Wednesday, 09 March 2011 09:28

Lessons from the King’s Speech - How to Influence Without Authority

Written by 
Rate this item
(4 votes)

March9_LarsonI recently saw the “The King’s Speech,” a movie about the relationship between the stammering King George VI of England and his speech therapist, Lionel Logue. The movie begins when the future king is still the Duke of York, Albert. At first the relationship is a rocky one. Although he eventually becomes the king’s trusted advisor, Mr. Logue doesn’t begin the relationship as such. He has little to recommend him, since neither his credentials nor his social status grant him instant credibility. The disparity in their births, culture (Logue was Australian), and breeding is daunting. So how is this commoner able to help the monarch and become his life-long friend? He is a master at influencing with absolutely no authority.

There are some lessons here for those of us business analysts and project managers whose jobs depend on our ability to influence without authority. I’ve chosen three that can help us with our projects.

Lesson #1. To influence without authority we need to establish trust.

Logue says at the beginning of the movie, when the future George VI is still Albert, the Duke of York, that the duke that he needs to trust him. But of course trust cannot be dictated. It has to be built. And it doesn’t happen right away either in the movie or in real life. Two key components of trust, courage and competence, have to be established. In the movie, Mr. Logue has to demonstrate his courage and prove his competency by getting results.

An example of Logue’s courage occurs towards the beginning of the movie. When the therapy begins, Mr. Logue insists on equality during the therapy sessions. Albert has to agree to the therapy at Logue’s home, not at one of the royal palaces. Surprisingly, the Duke agrees, although not without loud and vociferous protestations. In another example, Logue insists on calling the Duke “Bertie” and in turn being called Lionel, a familiarity unheard of. Logue knows that unless they are partners during the therapy, it will not be successful, and a true partnership requires equality.

Our projects require us to be courageous. In some organizations it takes a great deal of courage to be the bearer of bad news, as when we need to provide accurate project status or when we point out risks. It takes courage to recommend the right thing for the organization, like a new direction, a new process, or a long-range solution when the organization wants short-term fixes. What gives us courage, of course, is knowing what we’re talking about. It’s having the facts and the statistic to back up our recommendations. It’s being prepared. It’s also the ability to articulate and sell our recommendations. When our recommendations turn out to help our organizations, we gain credibility and build trust.

Lesson #2. To influence without authority we need to support the decision-makers with our advice.

Although Logue insists on parameters, the decision whether or not to continue the therapy always lies with the king. The therapist recommends, the king decides. From time to time the king decides not to continue the therapy. He simply walks away. However, Logue’s techniques prove successful, so the separation is not permanent. It is clear throughout that Logue’s advice is always given unselfishly and always for the good of the king and country, not his own ego or pocketbook, which I believe is a key factor in the successful outcome.

We, too, need to advise the decision-makers and make recommendations that will help the organization achieve its goals. When we recommend the right thing, without promoting our personal goals, those very goals may well be fulfilled. Years ago I was a manager in the unenviable position of having to eliminate an entire department. The department supervisor remained positive throughout, recommending shut-down and transfer processes. Somehow he communicated the business need for the shut-down and his own optimism to the staff. In the end he was promoted and none of the staff lost their jobs.

Lesson #3. Respect, authenticity, and empathy help us to influence without authority.

In real life Lionel Logue was said to be successful because of his “superhuman sympathy.” In the movie Logue  treats the king and his disability with total dignity, his empathy and concern apparent throughout. Showing neither embarrassment nor condescension as the king stutters through practice readings, Logue listens intently and offers workarounds to help the king through trouble spots. He does unseemly vocal exercise with the king, as though these are the most natural activities for a king and commoner to engage in.

 In our organizations we have a greater chance of influencing when our approach is respectful, authentic, and empathetic. Expertise alone does not create competency. Most people do not relate well to “know-it-alls,” and trying to showcase our expertise rarely builds credibility. We are most successful when we use our expertise to support the organization, rather than for personal gain or visibility.

There are, of course, many more ways to influence without authority. I have chosen three important ones: establish trust, advise and recommend solutions that help our organizations reach their goals, and use empathy and respect in our relationships.

Don't forget to leave your comments below.

Read 13492 times Last modified on Thursday, 10 March 2011 11:14
Elizabeth Larson

Elizabeth Larson, PMP, CBAP, CEO of Watermark Learning.
With over 25 years of project management and business analysis experience, she has presented workshops, seminars, and training classes on 4 continents. Elizabeth is the content lead for Scope Management for the PMBOK® Guide 5th edition, was one of the lead contributors to the PMBOK® Guide 4th edition (Collect Requirements), and was the lead author for the Planning and Monitoring chapter of IIBA's BABOK® Guide v. 2.0.

Comments  

 
0 # Nick Reynolds 2011-03-09 05:23
I'm enjoying some of the articles I'm reading here, but I'm seeing a characteristic flaw in them which undermines their credibility--a lack of quality editing. For example, in the article above in the second to last paragraph it states: "expertise alone does create competency". Based on the context and message being delivered, I'm betting its meant to say : "...expertise alone does NOT create competency."
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Elizabeth Larson 2011-03-09 06:05
@Nick-- You are so right! I am so embarrassed and me an English major no less! Thank you so much for pointing it out. Believe it or not, I printed it out and reviewed it 4 times. Thanks again.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Vikram Patil 2011-03-09 06:47
Nicely written. I very much enjoyed.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Tom Calow 2011-03-09 07:55
NICK, LIGHTEN UP. THIS ARTICLE IS CREDIBLE AND VALUABLE. YOU WERE "DISTRACTED" BY THE EDITING BUT YOU CERTAINLY CAUGHT THE MEANING. FOCUS! LET GO OF THE LITTLE STUFF.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # rafama dewi 2011-03-09 08:26
Great words..love to read it Sir..and thanks for sharing..
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Mahendiran RajaGopal 2011-03-09 11:47
Awesome thanks for sharing Great one ...
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Jean Whitelocke 2011-03-09 21:38
Great words of wisdom we can learn. Thanks for sharing.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Tracy 2011-03-09 23:57
Great thoughts and reflection through this moive. Thank you for sharing...
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Deb 2011-03-10 02:38
Thanks as usual, Elizabeth, for the great insights. It is great to be reminded that even when we think we have no influence, we actually do if we give time for the trust to build and we do so unselfishly and for the good of the project or the company. I think a major point i took from this is how Logue "listened intently". It is very valuable to look beyond what a person is doing or saying to understand their motivations as well.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Yuping ZENG 2011-03-11 09:58
This article just speak out what I want to say. Thanks for your good summarization. Very good.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # ID 2011-03-15 06:27
Regarding the article: My interpretation is that if all Logue did was support the decision maker with advice, the King's "walking away" easily might have been permanent. It is the success of Logue’s methods that enabled the King to trust that additional advice would be successful. In addition to the success of Logue’s proven methods, it was the support of the Queen and Logue’s commitment to the common goal that persevered through some rough times in that therapy. The "leap of faith" to try (and then keep trying) wasn't made by the King alone, but with the Queen's support. This is a valuable lesson too - that to influence effectively without authority it's sometimes not enough to win over the decision maker alone (with confidence in a long track-record of proven methods and results), but also to win over the decision maker's trusted support staff, and to continually demonstrate one’s commitment to the common goal. PS - Re: T. Calow's comment: Inattention to details (even by honest mistake) can undermine credibility. (I’m sure many readers can agree that using "all caps" can have a similar affect).. Kudos to Ms. Larson for taking Nick's feedback so graciously.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Bart 2011-03-15 13:02
To "influence" without authority is one thing. The steps you lay out are exactly the right ones, gain trust, give quality advice, don't worry about who gets the credit, and go about it in a respectful way. But as a PM, we need to "manage" without authority. That's a whole different ball of wax. Influence alone will only get you so far, what happens when we follow these steps, but we need to be accountable for results? - Bart | 4:15 pm
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Raffi 2011-03-16 09:25
Thanks Ms. Larson for the great analogy. As PMs facing VPs or CEOs, we are in the shoes of a commoner facing a monarch. I believe managing and influencing without authority go hand in hand. We know how the output should look like, and in managing to get that outcome we need to apply the influencing techniques that you have captured. As PMs we need to highlight the different available options, their pros and cons, and our recommendation for the best outcome. If the decision maker picks otherwise, I don't see any room for blame for the PM.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # ananth 2011-03-16 18:43
Well laid out and interpreted. Good corelation made from the movie to the PM Role.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # James Robertson 2011-03-24 19:18
I would have liked at least a passing reference to Scheherazade, the original influencer without authority. Good article, thanks.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Jose Mendoza 2011-03-27 00:07
Simple but important for PM Role to make things happens in whatever project and culture environment.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Ashish 2011-03-30 20:39
A good read.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Gurcharan Singh 2011-04-27 17:28
A very good article. I too stammer at times due to voice black out and causes me to be embarrassed at times. I lead and direct projects. Presentation to management are my worst nightmare. I am inspired by the movie and now and seeking therapy to overcome my shuttering.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Irene 2011-04-27 18:56
Thank you, Elizabeth! The thing that interests me much beyond the info provided by you is the methodology of that "optimistic superviser". would appreciate if you'd shared some useful tips based on your observations
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Bruce Rapport 2011-04-29 05:55
Michelle, thank you for this wonderful article. The lessons to be learned are valid. Although for the point about "supporting the decision maker with our advise" where the king was free to return I would certainly add the importance of the Prince Albert increased motivation to find a solution once he was promoted to king. That is, gaining acceptance increased with the timeliness of needing a solution increased.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # S 2011-05-04 04:54
Article fits for current projects out there in the industry. But again it's reel life not real life. Does anyone follow the #2 item. They get fired!!!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Elizabeth Larson 2011-05-04 05:44
I am delighted and that this article has triggered all these wonderful comments and touched by your positive responses! @Gurcharan Singh, all I can say is it takes true courage to overcome personal obstacles--kudo s! @ James Robertson love the reference to Scheherazade—yo u’re absolutely right about her ability to influence and also it seems like we sometimes have to rely on telling stories or a magic lamp to get our requirements, @s I'm glad my experiences are different from yours. I once started a job in Dec. and told the VP of IT that the large project I was assigned as PM not only wouldn't be complete by Feb 1, but that we could only get the requirements done by then. I felt it's better to be fired for being an internal consultant with courage than follow the previous couple of PMs who failed and left the company. The project was actually quite a success. @Bart, it might make an interesting blog to consider the Charter and what it means to provide authority to the PM. Again, thanks, everyone!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Barry DeLisser 2011-05-13 00:24
When is the book coming out, Elizabeth? I found your article enormously practical and demystifying. So many analaysts and PMs, and employees in general, toil away putting in long hours with extreme dedication and productivity yet find their ability to influence the team or management near zero. Your three lessons (more in the book, right?) unravel the absolutely confounding mystery to some people's utter lack of influence. One thing I'd like you to explore in the book is the dynamics (and rebutting strategies) of your lessons being applied in organizations that do not sufficiently value the virtues in the lessons you articulate---na mely trust, supporting by advising, and empathy---or perhaps they don't value them in the proper proportions.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Elizabeth Larson 2011-05-13 11:04
@Barry-I'm so glad you found the article practical--what a wonderful compliment! The book will have to wait, but your issue of how to influence when the organization doesn't value trust, advising, and empathy is an important one. I’ve been fortunate that 4 out of 5 organizations where I've worked for over 3 decades valued those things. I stayed in the one that didn't value them for two and a half years and I tell people that I should have left after 2.5 days. I understand that leaving is not easy even when our values conflict. Great subject that I'll have to give more thought to.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 

Add comment