organization
Pressure from dealers
Logic and data
Not wanting to openly say “no”
Driving Forces Restraining Forces
Good of organization
Support of respected other
128 Michael Watkins Principles of Persuasion
logical pressure to follow through. A caveat: avoid pressing for closure until the balance of forces is tipping in the right direction.
Pruning Options A related approach is to work toward the progressive elimination of less desirable options from consideration, funneling the decision-making process toward the choice you favor. People are rarely willing to make difficult deci- sions before they have exhausted less painful options. Sometimes it makes sense to let people try to make these options work, especially if you are rea- sonably certain that they will fail. Dana could suggest that Todd come up with a plan for changing the distribution system and see what he proposes. If it doesn’t work, she will be in a position to say, “OK, now we try it my way.” Pruning of options is often necessary to provide a defensible rationale for a decision, to diffuse responsibility for unpleasant outcomes, and to bring others to the point of readiness to commit. The downside is that valuable time gets consumed. Also the exploration of other approaches may make it still more difficult to implement the desired option.
Task Four: Gaining Acceptance for Tough Decisions
Leaders must often make unpopular decisions. When someone’s pet project must be shut down, spending must be curtailed, or someone must be deprived of responsibility, the key is to get people to accept the conse- quences of an imposed decision. Although never easy, tough decisions of these kinds can be made more palatable. Some suggestions — all derived from the path-breaking Getting to YES (Fisher, Ury, and Patton 1991) — that might help that process follow.
Creating a Fair Process People are more likely to accept the consequences of a difficult decision if it is the outcome of a fair process (see Kim and Maubergone 1997). When people believe that the decision-making process was legitimate and that their views were taken seriously, they are more likely to support implemen- tation. Leaders who gain reputations for being thoughtful and deliberative increase the scope within which people will accept and support their choices. Those known for arbitrariness, thoughtlessness, and apparent disre- gard for equity fuel resistance and furnish focal points around which opposition can mobilize.
Engaging in Shared Diagnosis Getting people involved in the diagnosis of organizational problems is a form of entanglement: involvement in the diagnosis makes it more difficult for people to deny the need for tough decisions and negotiating those changes. By the end of such a process, people are often willing to accept outcomes they would never have accepted at the outset. This is another reason for Dana to get Todd and other key people engaged in an analysis of changes in the way appliances are being distributed.
130 Michael Watkins Principles of Persuasion
Negotiation Journal April 2001 131
Consulting Before Deciding Consultation promotes buy-in. Dana should consider consulting throughout White Goods about what should be done to meet the emerging challenge from competitors and to explore the role of large retail stores in the market. In addition to acceptance of the eventual decision, doing so could deepen her grasp of the state of play in the organization. Good consultation means active listening (see Rogers and Roethlis- berger [1952].) Posing questions and encouraging people to voice their real concerns, then summarizing and feeding back what you have heard, signals that you are paying attention and taking the conversation seriously. The power of active listening as a persuasive technique is vastly underrated. It can not only promote acceptance of difficult decisions, but also channel people’s thinking and frame choices. Because the questions leaders ask and the way they summarize and feed back responses powerfully affect people’s perceptions, active listening and framing are a particularly potent persuasive pairing.
Giving What Is Asked For It is disconcerting to be asked what you need in order to get something diffi- cult done and then be given it. Having made a difficult decision, the leader asks those responsible for implementation what resources they will need to make it work. After carefully probing their assessments, the leader says, “You have it! So let’s get going.” This tactic is a variation on getting people to make a commitment and then holding them to it.
Task Five: Persuading at a Distance
Finally, leaders of large organizations cannot possibly communicate one-to- one with everyone they need to persuade, so they must be proficient at persuading from a distance — communicating themes and priorities in speeches, memos, and other forms of one-to-many communication. In addi- tion to persuading top management and the sales organization, Dana also has to win the support of the larger workforce; they are justifiably proud of the high-quality products they produce and may resent a decision to move down-market.
Constructing Reliable Communication Channels Just as nature abhors a vacuum, informal networks will spring up to fill com- munication voids in organizations. In the absence of reliable formal communication channels, people will rely on the grapevine for information about what is going on. The problem, of course, is that the grapevine intro- duces distortion into the communication process. Some of this distortion is unintentional, a product of error and omission in person-to-person transmis- sion. But those seeking to advance partisan goals can also intentionally distort information. As Jowett and O’Donnell (1992: 32) put it, propaganda functions by “withholding information, releasing information at pre-deter-
Negotiation Journal April 2001 133
best delivered personally, in an interactive forum such as a meeting at which people can ask questions, but complex technical and data-intensive argu- ments are usually best conveyed in written form (see Chapter Four in Zimbardo and Leippe [1991]). Speeches and live videoconference/town- meeting presentations are ideal for communicating broad goals, values, and inspiration. Pre-recorded video presentations, though useful for disseminat- ing information about the progress of initiatives, can seem contrived when used to communicate a new vision. In developing her communication plan, Dana should pay attention to how people in the organization feel (or could feel) most comfortable interacting with the top leadership. Is the organiza- tion one in which senior managers meet regularly with employees in town hall formats? Are such meetings viewed as open, risk-free environments for asking questions or as one-way streets for management to tell employees how it’s going to be? If the latter, Dana could send a powerful message by running a more open process.
Introducing Powerful Simplifications Leaders are in a position to introduce new conceptual frameworks that change how problems get posed and options get generated. Because the world is extremely complex and we cannot attend to everything, we tend to search for what Boston Consulting Group founder Bruce Henderson called “powerful simplifications” — conceptual frameworks and rules of thumb that enable us to manage complexity and figure out what to do. Problem solving, Henderson (see Ghemawat 1997) observed, often involves:
... a universe of alternative choices, most of which must be discarded without more than cursory attention... .Hence some frame of reference is needed.. .to screen the relevance of the data, methodology and implicit value judgments... .[The most useful] frame of reference is the concept. Conceptual thinking is the skeleton or framework on which all other choices are sorted out.
A conceptual framework is a lens through which to view the world. Like all lenses, it focuses attention in particular ways, revealing certain things and obscuring others. People who adopt a new conceptual framework sub- sequently focus their attention differently, see the world differently, and hence make different choices. Visions and strategies are frameworks for, respectively, characterizing the situations that organizations are facing and the choices that will lead in desired directions. Likewise, models for analyz- ing strategic positions (such as Michael Porter’s five-forces model) 17 or managerial systems (such as total quality management (TQM))^18 are powerful simplifications that, once adopted, powerfully shape subsequent analyses and choices. Leaders like Dana can profoundly influence decision making by intro- ducing new conceptual frameworks, but there are important caveats. Powerful simplifications can easily become oversimplifications, and can
occasion bad choices and disillusionment if applied indiscriminately or unthinkingly. It is important to remember that “to a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail” and that all conceptual frameworks have their limitations. Leaders must be careful, too, not to get caught up in managerial fads. Most consultants are in the business of selling powerful simplifications, and as such they must develop new products and repackage old ones to stay in business. Educated consumers of such products understand their limitations and view their claims with skepticism.
Building Personal Credibility Finally, personal credibility is an important persuasive resource. Numerous studies have found the persuasiveness of messages to be strongly linked to the perceived credibility of their sources.^19 This is by no means a new obser- vation; as Aristotle wrote in Rhetoric :
Of the modes of persuasion furnished by the spoken word there are three kinds. The first kind depends on the personal character of the speaker; the second on putting the audience in a certain frame of mind; the third on the proof, or apparent proof, provided by the speech itself. Persuasion is achieved by the speaker’s personal character when the speech is so spo- ken as to make us think him credible. We believe good men more fully and readily than others; this is true generally whatever the question is, and absolutely true where exact certainty is impossible and opinions are divided.^20
Just so. Leaders with a reputation for integrity are better able to shape people’s perceptions of their interests and alternatives because they are respected, considered trustworthy, and perceived to possess the experience to make good judgments. They are also more persuasive when their approval is highly valued. Leaders who demand and reward excellence, and who spotlight and condemn inadequate performance, are likely to find their approval a rare and sought-after commodity. A leader who takes this too far might earn a reputation for never being satisfied, but a reputation for not being tough enough is probably more damaging. A corollary is that challenges can motivate. “When all else fails, throw down a challenge,” wrote Dale Carnegie in his famous work on persuasion. 21 The use of challenges should include suitable rewards for meeting objectives; friendly (nondivisive) competition might be employed as a catalyst. Leaders also are viewed as more credible if their behavior is consistent with what they seek from others. Simply stated, this is the “walk-the-talk” principle. Leaders who are inconsistent or overtly self-serving give people psychological “wiggle room” to avoid making difficult choices, and thus ren- der themselves unable to act as role models for the new cultures they seek to build.
134 Michael Watkins Principles of Persuasion
