The Art of Influence…For good: What Separates Leaders Who Move Organizations (Influence Series 1/4)

There's a moment most senior leaders recognize. You have the right idea. The data supports it. The timing is right. And yet — the initiative stalls. A key stakeholder goes quiet. A peer deflects. The energy in the room doesn't match the logic on the slide.

The instinct is to sharpen the argument. What actually needs sharpening is the foundation underneath it.

After nearly a decade coaching C-suite and senior executives across industries, I've come to see influence as the defining leadership skill at the top — not because it's about persuasion, but because it's about trust. Not the kind that comes with a title, but the kind built through consistency, credibility, and a genuine understanding of what others need to move forward. So why is influence so much harder than most leaders expect – especially at the top?

Why Influence Gets Harder as You Rise

The further you climb, the less positional authority moves people. You're no longer directing – you’re persuading peers, aligning boards, and building coalitions across competing priorities and power structures. That shift requires a fundamentally different approach.

Four challenges define the terrain:

1. Working across the matrix. The most critical work rarely follows a clean reporting line. You're asking peers to reprioritize, convincing business unit leaders to align on enterprise strategy, and building coalitions across functions with different KPIs and cultures. No org chart tells you how to navigate it.

2. Navigating organizational politics. At the senior level, political dynamics are more concentrated and consequential. A proposal can be technically sound and still fail — not because it lacks merit, but because of who championed it, who feels threatened by it, or what it signals about resources and power. I worked with a Chief Marketing Officer who had built a compelling, data-backed case for consolidating the company's brand architecture — a move that would have simplified the customer experience and reduced costs significantly. The business case was airtight. What she hadn't mapped was the informal power structure: one influential EVP had spent years building the very brand she was proposing to sunset, and felt the proposal was an implicit critique of his legacy. The initiative stalled for months — not because the idea was wrong, but because the relationship hadn't been built before the ask. Leaders who ignore organizational politics don't transcend them. They lose to them.

3. Meeting change resistance with real empathy. William Bridges, whose work on transitions remains foundational, reminds us that people don't resist change as much as they resist loss. The question isn't "why won't they move?" but "what do they stand to lose — and have I taken that seriously?" At the executive level, resistance is usually rational. Understanding that is the beginning of influence.

4. Translating buy-in into action. Even when you've won the argument, you haven't won the commitment. Execution requires time, budget, and people — all scarce. Influence has to outlast the room.

The Foundation: Influence Starts Long Before the Moment

One of the most consistent findings in research on executive effectiveness is that influence isn't primarily something you do in the moment — it's something you've built over time. Leaders who struggle focus on the argument. Leaders who excel focus on the relationship, the trust, and the ecosystem — before anything is at stake.

Here's the groundwork that makes influence possible:

1. Build good relationships. Stephen Covey's “emotional bank account” concept is as applicable in the boardroom as anywhere: every interaction either deposits or withdraws trust. The deposits that matter most at the executive level are reliability (doing what you say), generosity (advancing others' priorities without keeping score), and genuine attention. Many leaders and teams consistently do not do what they say they will. The executives who move organizations are known for one thing above all — you can count on them.

2. Map the ecosystem before you move. Effective influence requires situational intelligence: understanding stakeholders' priorities, pressures, and definitions of success before you begin shaping anything. This means knowing the informal power structure — who influences whom, who is trusted, whose voice carries weight in rooms you can't always access. This isn't political maneuvering. It's strategic empathy.

3. Practice real perspective-taking. There is a significant difference between knowing someone's perspective and actually inhabiting it. Before any significant stakeholder conversation, take five minutes to ask: what does success look like to them right now? What are they most worried about? What would need to be true for them to say yes? That brief investment changes everything about the conversation that follows.

4. Identify and cultivate allies early. John Kotter's research on leading change is unambiguous: a powerful guiding coalition is a prerequisite, not a nice-to-have. Bring key stakeholders into your planning at the outset — genuinely, not performatively. That transforms them from passive supporters into active co-owners. And that distinction matters when the initiative hits resistance.

5. Think sequentially about who hears what and when. The order in which ideas travel through an organization shapes how they land. Testing with your manager first, then building cross-functional support, means your idea arrives in rooms with momentum and early credibility already behind it.

6. Anticipate the resistance — and address it first. The most sophisticated influencers don't wait for objections; they surface them. Before any high-stakes proposal, ask: what's the strongest case against this? Then address it before it's raised. It signals intellectual rigor, demonstrates respect for the audience, and removes the adversarial dynamic that derails so many executive conversations.

A Word on Ethics

At the executive level, the line between influence and manipulation carries real consequences for trust, culture, and your long-term credibility. Influence done well is about alignment — finding where what you care about genuinely intersects with what others care about, and building something together that neither of you would have reached alone. Manipulation is a short-term strategy with long-term costs. The most effective leaders I know could tell you, with specificity, what they would never do to win agreement. That ethical clarity isn't a constraint on their influence. It is the source of it.

Reflection Question: Think about the most significant initiative you're currently trying to move forward. Where is the influence challenge really located — in the argument, the relationships, or the trust? What's one investment you could make this week in the foundation, not the pitch?  Comment and share below; we’d love to hear from you.

Quote: "The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place." — George Bernard Shaw

As an executive leadership and team coach, I work with senior leaders to strengthen their influence and navigate complex organizational dynamics. Contact me to explore this topic further.

The next article in this series (2/4) will go deeper into the communication dynamics and strategies of influence in action.

How do you like to influence?

Escalation Done Right: When Leaders Should Solve the Problem - and When They Should Elevate It (Executive Coordination Series 4/4)

In many organizations, escalation carries an implicit stigma. If an issue reaches senior leadership, something has gone wrong — either the team below couldn't handle it, or someone is avoiding accountability. That framing misunderstands what escalation actually is.

Complex organizations encounter challenges that genuinely require broader authority, additional strategic context, or senior alignment. Escalation, used well, is not a failure of collaboration — it's a precision tool for moving forward when lateral resolution has reached its limits. The challenge is that most organizations have two opposing problems at once: some leaders escalate too quickly, routing issues upward the moment they feel uncertain; others avoid escalation entirely, letting problems persist rather than risk appearing unable to handle them. Strong leaders learn the difference

Four practices to help you escalate effectively:

1. Understand the System Before Proposing a Fix.  Leaders often notice problems outside their own function and jump quickly to solutions.  However, many organizational challenges are more complex than they first appear. What seems like a simple fix may be connected to upstream constraints, regulatory requirements, or technical limitations.  Quality pioneer W. Edwards Deming argued that the majority of organizational problems live in systems, not in individuals. Leaders who take the time to understand the broader system — asking questions, mapping dependencies, developing a fuller picture — are far more likely to identify the real problem rather than a visible symptom of it. This isn't a call for analysis paralysis; it's a call for disciplined inquiry before action.

2. Engage the Process Owner with Curiosity.  Once leaders understand the broader context, the next step is to engage the person responsible for the process.  Constructive conversations begin with observation and curiosity rather than criticism.  Organizational psychologist Chris Argyris described this approach as moving from advocacy to inquiry—a mindset that encourages learning and shared understanding.

3. Escalate When Collaboration Reaches an Impasse.  Even strong organizations occasionally reach moments where collaboration alone does not resolve an issue.  In these situations, escalation becomes a useful leadership tool.  Leadership scholar Roger Martin emphasizes that clear decision rights help organizations resolve disagreements and move forward effectively.  When escalation is framed as a mechanism for clarity rather than blame, it helps maintain trust between teams.

4. Choose Escalations Thoughtfully.  Not every issue requires escalation.  Effective leaders distinguish between problems that can be resolved locally and those requiring broader alignment or authority.  Escalating every issue creates unnecessary bureaucracy. Avoiding escalation entirely delays progress.  Strong leaders ask whether the issue requires senior alignment, additional authority, or strategic prioritization before elevating it.

When escalation is used thoughtfully, it keeps organizations moving. Leaders resolve issues at the appropriate level, avoid unnecessary bureaucracy, and ensure that important decisions receive the clarity and authority they require.

Throughout this series, we explored how leadership teams align around enterprise priorities, collaborate across functions, and engage in productive conflict. Escalation ensures that when alignment alone is not enough, organizations can still move forward decisively.

Quote of the Day. “The most important responsibility of an executive is to ensure that decisions are made.” — Peter Drucker

Reflection Question.  In your organization, do leaders escalate too quickly, avoid escalation entirely, or use escalation thoughtfully?  Comment and share below; we’d love to hear from you.

As an executive leadership coach, I work with executive leaders to strengthen their team effectiveness and help organizations navigate complex leadership challenges, contact me to learn more.

When do you know it’s time to escalate?

Productive Conflict: Why Strong Leadership Teams Debate Before They Decide (Executive Coordination Series 3/4)

Once executive teams begin collaborating across functions, disagreement becomes inevitable. Marketing may want to accelerate a product launch while operations is concerned about capacity. Finance is pushing for cost discipline while sales is advocating for additional investment.  These tensions are not signs that something is wrong. They are signs that complex decisions are being examined from multiple directions at once.

Leadership teams that never disagree are not aligned — they're avoiding. Avoidance produces worse decisions, slower learning, and a dangerous false consensus. The organizations that consistently make better decisions are the ones that have learned to converse well: challenging ideas openly, staying focused on outcomes, and then committing fully once a decision is reached.

Four practices turn conflict from something leadership teams endure into something they use.

1. Separate Ideas from Identity.  Conflict derails when leaders experience a challenge to their idea as a challenge to their expertise, authority, or standing on the team. When that conflation happens, disagreement stops being about the decision and starts being about status.

High-performing leadership teams build a deliberate norm: proposals are ideas to explore, not positions to defend. This isn't a soft distinction — it requires leaders to actively decouple their self-concept from their recommendations. Amy Edmondson's research on psychological safety shows that teams with this culture surface concerns earlier, catch more risks, and make substantially stronger decisions than teams in which speaking up carries a social cost.

2. Encourage Debate Before Commitment.  Strong leadership teams encourage debate before finalizing a decision.  When leaders contribute their perspectives early, they are far more likely to support the final outcome, even if it differs from their preferred approach.  Patrick Lencioni refers to this as mining for conflict—actively inviting differing viewpoints so that important issues surface during discussion rather than afterward.  One famous example occurred at Intel when executives debated whether to exit the memory chip business and focus on microprocessors. The discussion involved intense disagreement among senior leaders. CEO Andy Grove later reflected that these debates were uncomfortable but necessary. Openly surfacing opposing views allowed Intel to make a strategic decision that ultimately reshaped the company’s future.

3. Focus Conflict on Organizational Outcomes, not People.  Healthy conflict is about the problem. Unhealthy conflict is about the people. The line between them can erode quickly under pressure, especially in high-stakes discussions where leaders have strong views and significant organizational capital invested.

Strategist Roger Martin describes effective leadership decision-making as integrative thinking — holding opposing models simultaneously in order to arrive at a solution neither camp could have reached alone. That kind of thinking is only possible when conversation stays anchored to the outcome the organization is trying to achieve, rather than drifting into territory that feels personal or political.

4. Commit Fully Once the Debate Ends.  The value of productive conflict depends entirely on what happens next. Healthy debate strengthens decisions only when it converts into genuine alignment. Once a decision is made, the leadership team must present a consistent message — not just to each other, but to their organizations.

Continued disagreement after the decision — expressed in team meetings, hallway conversations, or through passive non-compliance — fractures execution at every level below. John Kotter's decades of research on organizational change demonstrate consistently that executive alignment is one of the strongest predictors of whether strategy actually lands. Disagree in the room. Commit when you leave it.

Productive conflict is a discipline — one that has to be named, modeled, and protected. Here's where to start:

·  Separate your own ideas from your identity before walking into the room

·  Ask for dissenting views explicitly — don't wait for people to volunteer them

·  Keep debate anchored to the decision at hand, not the people around it

·  When the discussion ends, commit fully — in the room and outside of it

When leadership teams engage in thoughtful debate, decisions improve and alignment strengthens. Diverse perspectives surface earlier, risks are examined more carefully, and leaders gain greater confidence in the path forward. Over time, teams that handle conflict well make faster, better decisions because they trust one another enough to challenge ideas openly and then move forward together.

Quote of the Day.  “The absence of conflict is not harmony, it’s apathy.” — Patrick Lencioni

Reflection Question.  How comfortable is your leadership team with open debate before major decisions are made?  Comment and share below; we’d love to hear from you!

As an executive leadership coach, I work with executive leaders to strengthen their team effectiveness and help organizations navigate complex leadership challenges. contact me to learn more about building stronger leadership teams and decision-making processes.

The next blog in this series 4/4 will focus on escalations.

How do you like to productively disagree?

Horizontal Leadership: Why Great Executives Go Across, Not Up (Executive Coordination Series 2/4)

Most organizations are designed for vertical communication. Leaders manage up and down their chain of command. Accountability flows through hierarchy. But when a problem crosses departments — and most of the hard problems do — the vertical path creates friction by design.

An issue requiring input from marketing, product, and engineering can easily travel up through three layers of leadership before it reaches the people who can actually solve it. By then, the problem is older, the context is thinner, and the solution is further away. High-performing organizations learn to move differently. Before escalating upward, leaders move laterally — connecting directly with the people closest to the issue.

 Here's how the best leadership teams make it work in practice:

 1. Go Direct When a Problem Lives in Another Function.  Many organizations unintentionally create friction by requiring cross-functional issues to travel through layers of management before reaching the people who can solve them.  Strong teams adopt a simpler norm: go directly to the person who can help resolve the issue.

If marketing needs clarity from product, leaders connect directly with the product team. If operations requires financial insight, they reach out to finance rather than routing the issue through multiple layers.

 A well-known example comes from Intel. Former CEO Andy Grove encouraged leaders across functions to engage one another directly rather than relying solely on hierarchical channels. Grove believed fast decision-making required engineers, product leaders, and operations teams to communicate openly across boundaries.

Amazon reinforces a similar principle through its emphasis on ownership. Leaders are encouraged to solve problems wherever they arise rather than waiting for formal authority. Jeff Bezos often reminded teams that customers experience the company as a single system, not as separate departments.

 2. Replace Lane Protection with Shared Ownership.  Many organizations encourage leaders to stay in their lane. While clarity of responsibility is important, overly rigid lane management can create barriers when problems span multiple teams. Consider a customer issue involving product design, customer support, and logistics. If each department focuses only on its narrow responsibilities, the issue may move slowly from one group to the next. 

 Organizations that excel at collaboration adopt a different mindset. Leaders view outcomes such as customer satisfaction, product quality, and operational reliability as shared responsibilities rather than departmental handoffs.  Research published in Harvard Business Review consistently shows that cross-functional collaboration is one of the strongest drivers of innovation and effective problem-solving.

 3. Encourage Peers to Resolve Issues Before Escalating.  In weaker cultures, disagreements between departments are quickly escalated to senior leadership.  Strong leadership teams expect peers to address issues directly with one another first. Leaders clarify expectations, discuss tradeoffs, and work toward solutions before involving higher levels of authority.  This approach strengthens relationships across functions while improving decision speed.  Leadership consultant Patrick Lencioni emphasizes that high-performing leadership teams rely heavily on peer accountability rather than hierarchical enforcement.

 4. Model Collaboration Through Everyday Behaviors.  Horizontal collaboration is shaped not only by major strategic decisions but also by everyday behaviors.  Responding promptly when colleagues reach out, engaging with curiosity when another team seeks input, and making time for cross-functional discussions all strengthen trust across the organization.  When leaders delay responses or ignore requests, collaboration slows and issues begin escalating unnecessarily.  Organizational psychologist Amy Edmondson has shown that trust grows through repeated interactions that demonstrate reliability and mutual respect.

 Horizontal leadership is built through repetition, not declaration. Executives who want to shift their organization's default from vertical to lateral can start here:

• Connect directly with peers before routing issues upward

• Respond promptly when colleagues reach out across functions

• Frame cross-functional challenges as shared problems, not territorial disputes

• Model the lateral behaviors you want to see — your team is watching what you do, not just what you say

 Reducing friction between functions often unlocks speed, innovation, and stronger execution. When leaders move laterally rather than vertically, problems are solved closer to where they occur and decisions benefit from multiple perspectives. Over time, collaboration replaces unnecessary hierarchy and leaders begin to see themselves not only as stewards of their function, but as partners responsible for the success of the entire enterprise.

 Quote of the Day.  “The leaders who are most effective today are those who can work across boundaries.” — Ram Charan

 Reflection Question.  Where in your organization are issues moving vertically when they could be solved laterally?  Comment and share below; we’d love to hear from you.

 As an executive leadership coach, I work with executive leaders to strengthen their team effectiveness and help organizations improve cross-functional collaboration, contact me to explore this topic further.

The next blog in this series 3/4 will focus on how great executive teams handle conflict.

How do you work laterally?

Your First Team Is the Executive Team: Shifting From Functional Leadership to Stewarding the Enterprise (Executive Coordination Series 1/4)

The effectiveness of an organization is often determined not by the talent of individual leaders, but by how well its executives coordinate with one another. 

 Many leaders rise through organizations because they are strong advocates for their teams. They secure resources, defend priorities, and advance initiatives. These capabilities are strengths, but once leaders reach the executive level, the job changes.  Senior leaders are no longer responsible only for the success of their function. They are responsible for the success of the entire enterprise.

 Imagine a group of professionals meeting every day to solve some of society’s most complex problems, yet many are primarily focused on representing their own interests rather than solving the larger issue. We see this dynamic frequently in places like Congress or international bodies such as the United Nations, where representatives advocate strongly for their constituents or countries. While the intention is to protect their group, the result can often be gridlock.

 A similar pattern often emerges inside organizations. Executive teams bring together leaders from functions such as marketing, finance, operations, technology, and HR, each with deep expertise and loyalty to their department. Yet when leaders approach executive discussions primarily as representatives of their function, the organization begins to operate more like a coalition of departments than a unified enterprise.

 Leadership consultant Patrick Lencioni captures this tension with a powerful question: Which team is your first team?  Most executives sit on two teams—the leadership team they are part of and the team they lead. The challenge is that many leaders instinctively prioritize the latter. However, organizations perform best when executives recognize that their first team is the leadership team they sit on.

 Below are several leadership practices that help executive teams operate as a true first team.

 1. Shift from Functional Advocacy to Enterprise Stewardship. Many executives enter leadership meetings wearing their functional hat. Marketing advocates for marketing priorities, engineering pushes engineering initiatives, and finance emphasizes financial discipline. These perspectives are valuable, but when leaders focus primarily on defending their department, decision-making becomes fragmented.  High-performing leadership teams evaluate decisions based on what best advances the organization as a whole, even when the outcome does not directly benefit their function.  For example, an executive team might debate how to allocate additional investment capital. A functional mindset pushes leaders to argue for their department’s priorities. An enterprise mindset evaluates where that investment will create the greatest value for the company.

 Management thinker Peter Drucker emphasized that the role of senior leadership is to optimize the performance of the entire system, not simply the efficiency of individual parts.  A well-known example comes from Pixar’s leadership team. During the production of early films, directors, animators, and technical leaders gathered in what became known as the Braintrust. Participants were expected to critique the film candidly, regardless of department or role. As Pixar co-founder Ed Catmull explained, the purpose of these meetings was never to protect a function but to make the film better.

 2. Align at the Top to Create Clarity Below.  Organizations often underestimate how much executive alignment shapes the rest of the company.  When the leadership team is aligned around priorities and decisions, clarity cascades throughout the organization. Teams understand the business direction and coordinate their efforts more effectively.

When alignment is missing, confusion spreads quickly. Middle managers receive conflicting signals and must navigate disagreements among senior leaders. Departments begin competing rather than collaborating. In one rapidly growing technology company, leaders from product, sales, and operations frequently disagreed on priorities but avoided resolving those tensions directly. Teams lower in the organization spent significant time negotiating across departments rather than executing strategy. Organizational scholar David Nadler described the senior leadership team as the linchpin of organizational effectiveness.

 3. Be Willing to Disappoint Your Own Function.  One of the clearest indicators of enterprise leadership is the willingness to support decisions that may not benefit your own department.  Enterprise-first decisions might involve reallocating budget, delaying a project your team cares about, or shifting resources to support another strategic priority.  These moments can feel uncomfortable because leaders care deeply about the people and goals within their department. However, when every executive fights primarily for their own function, the organization becomes a collection of competing silos.  Leadership advisor Ram Charan has long emphasized that modern organizations require leaders who can work across boundaries rather than reinforce them.

 4. Protect Your Team Without Fueling Silos.  Prioritizing the leadership team does not mean abandoning the team you lead.  Executives still have a responsibility to develop their people, advocate for resources, and create the conditions for their teams to succeed. However, strong leaders avoid framing organizational challenges as battles between departments.  Instead, they help their teams understand how enterprise-level decisions support the broader strategy. When leaders reinforce shared purpose rather than departmental competition, organizations operate more cohesively.  Strong organizations succeed not because one function performs exceptionally well, but because their leaders operate as a coordinated system.

 Leadership in Practice.  Executives who want to strengthen their leadership team as the first team can begin with a few practical habits:

• Enter executive meetings with an enterprise mindset, not a functional one
• Evaluate decisions by where they create the greatest value for the organization
• Support peers when enterprise priorities require difficult tradeoffs
• Avoid framing cross-functional issues as departmental battles
• Reinforce alignment so priorities cascade with clarity throughout the organization

 When executives truly operate as a first team, organizations benefit from stronger alignment, faster decision-making, and greater collaboration.

 Quote of the Day.  “The most important team for an executive is the leadership team they sit on, not the team they lead.” — Patrick Lencioni

 Reflection Question.  When making important decisions, do you primarily advocate for your function or for the enterprise? Comment and share below; we’d love to hear from you.

 As an executive leadership coach, I work with leaders to strengthen their team effectiveness and help organizations operate with greater alignment, contact me to explore this topic further.

 The next blog in this series 2/4 will focus on horizontal leadership.

How do you coordinate with your executive team?