‘How
experts gain influence’ by Anette Mikes, Matthew Hall and Yuval Millo, Harvard
Business Review, July/August 2013
There
are a number of features that make this article in the Harvard Business Review unusual and, for me,
worthy of special attention. Firstly it
is by three Brits who have done well to get their work into such a prestigious
publication; secondly all three authors have titles that show a financial
specialisation. Accountants writing
about influencing may seem an odd combination but, to all of us at MTP, this is
of particular interest after our recent research on Finance Business Partnering. Influencing is seen as a key skill by all
those companies who contributed to our research.
The
article is one of four within a special HBR feature on influencing and, perhaps
because of the relevance to MTP’s work, I found it to be the best of the
four. This is despite an unfortunate
start which describes the risk management departments of two ‘British financial
institutions’ before the financial crisis; one had great influence and the
other did not, the difference being the way they organised their
activities. But the credibility of this example
is spoilt by the use of fictional names.
Authors don’t realise that anonymous examples are less credible and make
cynical readers like me suspect that the truth has been modified to support the
arguments.
The
structure of the article is built around four competencies, all of which begin
with a ‘T’. Yet, to their credit, the authors do not talk about the ‘four Ts’
but instead explain each competence clearly, with some good examples. Unfortunately the examples still come from
the two anonymous financial institutions; surely they could have found a few
quotable companies from their research?
This would also have taken the messages out of the orbit of risk management,
because their concepts seem to have wider application to all functions with
specialist expertise
The four
competencies are Trailblazing, Toolmaking, Teamwork and Translation and these
are not mutually exclusive. The labels
are to some extent self-explanatory.
Trailblazers address issues that are outside the current vision of top
management. This does not just mean
looking for new strategic opportunities; it is also about getting close to
those at lower levels and obtaining insights that are not being passed up the
line.
Toolmakers
are those that help to spread their expertise by developing concepts and
frameworks that can be used by those responsible for application. The importance of Teamwork is perhaps the weakest
of the four dimensions, in the sense that it is relatively obvious as a key
skill of the expert who needs others to support practical application. There is emphasis on the importance of
discussing tools with key people, seeking feedback and incorporating ideas; all
good common sense stuff. Translation is
an extension of this skill, being able to simplify complex content and help
others to interpret results.
These
four competencies are not presented as alternatives, nor are they seen as
mutually exclusive; the implications of different combinations are
suggested. Those who combine
Trailblazing and Toolmaking are seen as ‘Technical Champions’. And - of most interest to MTP for our work on
Business Partnering - those who combine Trailblazing, Teamwork and Translation,
are the Business Partners, who gain the ear of decision makers by producing
practical analysis and interpretation. Finally, the complete performers are
those who combine all four competencies, described as ‘Engaged Toolmakers’,
able to influence effectively throughout the organisation, without needing the
support of others.
After
these descriptions, the authors return to the case study of the two financial
institutions and, using a grid which rates each of the four competencies from low
to high, show how the company with risk managers who were ‘Engaged Toolmakers’
had the most influence on decision making.
The other institution – which had people with only some of the required
competencies – had less influence because there efforts were divided and
uncoordinated. Therefore the message is
that an expert can be effective as a champion or business partner with only
some of the competencies but you need all four to have maximum influence. It would however have been nice to have a
snappier label than ‘Engaged Toolmaker’.
This
article provides an interesting and useful competency framework but, after an
excellent start, was slightly disappointing.
Perhaps it was the authors’ accounting backgrounds that made them stick
to Risk Management as an example of expert contributions but it was a
mistake. Other aspects of Finance - like
investment decision making for instance - would have been easier to relate to and
they could have moved outside the finance area for some examples.
It is
perhaps indicative of the recent trend of HBR that a slightly disappointing
article seems to be their best contribution on this topic.
No comments:
Post a Comment