Influencing: The Disciplined Core of Today’s Leadership

By Hubert Saint-Onge

Most leaders I work with do not struggle because they lack insight, competence, or commitment. They are usually highly capable and deeply invested in their work.

They struggle because they cannot get traction.

They find themselves in a state of perpetual "spinning." They see exactly what needs to change, they understand the business implications with total clarity, and they know the exact cost of inaction. And yet, progress stalls. Conversations go in circles. Agreements reached don't seem to survive the walk back to the desk.

In these environments, resistance rarely shows up as an open rebellion. Instead, it manifests in more subtle, corrosive ways: the "polite nod" followed by business as usual, competing priorities that conveniently bury the new initiative, or quiet non-compliance.

At the root of this frustration lies a leadership capability that is both essential and widely

misunderstood: Influencing.

The Authority Trap: Why Hierarchy is Failing

Historically, we treated influencing as a "soft skill", a personality-based attribute or a mysterious trait often referred to as charisma. You either had it, or you didn't.

In the modern organization, that view is not only outdated; it’s misleading. Influencing is a

disciplined leadership capability. It is the primary currency of the executive, and it becomes increasingly critical as organizations become more complex, more interdependent, less hierarchical, and, more recently, change at an unprecedented rate. Pivot or die! Organizational fluidity becomes an imperative. An embedded influencing culture attenuates resistance and enhances adaptability.

Most organizations still retain the language of hierarchy, but the reality of work has shifted. Results now depend on cross-functional cooperation and alignment among peers. You are frequently tasked with delivering results through people who do not report to you. The same applies to external stakeholders—regulators, community partners, and investors.

In these spaces, authority leads nowhere. Partnering is forged through trust, not titles.

Collaboration must be cultivated; it cannot be imposed. If you rely solely on your position, your expertise, or even your logic, you will eventually hit a wall. Influence is the only way through.

What Influencing Is and What It Is Not

We often conflate influencing with persuasion, but in practice, they are often antitheses of one another.

Persuasion is a "push" mode. It is about advocacy. It’s the belief that if you just have better slides, sharper logic, or a more forceful delivery, you can wear the other person down until they adopt your point of view. But persuasion often triggers a counter-push. People experience it as pressure, a threat to their autonomy, or a judgment of their intelligence, experience, and knowledge. Even if they agree outwardly to stop the pressure, their commitment is shallow.

Influencing is a "pull" mode. It is about enabling others to make informed choices—choices that move the work forward. It is not about winning an argument; it is about creating a convergence of interest. Effective influencing requires a counterintuitive move: curiosity before advocacy. It requires you to step away from the need for unilateral control and adopt a stance of shared problem-solving. True influence is only achieved when you listen attentively enough to deeply understand the logic of the person across from you.

The Three Levels of Influence: Action, Mindset, and Identity

One reason influencing efforts fail is that leaders aren't clear about what they are trying to shift. Not all challenges are created equal. In my practice, I categorize these into three distinct depths:

1. Influencing Actions: When Execution Falls Short

This is the most straightforward level. The person understands their role and has good intentions, but their behaviour isn't supporting the goal.

• The Approach: This work is largely practical. It involves feedback, data, and short- cycle learning. You aren't challenging who they are; you are simply helping them align their actions with agreed-upon results. It is the "low-hanging fruit" of influence.

2. Influencing Mindsets: The Barrier of Assumptions

This is where things get difficult. When performance gaps persist despite well-intentioned effort, the constraint is usually how the person interprets their situation. Mindsets act as lenses. Two people can look at the same P&L statement and reach opposite conclusions—not because one is "wrong," but because they are using different interpretive frames.

• The Approach: You cannot "de-bunk" a mindset with a PowerPoint deck. It requires inquiry and patience. You must understand their "worldview" before you can attempt to expand it. If your advice contradicts their mindset too directly, they will reject it regardless of its quality. It is best to start by asking questions to identify the assumptions that guide them. You then have to explore the implications of the underlying beliefs and jointly arrive at a place that will serve them better in the current context. This is perilous leadership work, but it is the only way to shift ingrained patterns.

3. Influencing Identity: The Shift of Self

In the most complex transitions, such as moving from a functional expert to a CEO, the challenge is about identity. It’s how someone defines their value. A CFO might see their value in "accuracy and control," but a CEO must find value in "ambiguity and vision."

• The Approach: This is transformative work. It cannot be rushed. If you attempt to influence someone's identity without significant "relational capital" (trust), you will hit a stone wall. As Ed Schein would say, you must proceed with “humble inquiry." You are asking them to rethink who they need to be to succeed. With the right support and self-motivation, the individual can find their own agency and gradually pivot to make it easier for them to fulfill their aspirations.

The Inner Work: The Leader as the Instrument

One of the lesser-discussed truths about influencing is that it begins internally. Before you pick a tactic, you must decide who you will be in the interaction.

If you unconsciously prioritize being "right," being seen as the most competent person in the room,or protecting your own agenda, you have already lost. People have a highly tuned "intent-detector." They can sense even the subtlest trace of self-interest or judgment, and they will shut down accordingly.

Effective influencing requires a shift from providing answers to creating insight. This inner stance manifests in three observable ways:

1. Reciprocity: A genuine willingness to be influenced yourself.

2. Respect: A baseline belief that the other person’s current way of making sense of the world is valid and logical to them.

3. Investment: A genuine interest in the other person’s success, not just the project’s success.

Without this foundation, the best "negotiation tactics" in the world will fall flat.

Enablers and Eroders: The Behavioural Balance Sheet

Over years of observing leadership teams, I have seen a consistent set of behaviours that

distinguish master influencers from frustrated advocates.

The Enablers (The Pull):

• Deep Listening: Listening not to respond or correct, but to understand the "why" behind the "what."

• Inquiry over Advocacy: Asking questions that surface assumptions and trade-offs before you ever introduce your own perspective.

• • Objectivity: The ability to hold another person’s point of view without judging it.

• • Dialogue Competence: The skill to structure a conversation—setting the context, exploring facts, and only then agreeing on actions.

The Eroders (The Push):

• Premature Solutions: Jumping to the "answer" before the other person has even finished explaining the problem. This short-circuits their ownership.

• Over-Advocacy: The harder you try to convince, the less people actually hear.

Ignoring Receptivity: Pushing an insight when the other person isn't ready to receive it. Insight without receptivity is just noise.

The Strategic Impact: From Control to Adaptability

Effective influencing rarely looks dramatic. It doesn’t usually involve a "Braveheart" speech or a table-pounding moment. Instead, it shows up quietly.

When an "influencing ethic" takes hold in an organization, the tone of the entire culture begins to shift. People stop playing "my way or the highway" politics. They begin to articulate problems more clearly because they feel psychologically safe. Conversations shift from protecting positions to exploring possibilities. Their reaction to new ideas shifts from reactive resistance to curiosity because they have less fear that it will be imposed on them. They are confident that their perspective will be heard.

Crucially, commitments deepen. When people feel they have been part of a mutual influence process, they take ownership of decisions—even the ones they initially resisted.

In this context, adaptability becomes your most strategic organizational capability. When your leaders can influence rather than just command, the organization gains the resilience required to survive rapid, complex change.

Final Thoughts

Influencing is not an "add-on" to your leadership toolkit. In a world where authority alone can no longer deliver results, influencing IS leadership.

It is a discipline that requires humility, a high degree of self-awareness, and a genuine curiosity about the human condition. Leaders who invest in this capability find that progress becomes easier—not because they are pushing harder, but because they have learned how to create the conditions where people want to move together.

You don't need to be the most charismatic person in the room to be the most influential. You just need to be committed to understanding the room.