PDF Summary:Influence without Authority, by Allan R. Cohen and David L. Bradford

Getting things done at work often requires influencing people over whom you have no authority. In Influence without Authority, Allan R. Cohen and David L. Bradford explain how to gain cooperation from colleagues by understanding what they value and offering something in return. They argue that influence works through strategic exchanges—trading resources, services, or intangible benefits that matter to the other person.

Cohen and Bradford outline different types of influence currencies you can offer, from task support and recognition to personal understanding and involvement. They explain how to diagnose what potential allies want, build trust through authentic exchanges, and adapt your communication style to match theirs. You'll learn when negative exchanges might be necessary and how to navigate them without damaging relationships. This guide provides a framework for creating mutually beneficial exchanges that help you accomplish your goals while strengthening professional relationships.

(continued)...

Inspiration currencies include vision, quality, and moral/ethical integrity. Task currencies include new resources, challenge/learning, assistance, task support, quick feedback, and data. Position currencies include recognition, visibility, reputation, insiderness/having significance, and contacts. Relationship currencies include understanding, acceptance/inclusion, and support on a personal level. Personal currencies include gratitude, ownership/involvement, self-concept, and comfort.

Insiderness/Having Significance

Insiderness/having significance refers to being part of the inner circle of an organization, as opposed to being an outsider. This currency is about being seen as someone who is “in the know” and has influence within the organization. It’s about being part of the group that makes decisions and has access to important information. This currency is valuable because it gives people a sense of belonging and importance. It also gives them access to resources and opportunities that they might not have otherwise.

Building Trust and Undermining Influence Through Exchange

Manipulation and deceit undermine trust and influence. Cohen and Bradford define manipulation as attempting to sway someone in ways that would be less effective if your true intentions were known. While manipulation and deceit can sometimes bring short-term gains, they undermine trust and influence in the long run. People who deceive others to achieve their desires are usually discovered and then shut out by colleagues and untrusting bosses. Authenticity works because it builds trust and helps you and the person you're trying to sway make the optimal choice for the organization.

The Limits of Authenticity

While authenticity and transparency are generally effective, there are some situations where they can backfire. Herminia Ibarra, a professor of organizational behavior, notes that in highly politicized organizations, being too open about your thoughts and motives can make others question your judgment. In these environments, people may interpret your transparency as naivete or a lack of political savvy. Instead of building trust, your openness could lead colleagues to doubt your ability to navigate complex situations. This doesn't mean you should be dishonest, but rather that you should be strategic about how much you reveal and when.

Building trust is essential for effective exchanges. If people perceive you as unreliable, they will resist your attempts to sway them. Conversely, if you're known for being trustworthy, people will be more open to cooperating with you.

(Shortform note: A meta-analysis of 23 studies by organizational behavior researchers found that trust between coworkers is strongly linked to better performance. This relationship holds even after accounting for factors like pay, supervision, and formal authority. The researchers suggest that trust creates a positive cycle: When people trust each other, they're more likely to cooperate, share information, and work together effectively. This leads to better results, which in turn reinforces trust.)

Applying Influence: Diagnosis, Engagement, and Managing Connections

Next, we will discuss the influence process and tactics for effective trade and relationship building.

The Persuasion Method: Diagnosis and Execution

According to Cohen and Bradford, the influence process is based on the principle of reciprocal exchange. People work together when they recognize a benefit they'll receive in exchange. This thing of value could be a budget reallocation, a sincere thank you, or an internal feeling that helping was the right organizational choice.

(Shortform note: While Cohen and Bradford argue that people work together when they recognize a benefit they'll receive in exchange, this transactional approach can backfire. In Drive, Daniel H. Pink explains that when people expect a reward for completing a task, they begin to lose interest in the activity itself. The reward narrows their focus and, in the long run, undermines their intrinsic motivation to keep doing it once the reward is gone.)

We’ll start by diagnosing the ally and then cover the Cohen-Bradford influence method.

Comprehending the Supporter

To diagnose a collaborator, Cohen and Bradford suggest assessing their goals, concerns, and needs. It's important to know what's important to them so you can determine their desires. You also need to understand their preferred way of interacting so you can plan an approach that is likelier to be accepted.

(Shortform note: In Gamestorming, the authors suggest using an “empathy map” to better understand a person’s motivations, perceptions, and frustrations. This is a one-page document that you update after each interaction with the person. It includes four sections: what the person says, does, thinks, and feels. You can use this tool to assess a collaborator’s goals, concerns, needs, and preferred way of interacting.)

Cohen and Bradford's Process for Influencing

Next, Cohen and Bradford explain that the influence process involves understanding your ally’s world, building trust, and aligning what you offer with their needs. Understanding their goals, manner, and chosen form of communication makes the transaction easier. A plan is the key element. Misunderstanding the situation means clever techniques won't be useful.

(Shortform note: Understanding an ally’s world and planning your approach from their point of view makes you more influential because it helps you break out of the “fixed-pie” mindset. This is the assumption that there’s only so much value to go around, so any gain for one party is a loss for the other.)

Tactics for Effective Deal-Making and Relationship Building

Now that we understand how influence works, let’s explore tactics for effective collaboration and relationship building. Cohen and Bradford recommend adapting your communication style to suit those you hope will become allies. Some people favor direct, confident proposals, whereas others prefer a more genial and subtle method. Some people seek concrete evidence to support your ask, whereas others lean towards more qualitative approaches. If you’re not familiar with them, you may need to discuss your preferred communication methods prior to moving forward. If your connection with the person is solid, you can more firmly test its boundaries.

The Dangers of Adapting Your Communication Style

Adapting your communication style to suit those you hope will become allies can have negative consequences. Patricia F. Hewlin, a professor of organizational behavior, found that employees who engage in facades of conformity—by suppressing their personal values and presenting themselves as if they fully embrace organizational values—experience heightened stress, emotional exhaustion, and stronger intentions to leave the organization compared to those who feel able to express their true thoughts and feelings at work. This sustained emotional labor can lead to burnout and decreased job satisfaction.

Next, Cohen and Bradford suggest focusing on developing connections for upcoming exchanges. Your behavior during exchanges impacts how others perceive you. If you seem honest, equitable, and reliable, you'll get different results than if you seem to be operating with a concealed motive or focused solely on benefiting yourself. The outcome of any exchange is important for the impact on future relationships. A temporary win might have negative consequences if it makes your trading partner less willing to work with you again.

(Shortform note: The “shadow of the future” is a concept that can help you decide whether to prioritize a short-term win or a long-term relationship. If you expect to interact with someone again, you should be more willing to sacrifice short-term gain to preserve the relationship. If you don’t expect to interact with them again, you can be more aggressive in pursuing your own interests.)

Although the people you engage with might not be personally significant to you later on, they could influence your reputation, potentially becoming a disadvantage. People known for being self-serving in deals are frequently avoided. It's essential to take part in exchanges that complete the work while also reinforcing the connection for subsequent interactions. In some cases, prioritizing the relationship over your request can be more crucial. A deal that doesn’t pan out, but is made more palatable by strengthening a relationship, can offer dual benefits: It will be simpler to work together later on, and the possible ally could feel an increased sense of obligation to work with you to make up for declining previously. Potential allies are unlikely to repeatedly refuse requests from someone they come to like and trust more over time.

The Potential Downsides of Prioritizing Relationships

While prioritizing the relationship over your request can be beneficial, it’s important to be aware of the potential downsides. According to the sociologist Alejandro Portes, social capital—the value derived from social networks—can sometimes lead to negative outcomes. He explains that when you consistently prioritize relationships over your requests, you may inadvertently create expectations of special favors or preferential treatment. This can lead to situations where others feel entitled to benefits that may not be fair or appropriate, undermining trust in your decision-making and the overall sense of fairness within the organization.

Next, we will discuss navigating imbalance and escalation in exchange.

Navigating Imbalance and Escalation in Reciprocity

When positive exchanges fail, Cohen and Bradford suggest raising costs to influence resistant individuals. Negative exchanges involve increasing costs for the other person by acting directly or by withholding something they want.

Negative exchanges can be necessary when you can’t find a positive currency to exchange, when the other party doesn’t acknowledge that they owe you anything, when the other party is determined not to cooperate, when your own survival is at stake, or when the other party is deliberately trying to hurt you. However, unfavorable transactions can be risky because the other person may have resources to retaliate, and they may feel driven to resist you. You can be firm without causing friction by focusing on the transaction itself rather than the person.

To minimize adverse responses and maintain the relationship, raise costs gradually.

When Negative Exchanges Aren’t an Option

The authors’ advice to use negative exchanges when positive ones fail may not apply in situations where the other party is using coercive control or abuse. In these cases, the other party may not be interested in a fair exchange, and they may be willing to use extreme measures to get what they want. In these situations, experts recommend prioritizing your own safety and well-being over trying to influence the other party. This may involve seeking support from trusted friends, family members, or professionals, and developing a safety plan to protect yourself from harm. In some cases, it may be necessary to end the relationship or remove yourself from the situation entirely. Trying to raise costs gradually in these situations can be dangerous and may escalate the other party’s abusive behavior.